Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10-24-2017 Agenda Packet
Amended Agenda Tuesday, October 24, 2017 4:30 PM SPECIAL MEETING Council Hearing Room 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo Page 1 * This amended agenda includes the addition of Closed Session Item B listed in italicized type. 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 WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6 Agency Negotiators: Monica Irons, Nickole Sutter, Rick Bolanos, Derek Johnson, Christine Dietrick Represented Employee Organizations: International Association of Firefighters Local 3523 B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Government Code § 54956.9; Name of case: Preserve the SLO Life-Buckley Road, Los Verdes Park Unit One Homeowners’ Association, Inc., and Los Verdes Park (Unit 2) Homeowners’ Association, Inc. vs. City of San Luis Obispo, City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, and Does 1 through 15; Avila Ranch, LLC, Andrew Mangano, and Does 16 through 30; San Luis Obispo County Superior Court Case No.17CV-0573 ADJOURNED TO THE SPECIAL MEETING OF OCTOBER 24, 2017 TO BEGIN AT 6:00 PM IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda October 24, 2017 Page 2 6:00 PM SPECIAL 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 Aaron Gomez CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION PRESENTATIONS 1. PROCLAMATION - ARBOR DAY (HARMON – 5 MINUTES) APPOINTMENTS 2. APPOINTMENTS TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION (PRC) (GALLAGHER / GOODWIN – 5 MINUTES) Recommendation: In accordance with the recommendations of the Council Subcommittees: 1. Confirm the appointment of Robert “Bob” Spector to the Parks and Recreation Commission to complete an unexpired term through March 31, 2021; and 2. Confirm the appointment of Kari Applegate to the Parks and Recreation Commission to complete an unexpired term through March 31, 2019. Packet Pg 2 San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda October 24, 2017 Page 3 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 t he 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. 3. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (GALLAGHER) Recommendation: Waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate. 4. EL CAPITAN BRIDGE (GRIGSBY/HORN/DIETRICK/ANSOLABEHERE) Recommendation: 1. Authorize the Mayor to execute Easement Agreements between the City and the owners of Lot 7 of Tract 2294 (the Ackermans) and Lot 15 of Tract 2372 (Stonecreek HOA) in a form approved by the City Attorney; and 2. Authorize the inclusion of the El Capitan Bridge as a City asset, City maintenance responsibility, and prioritize the repair or replacement within the City’s 2017-19 Bridge Maintenance Capital Improvement Plan Project upon Easement Agreement execution; and 3. Accelerate Bridge Maintenance Funds from Fiscal Year 2018-19 to 2017-18 to support this immediate need. Packet Pg 3 San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda October 24, 2017 Page 4 5. HUMAN RESOURCES AND FINANCE DEPARTMENTS OFFICE RECONFIGURATION, SPECIFICATION No. 91525 (GRIGSBY/MCGUIRE) Recommendation: 1. Award a contract to BC Construction & Electric in the amount of $124,552 for the “Human Resources and Finance Departments Office Reconfiguration, Specification No. 91525”; and 2. Approve the transfer of $11,962.46 from the General Capital Outlay Completed Projects Account balance and $1,130.54 from the Major Facilities Replacement Completed Projects Account balance, for a total of $13,093.00 to the project construction phase. 6. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR THE LAGUNA LAKE DREDGING AND SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PROJECT (CONTINUED FROM THE OCTOBER 17, 2017 COUNCIL MEETING) (JOHNSON/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.” Continue to next page Packet Pg 4 San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda October 24, 2017 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS AND BUSINESS ITEMS 7. PUBLIC HEARING - LUNETA DRIVE CONNECTION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GRIGSBY/RICE – 60 MINUTES) As recommended by the Planning Commission: 1. Reject a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, to approve an amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan with an addendum to the 2014 LUCE update Environmental Review Report” to amend the Circulation Element of the General Plan eliminating the Luneta Drive connection; and 2. Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, to approve an amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan” to create a Residential Collector (Major) classification. Staff Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, to approve an amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan with an addendum to the 2014 LUCE update Environmental Review Report” to amend the Circulation Element of the General Plan eliminating the Luneta Drive connection and approve the proposed addendum to the Land Use Circulation Element Update Environmental Impact Report. 8. PUBLIC HEARING - FORMATION FOR THE AVILA RANCH COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT (D. JOHNSON/L. JOHNSON – 30 MINUTES) Recommendation: 1. Advance the formation of the Avila Ranch Community Facilities District (CFD) by adopting a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, establishing Avila Ranch Community Facilities District No. 2017-1 pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 and, in its capacity as legislative body of such district, submitting the levy of a special tax and the establishment of an appropriations limit to the electors of the district and adopting an addendum to the final environmental impact report for the Avila Ranch Development,”; and 2. Set the date for the required (landowner) election for October 26, 2017. Packet Pg 5 San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda October 24, 2017 Page 6 9.PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION - REVIEW OF BEVERAGE STRAWS UPON REQUEST (JOHNSON/CARLONI – 30 MINUTES) Recommendation: Introduce an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, adding Chapter 8.09 to the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code regulating single-use beverage straws.” 10.PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION - REGULATING THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF SINGLE-USE PLASTIC BOTTLES AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS TO INCREASE AVAILABILITY OF WATER BOTTLE FILLING STATIONS (JOHNSON/CARLONI – 30 MINUTES) Recommendation: Introduce an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, adding Chapter 8.07 to the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code regulating single-use plastic beverage bottles on city property less than 21 ounces in size,” and establishing regulations to increase the availability of water bottle filling stations in the City. 11.CLIMATE ACTION TASK FORCE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND ASSIGNMENT OF COUNCIL MEMBER LIAISON TO THE TASK FORCE (JOHNSON/CARLONI – 15 MINUTES) Recommendation: 1.Approve the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of San Luis Obispo and the Climate Action Task Force (Task Force) establishing the Task Force as the “Community Climate Action Coalition” that would help achieve the Climate Action objectives of the Climate Action Major City Goal work program; and 2.Designate a Councilmember to serve as the liaison between the City and the Task Force 12.CONSIDER ACTIONS RELATED TO THE ANIMAL SERVICES SHELTER AGREEMENT (JOHNSON/HERMANN – 15 MINUTES) Recommendation: Receive a report on the regional effort to build an animal services shelter and consider actions related to the potential withdrawal of other participating cities from the joint agreement to finance and construct a replacement animal services shelter. Packet Pg 6 San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda October 24, 2017 Page 7 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 Regular City Council Meeting to be held on 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. 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: 10/24/2017 FROM: Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk Prepared By: Heather Goodwin, Deputy City Clerk SUBJECT: APPOINTMENTS TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION (PRC) RECOMMENDATION In accordance with the recommendations of the Council Subcommittees: 1. Confirm the appointment of Robert “Bob” Spector to the Parks and Recreation Commission to complete an unexpired term through March 31, 2021; and 2. Confirm the appointment of Kari Applegate to the Parks and Recreation Commission to complete an unexpired term through March 31, 2019. DISCUSSION Parks and Recreation Commission (Council Liaison Subcommittee Members (Gomez and Rivoire) Due to the resignation of Suzan Ehdaie, effective May 4, 2017, an unscheduled vacancy occurred on the Parks and Recreation Commission. Ms. Ehdaie’s term would have expired on March 31, 2021. Due to the resignation of Douglas Single, effective July 13, 2017, an unscheduled vacancy occurred on the Parks and Recreation Commission. Mr. Single’s term would have expired on March 31, 2019. The Council Liaison Subcommittee recommends the appointment of Robert “Bob” Spector, effective October 24, 2017, to a term expiring March 31, 2021, and Kari Applegate, effective October 24, 2017, to a term expiring on March 31, 2019. RECRUITMENT Currently, the following Advisory Bodies have vacancies and interviews have been scheduled with the Council Liaison Subcommittees. 1. Administrative Review Board (1) 2. Architectural Review Commission (1) 3. Citizens’ Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission (1) 4. Human Relations Commission (1) 5. Mass Transportation Committee (1 – Cal Poly student representative designated by ASI, Inc.) 6. Personnel Board (1) Packet Pg 9 2 Interested individuals are encouraged to apply to fill vacancies to the following bodies: 1. Area Agency on Aging (1) 2. Construction Board of Appeals (1) and (1 representative with disability) 3. Promotional Coordinating Committee (1) CONCURRENCES The Council Liaison Subcommittee concurs with the recommendations. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to the recommended actions in this report, because the action does not constitute a “Project” under CEQA Guidelines sec. 15378. FISCAL IMPACT There is no additional fiscal impact for the addition of new PRC members. AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE A hard copy of the Advisory Body applications has been provided to the City Council and are available for public review in the Clerk’s office. Packet Pg 10 2 Meeting Date: 10/24/2017 FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Public Works Director Christine Dietrick, City Attorney Prepared By: Matt Horn, City Engineer Jon Ansolabehere, Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: EL CAPITAN BRIDGE RECOMMENDATION 1. Authorize the Mayor to execute Easement Agreements between the City and the owners of Lot 7 of Tract 2294 (the Ackermans) and Lot 15 of Tract 2372 (Stonecreek HOA) in a form approved by the City Attorney; and 2. Authorize the inclusion of the El Capitan Bridge as a City asset, City maintenance responsibility, and prioritize the repair or replacement within the City’s 2017-19 Bridge Maintenance Capital Improvement Plan Project upon Easement Agreement execution; and 3. Accelerate Bridge Maintenance Funds from Fiscal Year 2018 -19 to 2017-18 to support this immediate need. DISCUSSION The El Capitan Bridge (“Bridge”) is a pedestrian bridge located at the end of El Capitan Way. An aerial photo of the bridge and its location is included as Attachment A. In January of 2015, a large eucalyptus tree fell on the Bridge causing substantial damage. A picture of the present condition of the Bridge is included as Attachment B. The City immediately closed the Bridge and investigated ownership since it was not listed as a City asset. Based on this investigation, City staff discovered that the Bridge spans three different properties – the City’s Open Space lot on Tract 2248 (the “Open Space Lot”), Lot 7 of Tract 2294 (“Lot 7”) and Lot 15 of Tract 2372 (the “HOA Lot”) – and that the ownership and responsibility to repair the Bridge was convoluted. History of the Bridge: Installation of the Bridge was part of the development of Tract 2294 which was a seven-unit residential subdivision along El Capitan Way. As part of that development, the City imposed conditions which required the developer to prepare a “creek preservation and maintenance agreement…” To satisfy these conditions, the developer recorded a “Creek Preservation and Maintenance Agreement” (the “Agreement”). Among other things, the Agreement required each of the seven owners to “…maintain the subject property (open space, creek and bridge) in a professional manner in perpetuity to the satisfaction of the City’s Public Works Director .” It appears this document requires the seven owners to perform major repairs of the Bridge. This arrangement has proven to be impractical. First, only a small portion of the Bridge is constructed within the tract’s boundaries and the Bridge clearly serves a much larger community. Second, from a practical perspective, no funding mechanism or insurance was established or otherwise required by the Agreement to fund maintenance responsibilities or protect these seven owners Packet Pg 11 4 from public liability from Bridge users. As a result, when repairs or maintenance work needs to be done, the property owners would need to generate the funding and determine the appropriate share for each of the seven owners. For these reasons, staff is recommending that the City accept responsibility for the Bridge and take on the repair costs and future maintenance responsibilities. In order for the City to assume responsibility of the Bridge, the City needs an easement over Lot 7 and the HOA Lot. At first, this seemed like a straightforward issue. However, after looking at title to each of the properties, staff realized that the HOA Lot was still owned by the original developer, Bergantz Development Corporation, which dissolved in 2013. Pursuant to Section 2.1.3 of the Stonecreek Development’s CC&Rs, the HOA Lot was supposed to be transferred to the HOA prior to the sale of the first property within the development. Evidently, that never occurred. Staff reached out to the former Officers and Directors of the company and eventually received confirmation that the HOA Lot would be transferred to the Stonecreek HOA. Once the HOA has title to the property, the HOA will grant the City an easement over a portion of the HOA Property to allow the City to maintain and repair the Bridge. Likewise, the owners of Lot 7 will grant the City an easement over a small portion of that property to allow maintenance and repair of the Bridge. Draft Easement Agreements are attached as Attachment D. Funding and Timing of Repair To support this immediate and unfunded need, staff is proposing to include the Bridge in the City’s 2017-19 Bridge Maintenance Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Project, accelerating the funding one fiscal year, and prioritize this Bridge over others. Currently this CIP Project is planned to complete preventative maintenance on seven bridges. This maintenance is to prevent deterioration before it occurs and can be delayed for a short time without significant negative impact. Repair of the El Capitan bridge is a higher priority due to the pedestrian and bicycle accessibility and safety issues. If Council approves of this reprioritization of bridge repairs and acceleration of funding, staff will engage a structural engineering firm to evaluate the Bridge. They will determine whether repair or replacement is the most prudent action and will develop plans to publicly bid the project. When the project is ready to bid, staff will return to Council with a funding plan for construction costs. Based on preliminary estimates, staff is anticipating the cost of structural assessment and construction document preparation to be from $35,000 to $45,000. In addition, construction is anticipated between $75,000 to $100,000. Staff will be diligent to look at lower cost options that assure pedestrian safety and bridge structural integrity. These estimates are based on currently available information and are provided to Council as a cost range to consider when reviewing the project benefits. It should be noted that staff typically does not recommend assuming responsibility for a new asset not currently in the inventory or in Long Range plans. This recommendation is based on findings that indicate the City is the only answer to long-term maintenance and the structure is a community and public asset. ENVIRONMENTAL The City’s approval of the easement agreements is not a project under CEQA. Depending on the scope of the ultimate repair or replacement work, the project may be exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Packet Pg 12 4 FISCAL IMPACT The Bridge Maintenance Capital Improvement Plan Project is listed in the 2017-19 Financial Plan pages E2-120 through E2-121 with funding in the amount of $50,000 which is available in the fiscal year 2018-19. In order to expedite this repair, staff is recommending accelerating these funds to the current fiscal. Based on known financial limitations, the most likely funding source for this construction work is the Road Repair and Accountability Act (SB1) funding. Once the scope of the bridge work is known and construction costs have been refined, staff will return to Council with a construction funding plan. This construction funding plan may be included in the 2019-21 Financial Plan process or by separate Council action. ALTERNATIVES The City Council could choose not to assume maintenance of the Bridge. This is not recommended because the Bridge is in poor repair and the original arrangement to maintain this improvement is impractical. Attachments: a - Bridge El Capitan Map b - Current Condition of El Capitan Bridge c - Easement Agreement - Stonecreek - Draft d - Easement Agreement - Ackerman - Draft Packet Pg 13 4 Packet Pg 144 Current Condition of El Capitan Bridge Packet Pg 15 4 Packet Pg 16 4 DRAFT 10.24.17 1 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City of San Luis Obispo Attn: City Clerk 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 APN: 053-410-015; 034 NO RECORDING FEE – PUBLIC AGENCY – Gov. Code § 6103 GRANT OF EASEMENT AGREEMENT This Grant of Easement Agreement (this “Agreement”) is made as of this ___ day of _______, 2017, by and between Homeowners Association of Stone Creek Development, a ______________ (hereinafter “Grantor” or “Stone Creek”), and the City of San Luis Obispo, a municipal corporation and charter city (hereinafter “Grantee” or “City”). Grantor and Grantee are sometimes referred to herein as the “Parties.” RECITALS WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of certain real property located in the City of San Luis Obispo, State of California, commonly referred to as Lot 15 of Tract 2372, Assessor Parcel Numbers: 053- 410-034 and as more particularly described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the “Stone Creek Property”). WHEREAS, Grantee is the owner of certain real property adjacent to the Stone Creek Property, which is commonly known as APN: 053-410-015, and is more particularly described in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the “City Property”). WHEREAS, a pedestrian bridge (the “Bridge”) is located on the Stone Creek Property and the City Property as depicted in Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. WHEREAS, the Bridge was installed as part of a seven-unit development located along El Capitan Way commonly known as Tract 2294, however, the Bridge provides an important amenity to the surrounding community. As part of that development, the developer of Tract 2294 executed a “Creek Preservation and Maintenance Agreement” (“Bridge Maintenance Agreement”) which was recorded in the official records of San Luis Obispo County on May 30, 2000, as Document No. Packet Pg 17 4 DRAFT 10.24.17 2 2000-029502. Among other things, the Bridge Maintenance Agreement obligated the seven lots of Tract 2294 to maintain the Bridge in a professional manner in perpetuity to the satisfaction of the City’s Public Works Director. The City desires to assume responsibility for the maintenance, repair and replacement of the Bridge and by this Agreement, the Grantor desires to grant and Grantee desires to accept an easement on the Stone Creek Property in order for Grantee to maintain, repair and replace that portion of the Bridge located on the Stone Creek Property. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, Grantor grants the Easement (as hereinafter defined) to Grantee under the following terms and conditions: Section 1. Grant of Easement: Grantor hereby grants to Grantee an easement over, under, across, within and through a portion of the Stone Creek Property that is described and depicted in Exhibits C-1 and C-2, for the Easement Purposes, as defined in Section 2 of this Agreement (“Easement”), subject to all matters and encumbrances of record affecting the Stone Creek Property, on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Section 2. Easement Purposes: “Easement Purposes” collectively means use of the Stone Creek Property within the Easement area for the purposes of maintaining, repairing, replacing or removing the Bridge, and all appurtenances thereto. Section 3. Character of Easement The Easement is nonexclusive and in gross. Section 4. Term The Easement will be an easement in perpetuity and may only be terminated by the written mutual consent of the parties hereto or their successors in interest. Section 5. Maintenance and Repair Grantee will be responsible to maintain and repair the Easement in good condition and repair, including, but not limited to, the maintenance, repair or replacement of the Bridge, as Grantee deems reasonably necessary or advisable; provided, however, that if any such maintenance or repair is required in whole or in part by any act or omission of Grantor, its successors, assigns, tenants, customers or invitees, or the customers and invitees of such tenants, Grantor will be responsible for the cost of such maintenance and repair. Packet Pg 18 4 DRAFT 10.24.17 3 Section 6. Successors and Assigns The provisions of this Agreement are intended to and will run with the land, and, until their expiration or termination in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, will bind, be a charge upon and inure to the benefit of Grantor and Grantee, their respective successors and assigns. Section 7. Indemnification Grantee agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Grantor, its agents, representatives, heirs, successors and assigns, against any and all claims, actions, or demands, costs or expense, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising out of or in any way connected to any activities of Grantee, its agents, representatives, heirs, successors, assigns or invitees arising out of its use, maintenance or repair of the Bridge excluding there from claims resulting from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of Grantor, or its successors, assigns, guests or invitees. Section 9. Notices All notices given pursuant to this Agreement must be in writing and by personal delivery, U.S. Mail or established express delivery service, such as Federal Express, with postage or delivery charge prepaid, return receipt requested, and addressed to the person and address designated below: If to Grantor: Stone Creek HOA [Address] If to Grantee: City of San Luis Obispo Attn: City Clerk 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Section 10. Miscellaneous This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between Grantor and Grantee relating to the Easement. Any prior agreements, promises, negotiations, or representations not expressly set forth in this Agreement are of no force and effect. Any amendment to this Agreement will be of no force and effect unless it is in writing and signed by Grantor and Grantee or their respective successors or assigns. Each of the individuals signing this Agreement on behalf of a party hereto warrants and represents that such individual is duly authorized and empowered to enter into this Agreement and bind such party hereto. Section 11. Signature/Counterparts This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument. Packet Pg 19 4 DRAFT 10.24.17 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first set forth hereinabove. GRANTOR: Homeowners Association of Stone Creek Development __________________________________ Steven Thatcher Its: President: Date: GRANTEE: City of San Luis Obispo __________________________________ Heidi Harmon, Mayor Date: Attest __________________________________ Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk Approved as to Form: __________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney Packet Pg 20 4 DRAFT 10.24.17 5 Packet Pg 21 4 DRAFT 10.24.17 6 Packet Pg 22 4 DRAFT 10.24.17 7 Packet Pg 23 4 DRAFT 10.24.17 8 Packet Pg 24 4 DRAFT 9/18/17 1 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City of San Luis Obispo Attn: City Clerk 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 APN: 053-410-015; 024 NO RECORDING FEE – PUBLIC AGENCY – Gov. Code § 6103 GRANT OF EASEMENT AGREEMENT This Grant of Easement Agreement (this “Agreement”) is made as of this ___ day of _______, 2017, by and between ____[NAME/Ackerman]____, __[INSERT VESTING BASED ON DEED]__ (hereinafter “Grantors”), and the City of San Luis Obispo, a municipal corporation and charter city (hereinafter “Grantee” or “City”). Grantor and Grantee are sometimes referred to herein as the “Parties.” RECITALS WHEREAS, Grantors are the owners of certain real property located in the City of San Luis Obispo, State of California, commonly referred to as 919 El Capitan Way, San Luis Obispo, Lot 7 of Tract 2294, Assessor Parcel Numbers: 053-410-024 and as more particularly described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the “Ackerman Property”). WHEREAS, Grantee is the owner of certain real property adjacent to the Ackerman Property, which is commonly known as APN: 053-410-015, and is more particularly described in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the “City Property”). WHEREAS, a pedestrian bridge (the “Bridge”) is partially located on the Ackerman Property and the City Property as depicted in Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. WHEREAS, the Bridge was installed as part of a seven-unit development located along El Capitan Way commonly known as Tract 2294, however, the Bridge provides an important amenity to the surrounding community. As part of that development, the developer of Tract 2294 executed a “Creek Preservation and Maintenance Agreement” (“Bridge Maintenance Agreement”) which was Packet Pg 25 4 DRAFT 9/18/17 2 recorded in the official records of San Luis Obispo County on May 30, 2000, as Document No. 2000-029502. Among other things, the Bridge Maintenance Agreement obligated the seven lots of Tract 2294 to maintain the Bridge in a professional manner in perpetuity to the satisfaction of the City’s Public Works Director. The City desires to assume responsibility for the maintenance, repair and replacement of the Bridge and by this Agreement, Grantors desire to grant and Grantee desires to accept an easement on the Ackerman Property in order for Grantee to maintain, repair and replace that portion of the Bridge located on the Ackerman Property. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, Grantors grant the Easement (as hereinafter defined) to Grantee under the following terms and conditions: Section 1. Grant of Easement: Grantors hereby grant to Grantee an easement over, under, across, within and through a portion of the Ackerman Property that is depicted in Exhibit C, for the Easement Purposes, as defined in Section 2 of this Agreement (“Easement”), subject to all matters and encumbrances of record affecting the Ackerman Property, on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Section 2. Easement Purposes: “Easement Purposes” collectively means use of the Ackerman Property within the Easement area for the purposes of maintaining, repairing, replacing or removing the Bridge, and all appurtenances thereto. Section 3. Character of Easement The Easement is nonexclusive and in gross. Section 4. Term The Easement will be an easement in perpetuity and may only be terminated by the written mutual consent of the parties hereto or their successors in interest. Section 5. Maintenance and Repair Grantee will be responsible to maintain and repair the Easement in good condition and repair, including, but not limited to, the maintenance, repair or replacement of the Bridge, as Grantee deems reasonably necessary or advisable; provided, however, that if any such maintenance or repair is required in whole or in part by any act or omission of Grantors, its successors, assigns, tenants, customers or invitees, or the customers and invitees of such tenants, Grantors will be responsible for the cost of such maintenance and repair. Packet Pg 26 4 DRAFT 9/18/17 3 Section 6. Successors and Assigns The provisions of this Agreement are intended to and will run with the land, and, until their expiration or termination in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, will bind, be a charge upon and inure to the benefit of Grantors and Grantee, their respective successors and assigns. Section 7. Indemnification Grantee agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Grantor, its agents, representatives, heirs, successors and assigns, against any and all claims, actions, or demands, costs or expense, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising out of or in any way connected to any activities of Grantee, its agents, representatives, heirs, successors, assigns or invitees arising out of its use, maintenance or repair of the Bridge excluding there from claims resulting from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of Grantors, or its successors, assigns, guests or invitees. Section 9. Notices All notices given pursuant to this Agreement must be in writing and by personal delivery, U.S. Mail or established express delivery service, such as Federal Express, with postage or delivery charge prepaid, return receipt requested, and addressed to the person and address designated below: If to Grantors: [Name] 919 El Capitan Way San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 If to Grantee: City of San Luis Obispo Attn: City Clerk 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Section 10. Miscellaneous This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between Grantors and Grantee relating to the Easement. Any prior agreements, promises, negotiations, or representations not expressly set forth in this Agreement are of no force and effect. Any amendment to this Agreement will be of no force and effect unless it is in writing and signed by Grantors and Grantee or their respective successors or assigns. Each of the individuals signing this Agreement on behalf of a party hereto warrants and represents that such individual is duly authorized and empowered to enter into this Agreement and bind such party hereto. Section 11. Signature/Counterparts This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument. Packet Pg 27 4 DRAFT 9/18/17 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first set forth hereinabove. GRANTORS: ______________________________ [Name] ______________________________ [Name] GRANTEE: City of San Luis Obispo __________________________________ Heidi Harmon, Mayor Date: Attest __________________________________ Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk Approved as to Form: __________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney Packet Pg 28 4 DRAFT 9/18/17 5 Packet Pg 29 4 DRAFT 9/18/17 6 Packet Pg 30 4 Meeting Date: 10/24/2017 FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works Prepared By: Michael J. McGuire, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: HUMAN RESOURCES AND FINANCE DEPARTMENTS OFFICE RECONFIGURATION, SPECIFICATION No. 91525 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Award a contract to BC Construction & Electric in the amount of $124,552 for the “Human Resources and Finance Departments Office Reconfiguration, Specification No. 91525”; and 2. Approve the transfer of $11,962.46 from the General Capital Outlay Completed Projects Account balance and $1,130.54 from the Major Facilities Replacement Completed Projects Account balance, for a total of $13,093.00 to the project construction phase. DISCUSSION On August 15, 2017, Council approved the plans and specification for the HR/Finance Department Remodel project and authorized staff to advertise for bids. On September 28, 2017, bids were opened and of the two bids received, both bids were over the Engineer’s Estimate of $112,939. The bid from BC Construction & Electric of Morro Bay at $124,552 was the apparent low bid. Engineer’s Estimate BC Const. & Electric J & P Construction $112,939 $124,552 $129,835 Staff reviewed the bid documents, legal requirements, and contacted references, and concluded that the apparent low bidder was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. Staff recommends awarding a construction contract to BC Construction and Electric. CONCURRENCES This project has the concurrence of the Community Development Department, as a building permit has been issued for this project. Also, the Human Resources and Finance Departments are in concurrence with the project reconfiguration plans. FISCAL IMPACT In the 2016-17 Budget Supplement, the City Council approved a Significant Operating Program Change (SOPC) in the amount of $75,000 for immediate workspace needs of Finance, Information Technology and the Human Resources Departments. Of this funding, $55,000 was used to support this need and the remaining $20,000 balance was returned to the General Fund at Packet Pg 31 5 the end of the 2016-17 fiscal year. Subsequently, $185,848 was allocated from the General Fund to fund the office reconfiguration work on August 15, 2017 by Council (Attachment A). Currently, construction is booming in San Luis Obispo, creating a “pick and choose” construction market for contractors. Four contractors were eligible to bid on this project by their attendance to the mandatory pre-bid inspection of the project area, and of those four, only two contractors submitted bids, with both of those bids exceeding the Engineer’s Estimate. With so much construction work available, the contractors most likely submitted a higher bid price due to demand for construction services. Staff is requesting $11,962.46 from the General Capital Outlay Completed Projects balance and $1,130.54 from the Major Facilities Replacement Completed Projects balance, for a total of $13,093, to fully fund the project. Both of these accounts have sufficient balances to transfer these amounts into the project construction account. Overall Project Fiscal Summary Fiscal Impact Summary Cost Total Project Budget Available 185,848$ Construction 124,552$ Contingency 15,593$ Total for Construction 140,145$ Data/Power Cabling (Not in Contract)8,787$ Modular Furniture (Not in Contract)47,066$ Miscellaneous (Not in Contract)2,943$ Total Ancillary Items 58,796$ Total Construction Related Project Costs:198,941$ Additional Funds Needed:(13,093)$ ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Community Development Department has determined that this project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). ALTERNATIVES Deny approval to award. The City Council could choose to deny or defer the approval to award this project. Staff does not recommend this option. Should this be denied or deferred, the much - needed remodel will not occur. Construction, material and labor costs will continue to rise and additional funds may be required. Packet Pg 32 5 Attachments: a - 08.15.17 Council Agenda Report b - Contract Packet Pg 33 5 FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works Monica Irons, Director of Human Resources Xenia Bradford, Director of Finance Prepared By: Violeta Esparza-Reniere, Engineer III SUBJECT: HUMAN RESOURCES AND FINANCE DEPARTMENTS’ OFFICE RECONFIGURATION, SPECIFICATION NO. 91525 RECOMMENDATIONS 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 $169,255; and 3. Authorize allocation of $185,848 from the General Fund balance. DISCUSSION In the 2016-17 Budget Supplement the City Council approved a Significant Operating Program Change (SOPC) titled Organizational Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Transparency Initiative. This project identified the need for both the Finance, Information Technology, and Human Resources departmental re-organization. Specifically, the project approved additional one-time personnel increases in the Human Resources and Finance Departments during the re-organization and implementation of an Enterprise Resource System. Due to the personnel increase and functional re- organization, current workspaces require reconfiguration to meet current and future staff needs. The proposed office space remodel will improve community and city staff interactions and will address Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) deficiencies at the Finance public counter. The scope of this project is to reconfigure the office spaces to increase the number of workstations and remodel the front counter. In the 2016-17 Budget Supplement $75,000 was identified as minor capital for additional work space address immediate needs, including the purchase of computers and workstations to temporarily accommodate the additional staff. Further analysis was performed during 2016-17 fiscal year, following the re-organization, and showed that reconfiguration of the office space will enhance efficiencies by addressing internal workflows and create the required number of desk space Currently, only minor adjustments could be made by placing temporary desks. These configurations are not sufficient to house contract and consulting staff to implement the objectives of the Organizational Efficiency, Effectiveness and Transparency Initiative. Currently, approximately $35,000 of the funding for this project is encumbered for architectural design services. Another $20,000 was used to purchase furniture and workstations for the new hires in both Human Resources and Finance departments. Of the original $75,000 identified for this project, the $20,000 balance was returned to the general fund at the end of the fiscal year. Packet Pg 34 5 CONCURRENCES This project is a collaborative effort from the Human Resources, Finance, and Public Works departments. The project team concurs with these recommendations. Currently, the Community Development Department is reviewing the project plans for future issuance of building permit. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Community Development Department has determined that this project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301 (existing facilities). FISCAL IMPACT The total estimate to complete the project is $185,848. Of the $75,000 allocated for this purpose in the 2016-17 Budget Supplement, $20,848 was unused, lapsed at the end of the fiscal year and was returned to General Fund balance. The Finance Department estimates that $100,000 is available through savings due to staffing vacancies as well as general carryover from the 2016-17 fiscal year. These savings will also be returned to General Fund as part of 2016-17 fiscal year close. As of the 2016-17 Mid-Year report, the estimated General Fund unassigned fund balance was approximately $3 million. In order to timely address Finance and Human Resources staffing space needs and given the project savings in 2016-17, staff recommends that $185,848 be authorized and allocated for this Capital Improvement Project at this time. Given the s avings in 2016-17 from expenditures that were originally allocated for the Organizational Efficiency, Effectiveness and Transparency Initiative, it is estimated that the impact to the General Fund balance is $60,000. 2016-17 Financial Statements are currently being prepared and this allocation will be reflected in the fund balance analysis presented with the Mid-Year report in February of 2018. Construction (Engineer’s Estimate): Staff Relocation $1,750 IT Cabling & Workstation Reconfiguration $54,566 Remodel Work $112,939 $169,255 Construction Contingencies:$15,593 Printing and Advertising $1,000 Total Estimated Project Cost:$185,848 Human Resources and Finance Departments' Office Reconfiguration, Specification No. 91525 ALTERNATIVES Deny approval of funding transfer from the General Fund Balance. City Council may choose to deny or defer the approval to transfer the funding. Staff does not recommend this option. Should this be denied or deferred, the needed Finance and Human Resources Departments’ office space remodel will not occur. This project will improve the workflows within the Human Resources and Packet Pg 35 5 Finance Departments. Current configuration of office space is not aligned with the internal workflows of the departments. Should this project be deferred then construction, material and labor costs will continue to rise and additional funds may be required. Packet Pg 36 5 1 of 2 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CALIFORNIA 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 BC CONSTRUCTION AND ELECTRIC, hereinafter called the Contractor. WITNESSETH: That the Owner and the Contractor for the consideration stated herein agree as follows: ARTICLE I, 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 HUMAN RESOURCES-FINANCE DEPARTMENTS REMODEL SPECIFICATION NO. 91525 in strict accordance with the plans and specifications therefore, 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 Remodel LS 1 $124,552.00 $124,552.00 BID TOTAL: $124,552.00 Payments are to be made to the Contractor in accordance 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 full, complete and exclusive contract between the parties hereto shall consist of the following identified documents (the "Contract Documents") all of which are as fully a part thereof as if herein set out in full, if not attached, as if hereto attac hed: Notice to Bidders, Instructions to Bidders, Information Available to Bidders, Proposal Form, Listing of Subcontractors, Non-Collusion Declaration, Bidder's Bond, this Agreement, Escrow Agreement for Security Deposits in Lieu of Retention, Performance Bond, Payment Bond, Insurance Requirements, Guarantee of Work, Release, General Conditions, Specifications, City Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards, any addenda, and any change orders, field orders or directives issued pursuant to and in accordance with this Agreement. Packet Pg 37 5 2 of 2 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 claim s 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, CONFLICTS: 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 or proposal of said Contractor, then this instrument shall control and nothing herein shall be considered as an acceptance of the said terms of said proposal conflicting herewith. ARTICLE VI, BINDING AGREEMENT; ASSIGNMENT: Contractor, by execution of this Agreement and the other Contract Documents, understands them, and agrees to be bound by their terms and conditions. The Contract Documents shall inure to the benefit of and shall be binding upon the Contractor and the Owner and their respective successors and assigns. ARTICLE VII, SEVERABILITY: If any provision of the Contract Documents shall be held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to these presents have hereunto set their hands this year and date first above written. ATTEST: _____________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO By:_____________________________ Heidi Harmon City Mayor CONTRACTOR: BC Construction and Electric By:_____________________________ Bryan Carlson Its: Owner Packet Pg 38 5 Meeting Date: 10/24/2017 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 (CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 17, 2017) 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 Due to a noticing error, this item has been continued from the October 17, 2017 City Council hearing. 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. La guna 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. Packet Pg 39 6 Next Steps At this time, the City anticipates completing final planning and receiving regulatory agency 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. Packet Pg 40 6 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 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, the 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 - Extended Notice of Intent to Adopt MND 9-15-17 c - Human Health Risk Assessment - Langan Engineering and Environmental 2017 Packet Pg 41 6 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 and subject to the following mitigation measures: 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 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 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: Packet Pg 42 6 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ 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 dist urbing 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 Packet Pg 43 6 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 3 R ______ 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. 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. Packet Pg 44 6 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 4 R ______ 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 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. Packet Pg 45 6 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 5 R ______ 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 Packet Pg 46 6 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 6 R ______ 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 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 47 6 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 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 Packet Pg 48 6 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 8 R ______ 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. 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 Packet Pg 49 6 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 9 R ______ 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 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. Packet Pg 50 6 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 10 R ______ 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: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2017. Packet Pg 51 6 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 11 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 52 6 Packet Pg 53 6 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 continue to 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. 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. Packet Pg 54 6 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. Reference copies of the Mitigated Negative Declaration are available at the City’s Clerk’s Office, at 990 Palm Street, or by calling Robert Hill at 805-781-7211. These documents will also be available on the City’s website at www.slocity.org. The required 30-day public review period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration will be extended from Friday September 15, 2017 to Tuesday October 24, 2017. Anyone interested in commenting on the document should submit a written statement to the City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, Attention: Robert Hill, Natural Resources Manager, or by email to rhill@slocity.org by 5:00 p.m., October 24, 2017. The San Luis Obispo City Council will hold a public hearing on October 24, 2017 to consider the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Interested persons can access the City Council agenda at http://www.slocity.org/government/mayor-and-city-council/agendas-and-minutes to locate the dates of the public hearings for this project. Packet Pg 55 6 Packet Pg 56 6 Packet Pg 57 6 Packet Pg 58 6 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 59 6 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 60 6 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 61 6 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 62 6 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 63 6 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 64 6 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 65 6 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 66 6 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 67 6 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 68 6 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 69 6 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 70 6 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 71 6 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 72 6 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 73 6 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 74 6 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 75 6 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 76 6 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 77 6 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 78 6 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 79 6 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 80 6 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 81 6 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 82 6 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 83 6 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 84 6 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 85 6 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 86 6 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 87 6 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 88 6 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 89 6 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 90 6 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 91 6 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 92 6 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 93 6 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 94 6 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 95 6 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 96 6 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 97 6 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 40 This page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg 98 6 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 41 ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg 99 6 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 42 ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg 100 6 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 43 ATTACMENT 3 Packet Pg 101 6 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 102 6 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 103 6 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 104 6 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 105 6 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 106 6 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 107 6 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 108 6 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 109 6 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 110 6 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 111 6 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 112 6 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 113 6 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 114 6 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 115 6 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 116 6 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 117 6 © 2017 Langan 924 Anacapa Street, Suite 2XSanta Barbara, CA 93101T: 1.800.9LANGAN x6890 www.langan.comPacket Pg 1186 Meeting Date: 10/24/2017 FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Public Works Director Prepared By: Jennifer Rice, Transportation Planner/Engineer SUBJECT: LUNETA DRIVE CONNECTION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Planning Commission Recommendation 1. Reject a resolution to amend the Circulation Element of the General Plan eliminating the Luneta Drive connection; and 2. Adopt a resolution to amend the Circulation Element of the General Plan to create a Residential Collector (Major) classification. Staff Recommendation Adopt a resolution to amend the Circulation Element of the General Plan eliminating the Luneta Drive connection and approve the proposed addendum to the Land Use Circulation Element Update Environmental Impact Report (see Attachment A: Draft Resolution, Attachment B: Proposed Changes to Circulation Element, and Attachment C: LUCE Update EIR Addendum). REPORT IN BRIEF On September 6, 2016, the City Council directed staff to evaluate an amendment to the General Plan eliminating the Luneta Drive connection between Verde and Palomar. Subsequently, in 2017, a Transportation Impact Study for this specific project area was completed. This study analyzed in detail the existing and future circulation patterns within the neighborhood and identified potential impacts associated with maintaining the closure of Luneta Drive. The project description as analyzed in the Transportation Impact Study includes amending the General Plan to: 1. Maintain the closure of Luneta Drive between Verde Drive and Palomar Avenue; and 2. Amend Figure 1: Street Classification Diagram, Table 4. Street Classification Descriptions and Standards and relevant text to replace footnote #3 with a new high volume Residential Collector (Major) classification; and 3. Reclassify Ramona Drive from Tassajara to Broad Street to a Residential Collector (Major) classification. The Transportation Impact Study found that if the proposed amendments were approved, keeping Luneta Drive closed would result in a less than significant environmental impact. As a result of these findings, substantial community support, support from the Fire Department, and Council direction to consider the amendment, staff recommends adoption of the proposed Packet Pg 119 7 amendments. Additionally, due to the limited number of General Plan amendments allowed per year, staff is proposing several “cleanup” amendments related to this section of the General Plan (refer to Attachment B). The Planning Commission considered the proposed General Plan amendment at its September 13th meeting. Substantial discussion centered on the issues of neighborhood connectivity with a final Planning Commission recommendation to Council to reject the amendment eliminating the Luneta Drive connection. The Planning Commission did, however, recommend that the City Council amend the Circulation Element of the General Plan to create a Residential Collector (Major) classification, per staff’s recommendation. Although staff is recommending that Luneta remain closed, it is important to note that both options for Luneta (closed or opened) work from an operational, environmental and policy standpoint. As a result, either action is available to the Council. DISCUSSION Background Prior to the 1950s and 1960s, the 71 Palomar parcel included all of the surrounding properties. During this period, the land was subdivided and, as part of those subdivisions, right-of-way and improvements for the street alignments and connections of Ramona, Luneta, Verde, and Serrano was required. The north half of Luneta was constructed in the 1970s as required frontage improvemen ts for what is now Valencia Apartments. This portion of the road was completed except for the frontage along 71 Palomar. This section remains incomplete because 71 Palomar is the original parent lot and no development has occurred to trigger the frontage improvements. The south half of Luneta was then constructed incrementally from the 1970s through the 1990s as required frontage improvements of the single family residentials lots on the south side of the street. In the early 1990s Luneta was opened to through traffic on the completed south side of the roadway, and the connection was adopted into the City’s General Plan in 1994. In 1995 the roadway was closed with bollards at the request of the City’s Fire Department and it has remained that way since. There are no records that provide more details as to why the roadway was closed. In 2014 the Luneta connection established in the 1994 Circulation Element carried forward into the LUCE General Plan Update. In 2016, development proposed at 71 Palomar triggered frontage improvements along Luneta Drive, including construction of the Luneta Drive connection to Palomar Street, per the General Plan and subdivision regulations. During the project review and hearing process, neighborhood residents raised concerns about completing the planned connection of Luneta Drive and requested that the Council reconsider this General Plan policy. Subsequently, City Council directed staff to evaluate an amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan that would allow Luneta to stay closed. Public Outreach An important element of the amendment evaluation has been staff’s continued outreach with the Luneta neighborhood and affected areas. Three community meetings, a City Council meeting Packet Pg 120 7 (September 6, 2016) and one Planning Commission meeting (September 13, 2017) were held throughout the evaluation process to receive input from the neighborhood and provide updates on the traffic studies. Many residents have participated throughout the process to provide input for staff’s consideration. Transportation Impact Study Elimination of the Luneta connection will change future neighborhood traffic patterns as originally envisioned in the City’s General Plan. However, what is unique to this situation and the underlying analysis is that elimination of the connection simply preserves the status quo. A Transportation Impact Study was prepared to evaluate the significance of these policy changes. The Transportation Impact Study focused on changes to neighborhood volumes and consistency with policy thresholds for residential street classifications established under the City’s Circulation Element. While the study analyzed circulation on all affected streets, the condition of Luneta Drive (closed or open) most directly affects volumes on Ramona Drive, as it is the parallel and only alternative route between Tassajara and Broad Street. Under the Circulation Element, the target maximum daily volume for Luneta is 1,500; the current daily volume is approximately 300. The maximum daily volume for Ramona is 3,000; the current daily volume between Tassajara and Broad is approximately 4,000 (exceeding the General Plan policy threshold). This segment of Ramona is currently the only street within the neighborhood exceeding the General Plan threshold. (It should be noted that Ramona has traditionally operated with vehicle volumes over 4,000 since the City began collecting traffic counts in this area in the mid-1980s.) The traffic study found that if the Luneta connection is completed and opened as currently planned, forecasted volumes within the neighborhood would redistribute. This would bring Ramona Drive volumes to a level closer to General Plan thresholds. Under this scenario, all streets within the neighborhood would be within General Plan thresholds, though some would experience a significant volume increase due to redistributed traffic. If Luneta remains closed, neighborhood traffic volumes would generally remain like they are today with minor increases associated with ambient growth anticipated in the General Plan. All streets in the neighborhood would operate under their associated thresholds, with the exception of Ramona Drive between Tassajara and Broad Streets. As indicated above, this segment currently exceeds the daily volume threshold of 3,000. Maintaining the closure of Luneta Drive would solidify this higher volume on Ramona. The traffic study concludes that volumes on Ramona would increase by 3% under full buildout of the area. For example, under existing conditions this segment of Ramona has approximately 330 vehicles pass through during an average peak hour. Maintaining the Luneta closure, under full build-out conditions, this number would increase to approximately 345. This section of Ramona provides direct access to retail and high density residential which are higher intensity uses than along other streets classified as Residential Collectors, and may attribute to the higher volumes. As part of the amendment to maintain the closure, staff recommends reclassifying Ramona from Tassajara to Broad to allow for a higher volume of traffic. Packet Pg 121 7 Ramona Reclassification & Changes to Street Classifications Ramona is currently classified as a Residential Collector. The amendment proposes to reclassify Ramona from Tassajara Street to Broad Street to authorize a higher volume threshold than is currently set for a street of this classification. The next classification up from a Residential Collector is a Residential Arterial, however Residential Arterials do not have volume or speed based thresholds. Past consideration for several other streets have resulted in this same situation, where the expected volume on the street is higher than the Residential Collector class but not to the degree that the City wants to remove the policy volume and speed thresholds by classifying the street as an arterial. As a result, a growing list of Residential Collector streets with a higher volume threshold is established under footnote #3 of the Street Classification Table of the Circulation Element. Rather than simply adding another street (Ramona) to this footnote, staff is recommending that this footnote be converted to a formal classification and Ramona between Tassajara and Broad be put under that classification. Along with these proposed changes, “clean up” language modifications to the Circulation Element are also being recommended at this time. The General Plan is only allotted a set number of amendments each year. Because the above recommendations regarding the Luneta closure and Ramona reclassification would require an amendment to the Circulation Element, staff recommends using this opportunity to clean up some of the language in the existing element. Specifically, staff is recommending reorganizing street classifications identified in Table 1 (Parkway Arterial, Regional Routes, & Freeway classifications) to better group and differentiate facility types that are under the City’s Jurisdiction and those that are under County or State Jurisdiction (refer to Attachment B). The Parkway Arterial classification is proposed to be combined with the Regional Route classification and the Freeway classification is proposed to be expanded to include Highways and Ramps. These changes represent an organizational amendment of the document and will not have an effect on the design or operation of the roadways as currently listed in the Circulation Element. These changes are shown in Attachment B (Proposed Changes to Circulation Element). Planning Commission Recommendation At its September 13, 2017 meeting, the Planning Commission resolved to amend the General Plan to establish a new Residential Collector (Major) street classification, however, recommends that the City Council uphold current General Plan policy and standards to complete the Luneta connection between Verde and Palomar. The majority of the Planning Commission made comments to the effect that the planned circulation patterns of the neighborhood with connection of Luneta kept open are appropriate and that keeping Luneta as a dead-end street is not equitable to residents along other neighborhood streets. For example, in existing conditions with Luneta closed, feeder streets leading to Ramona (Rafael, Tassajara, and Verde) carry a disproportionately high amount of traffic to that of Luneta and Palomar. With Luneta opened, as adopted in the General Plan, neighborhood traffic burden would be shared on these streets as Luneta would acquire a portion of these volumes. Likewise, Ramona between Tassajara and Packet Pg 122 7 Broad Streets is the primary link between the neighborhood and Broad St reet, resulting in volumes above established thresholds. Connecting Luneta between Verde and Palomar would increase route choices for drivers, alleviate a portion of the volume on Ramona and reduce volumes on Rafael, Tassajara and Verde. The Commission also felt keeping Luneta closed would preclude the City from future options to open it if warranted by changing conditions in the area. Commissioners agreed that best practices for optimal traffic circulation are to provide many route options for drivers of automobiles, service and delivery vehicles and emergency vehicles. Because circulation mitigation measures were included in the Environmental Impact Report for the Land Use and Circulation Element Update, no new impacts result if Luneta is opened. Based on these reasons the Commission supports the past and current General Plan provision that Luneta be opened to through traffic. Luneta Street Design Regardless of whether Luneta is permanently closed or open to through traffic, frontage improvements are necessary to meet current City standards and are the responsibility of the 71 Palomar project. Staff has been working with the neighborhood to collect feedback on the future design of a permanent closure of Luneta Drive. A permanent closure would require improvements such as upgraded bollards, completion of sidewalk, curb, gutter, & street lights and landscaping. Attachment D depicts a conceptual design of the proposed improvements that would be included if Luneta is to stay closed at its current location. If Luneta is opened, the improvements would be a modified street standard that would include one travel lane in each direction separated by a landscaped median for the length of the 71 Palomar property frontage. A sidewalk connection on the north side of Luneta will complete the pedestrian access for both scenarios. CONCURRENCES Fire Department. The Fire Department has reviewed and concurs with the staff recommendation. The Fire Department has determined that keeping the roadway closed to through traffic will still allow for acceptable emergency response to the vicinity. Planning Commission. The Planning Commission reviewed this amendment and associated documents at its September 13th meeting. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council amend the General Plan as proposed with the exception of eliminating the Luneta connection. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council not approve the elimination of the Luneta connection. However, the Planning Commission does recommend that the City Council approve creation of a new Residential Collector (Major) classification. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project has been analyzed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) based on the LUCE Update EIR and an Addendum to that EIR was prepared which found this project is consistent with the conclusions and mitigations of that EIR. This project Packet Pg 123 7 would not result in new or more severe environmental impacts than were identified in the LUCE Update EIR, nor will it have an effect on mitigation measures previously adopted upon certification of the LUCE Update EIR. Both the LUCE Update EIR and subsequent Addendum shall constitute the complete environmental determination for the project. FISCAL IMPACT As the project is solely a change in policy, there will not by a fiscal impact. Frontage improvements of Luneta are still required of the development at 71 Palomar and will be completed as part of that project. ALTERNATIVES 1. Deny the proposed General Plan Amendment and maintain the opening of Luneta Street between Verde and Palomar. As mentioned prior, both operational and technical analysis has identified no impacts associated with keeping Luneta open in the long term; therefore, council has full discretion on this issue. 2. Continue the item. Staff does not recommend this alternative as development plans for 71 Palomar are currently in review and should be done in conjunction with the direction Council decides. Attachments: a - Draft Resolution b - Circulation Element Proposed Changes c - Council Reading File: Luneta Drive EIR Addendum d - Concept Improvements e - Alternate Draft Resolution (PC Recommendation) Packet Pg 124 7 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2017 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN WITH AN ADDENDUM TO THE 2014 LUCE UPDATE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REPORT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October 24, 2017 for the purpose of considering General Plan Amendments proposed as part of the Circulation Element Amendment project including General Plan Circulation Element map changes; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on September 14, 2017 for the purpose of formulating and forwarding recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Addendum to the Land Use and Circulation Element Update Environmental Impact Report, and determined that the document adequately addresses the potential environmental effects of the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings in support of the amendments to the General Plan to eliminate the Luneta Drive connection between Verde and Palomar Streets based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: a) The proposed General Plan Amendment is limited to minor policy revisions related to street classifications which have negligible effect on actual street conditions, therefore will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of those living and working in the vicinity. b) On September 3, 2014, the City Council adopted an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Land Use and Circulation Element Update which adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project. Packet Pg 125 7 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ The EIR along with the prepared addendum adequately evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the project. c) The proposed General Plan Amendment will establish a new street classification, Residential Collector (Major), to more appropriately reflect the character of residential streets serving high density residential and neighborhood commercial. This new street classification formalizes a footnote in the current Circulation Element. d) The proposed General Plan Amendment will reclassify Ramona Drive between Tassajara and Broad Streets as a Residential Collector (Major) to more appropriately reflect the character along this segment of Ramona Drive serving high density residential and neighborhood commercial. e) Text, Table 4 and Figure 1 of the Circulation Element will be amended to reflect these changes. These changes represent a better organization of the document and have no effect on the design or operation of the actual roadways. SECTION 2. Environmental Review a) An addendum to the Land Use and Circulation Element Update Environmental Impact Report was prepared regarding the Luneta Drive closure. The addendum concluded the following: i) None of the following circumstances included in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines have occurred which require a subsequent EIR: a. The project changes do not result in new or more severe environmental impacts. b. The circumstances under which the project is undertaken will not require major changes to the EIR. c. The modified project does not require any substantive changes to previously approved mitigation measures. ii) The proposed project would not result in a significant increase in future traffic on affected roadways such that the effect would result in an increase in the severity of any impact previously identified in the LUCE Update EIR, and the proposed street reclassification changes are minor and consistent with the scope of the approved project. iii) The changes are consistent with City objectives to improve neighborhood wellness. SECTION 3. Action. The City Council does hereby approve the General Plan Amendment (GENP-0557-2017) subject to the following conditions: a) The City Council does hereby amend the City of San Luis Obispo Circulation Element: (1) Circulation Element text amendment as described and shown in Exhibit A, attached hereto; and (2) Circulation Element Figure 1 amendment as described and shown in Exhibit B, attached hereto. The City Council declares that should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Resolution be rendered or declared invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, Packet Pg 126 7 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 3 R ______ sentences and words of this Resolution shall remain in full force and effect. The recitals contained in this resolution are incorporated by reference. Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2016. ____________________________________ 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 127 7 Circulation Element Page 2‐27 Types of Streets 7.3. Design Standards The City’s roadway system is shown in Figure 1. The City shall require that improvements to the City’s roadway system are made consistent with the following descriptions and standards: 7.3.1. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) The total number of vehicles that use a particular street throughout the day (24 hours). 7.3.2. Vehicle Level of Service (LOS) Level of service is a letter grade representation of the quality of traffic flow based on congestion. A. Level of Service (LOS) "A" is free‐flowing traffic while LOS "F" is extreme congestion. B. At LOS "D," the recommended standard, drivers can expect delays of 35 to 55 seconds and sometimes have to wait through more than one cycle of a traffic signal. Vehicle may stack up at intersections but dissipate rapidly. C. At LOS "E," delays increase to 55 to 80 seconds and drivers frequently have to wait through more than one cycle of a traffic signal. Stacked lines of cars at intersections become longer. Table 4. Street Classification Descriptions and Standards Descriptions1 of Street Types Maximum ADT/LOS Desired maximum Speeds2 Local Commercial Streets directly serve non‐residential development that front them and channel traffic to commercial collector streets (reference black line streets on Figure 1). 5,000 25 mph Local Residential Streets directly serve residential development that front them and channel traffic to minor and major residential collector streets (reference black line streets on Figure 1). 1,500 25 mph Commercial Collector Streets collect traffic from commercial areas and channel it to arterials. 10,000 25 mph Residential Collector Streets (Minor) collect traffic from residential areas and channel it to arterials. 3,000 3 25 mph Residential Collector Streets (Major) collect traffic from neighborhood commercial, high density residential and residential areas and channel it to arterials. 5,000 25 mph Residential Arterials are bordered by residential property where preservation of neighborhood character is as important as providing for traffic flow and where speeds should be controlled. LOS D CVC* Arterial Streets provide circulation between major activity centers and residential areas LOS E (Downtown) LOS D (other routes) CVC* CVC* Parkway Arterials are arterial streets with landscaped medians and roadside areas, where the number of cross streets is limited and direct access from fronting properties is discouraged LOS D CVC* Parkway Arterials Highway/Regional Routes are arterial routes with landscaped medians where the number of cross streets is limited and direct access from fronting properties is discouraged. These routes connect the city with other parts of the county and are used by people LOS D CVC* Packet Pg 128 7 Chapter 2 Page 2‐28 Descriptions1 of Street Types Maximum ADT/LOS Desired maximum Speeds2 traveling throughout the county and state and are designated as primary traffic carriers. Segments of these routes leading into San Luis Obispo should include landscaped medians and roadside areas to better define them as community entryways Highway/Freeway/Ramps is a regional route of significance where access is controlled. Segments of these routes leading into San Luis Obispo should include landscaped medians and roadside areas to better define them as community entryways. LOS D CVC* *Speed Limits are dictated by prevailing speeds per the California Vehicle Code (CVC). Notes: (1) To determine the classification of a particular street segment, refer to Figure 1: Streets Classification Map and Appendix E. Appendix E includes the most recent traffic counts and estimates of level of service (LOS). Traffic counts will be different for various segments of a particular street. In some cases, a range of LOS ratings are shown on Appendix E for "Arterial" streets because of the variability of traffic flow conditions along a particular corridor; and some street segments approaching intersections may have poorer LOS than shown in this table. Note that all ADT should reflect volumes typically experienced when all schools are in session. To account for seasonal shifts ADT shall be calculated using an annual average daily traffic (AADT) for individual volumes and the threshold shall be adjusted up to 15%. (2) Desired maximum speed means that 85% of motorists using the street will drive at or slower than this speed. To account for seasonal shifts speeds shall be calculated using an annual average or for individual speed surveys the threshold shall be adjusted up by 2.7 mph. (3) For Chorro and Broad Streets (north of Lincoln Street), and Margarita Avenue the maximum desired ADT goal is 5,000 ADT. Packet Pg 129 7 Circulation Element Page 2‐29 8. NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT 8.1. Policies 8.1.1. Through Traffic The City shall design its circulation network to encourage through traffic to use Regional Routes, Highways, Arterials, Parkway Arterials, and Residential Arterial streets and to discourage through traffic use of Collectors and Local streets. 8.1.2. Residential Streets The City should not approve commercial development that encourages customers, employees or deliveries to use Residential Local or Residential Collector (Minor and Major) streets. 8.1.3. Neighborhood Traffic Speeds To the extent permitted under the California Vehicle Code, the City shall endeavor to reduce and maintain vehicular speeds in residential neighborhoods. 8.1.4. Neighborhood Traffic Management The City shall ensure that neighborhood traffic management projects: A. Provide for the mitigation of adverse impacts on all residential neighborhoods. B. Provide for adequate response conditions for emergency vehicles. C. Provide for convenient and safe through bicycle and pedestrian traffic. 8.1.5. Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines The City shall update its Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines to address voting, funding, and implementation procedures and develop an outreach program on the availability of the program. 8.1.6. Non-Infill Development In new, non‐infill developments, dwellings shall be set back from Regional Routes and Highways, Parkway Arterials, Arterials, Residential Arterials, and Collector streets so that interior and exterior noise standards can be met without the use of noise walls. 8.1.7. New Project Evaluation The City shall not approve development that impacts the quality of life and livability of residential neighborhoods by generating traffic conditions that significantly exceed the thresholds established in Table 4 except as provided under CEQA. The City shall also not approve development which significantly worsens already deficient residential neighborhood traffic conditions as established in Table 4 except as provided under CEQA. New development shall incorporate traffic calming features to minimize speeding and cut‐ through traffic. Packet Pg 130 7 Santa R osa NorthSantaRosa HigueraW estFoothillCalifornia Foothill SouthHigueraTank Farm LosOsosValley Br o a d Grand MontereyNor t hChor ro Orcutt Orcutt M adonnaJohnson Joh n s onMarshHighlandCap itolioPrado IndustrialSouth Orcutt LaurelPismoChorro HighPalm Osos Buckley 101 L a guna L a k e Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2015 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles Figure 1Streets Classification Diagram LUCE SOI Planning Subarea City Limits Urban Reserve Proposed Existing Highway/Regional Route Arterial Commercial Collector Local Residential Collector Residential Arterial Parkway Arterial Freeway Packet Pg 131 7 o Santa Rosa NorthSantaRosa HigueraW estFoothillCalifornia Foothill SouthHigueraTank Farm LosOsosValley Br o a d Grand MontereyNor t hChor ro Orcutt Orcutt M adonnaJohnson Joh n s onMarshHighlandCap itolioPrado IndustrialSouth Orcutt LaurelPismoChorro HighPalm Osos BuckleyJeffreyDelRio £¤101 L a guna L a k e ¯Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2015 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles Figure 1Streets Classification Diagram LUCE SOI Planning Subarea !!!!City Limits Urban Reserve Proposed Existing Arterial Commercial Collector Residential ArterialFreeway/Ramp/Highway Residential Local Regional Route/Parkway Arterial Residential Collector (Major) Residential Collector (Minor) Packet Pg 132 7 Packet Pg 1337 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2017 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October 24, 2017 for the purpose of considering General Plan Amendments proposed as part of the Circulation Element Amendment project including General Plan Circulation Element map changes; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on September 14, 2017 for the purpose of formulating and forwarding recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings in support of amending the General Plan to establish a new residential street classification: Residential Collector (Major) subject to the following conditions: a) The proposed General Plan Amendment is limited to minor policy revisions related to street classifications which have negligible effect on actual street conditions, therefore will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of those living and working in the vicinity. b) The proposed General Plan Amendment will establish a new street classification, Residential Collector (Major), to more appropriately reflect the character of residential streets serving high density residential and neighborhood commercial. This new street classification formalizes a footnote in the current Circulation Element. c) Text, Table 4 and Figure 1 of the Circulation Element will be amended to reflect these changes. These changes represent a better organization of the document and have no effect on the design or operation of the actual roadways. Packet Pg 134 7 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings to uphold policies and standards set forth in the current General Plan to complete the connection of Luneta Drive between Verde and Palomar Streets based on the following findings: a) The proposed amendment is not consistent with existing General Plan policy and Subdivision Regulations. b) The proposed amendment would result in unequitable circulation patterns within the neighborhood. SECTION 2. Action. The City Council does hereby approve the General Plan Amendment (GENP-0557-2017) subject to the following conditions: a) The City Council does hereby amend the City of San Luis Obispo Circulation Element: (1) Circulation Element text amendment as described and shown in Exhibit A, attached hereto; and (2) Circulation Element Figure 1 amendment as described and shown in Exhibit B, attached hereto. The City Council declares that should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Resolution be rendered or declared invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences and words of this Resolution shall remain in full force and effect. The recitals contained in this resolution are incorporated by reference. Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2016. ____________________________________ Mayor Heidi Harmon ATTEST: ____________________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Packet Pg 135 7 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 3 R ______ _____________________________________ 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 136 7 Meeting Date: 10/24/2017 FROM: Greg Hermann, Acting Assistant City Manager Prepared By: Lee Johnson, Economic Development Manager SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OF FORMATION FOR THE AVILA RANCH COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT RECOMMENDATION Advance the formation of the Avila Ranch Communit y Facilities District (CFD) by adopting the attached Resolution (Attachment A), taking the following actions: 1. Approve the Avila Ranch CFD Resolution of Formation; 2. Set the date for the required (landowner) election for October 26, 2017; REPORT-IN-BRIEF Adoption of the Avila Ranch CFD Resolution of Formation furthers the CFD formation process that began on September 19, 2017 with the adoption of the Resolution of Intention. The Resolution of Formation is the next step in the process and leads to the election required by statute, in this instance the approval of the CFD formation by the landowners within the proposed CFD which is coterminous with the Avila Ranch Development Plan area. Following this action and the subsequent election, the City Council will hold a Public Hearing and adopt a Special Tax Ordinance as is specified in the Avila Ranch Rate and Method of Apportionment. DISCUSSION Background The City Council adopted the Avila Ranch Community Facilities District (CFD) Notice of Intention at their September 19, 2017 meeting. This action followed preparation of the proposed CFD as part of the Avila Ranch entitlements that include the Final Environmental Impact Report, the Development Plan, the Subdivision Map, and the Development Agreement. Prior to preparation of the CFD, the City Council, as part of the 2017-2019 Financial Plan, included new financial policies that establish a framework for land-secured special tax financing. A CFD, as enabled by the Community Facilities District Act of 1982, allows a local jurisdiction to levy a special tax within a specified area to pay for public services and/or infrastructure needed within the area. Over the past three decades, CFDs have become a common mechanism for cities to fund services and finance development-related infrastructure. The levy of any special tax and any related bond issuance is subject to voter approval, if the area is inhabited approval by two-thirds of the voters in the area is required. If fewer than 12 voters are located in the area, approval by the landowners is required. The owners and developers of the Avila Ranch property have requested and the City has agreed to consider formation of this CFD, subject to Council action on the Avila Ranch entitlement Packet Pg 137 8 documents. The Avila Ranch CFD, as proposed, will be used to fund certain City services that benefit the new development, maintenance of local area public facilities, and reimbursements to the Developer for funding advances or construction of key infrastructure items (over and above the Project’s demonstrated “fair share” of such infrastructure costs). One of the pillar policies1 of the City’s General Plan is that development should pay its fair share of the costs needed to support the development, unless the City chooses to pay certain costs to obtain community wide benefits. City staff worked with the applicant to prepare a detailed fiscal impact analysis of the proposed project. In summary, the analysis shows that the project at full build out will generate about $850,600 per year in general fund revenues and $1.3 million per year in municipal service costs. The annual cost revenue deficit is $494,887. This deficit is attributed to the capacity and property tax sharing agreement adopted at the time of the territory’s annexation in 2008 that provided no property tax to the City. CFD special taxes are commonly used to fund infrastructure and can be used as a source of reimbursement for developer funding in excess of any “fair share” cost allocation. As part of the Development Agreement the City has agreed to reimburse the Developer for up to $2.1 million for such funding advances and/or oversizing of regional infrastructure. Technical Specification of CFD As part of its approval of the Avila Ranch CFD Resolution of Intention, the City Council specified and approved the following technical aspects as documented in the Rate and Method of Apportionment (RMA): Purpose of the Special Tax. The RMA specifies the special tax to be levied as part of the CFD. As mentioned above, for Avila Ranch, the special tax will fund local area maintenance costs; provide for fiscal mitigation (City and County) and serve as a source of reimbursement funding for infrastructure funding advances provided by the Developer. Administrative costs are also included. Detailed analysis of public service costs, including the need for fiscal mitigation and local area facilities maintenance has been conducted as part of ongoing staff work and negotiations with the Avila Ranch Developer. Funding Capacity. The funding capacity of a CFD is based upon the type and amount of development in the boundary of the CFD upon which the special tax is levied and the amount of the tax per parcel. Special taxes levied as part of a CFD must be clearly specified by a “rate and method of apportionment” which defines the amount of the tax levied on each parcel and how the amount may be increased (indexed) over time to account for any inflationary cost increases. Generally, and as reflected in the City’s adopted policy, CFD special taxes are limited to a fraction of the 1 percent property tax allowed under Article 13 A of the State Constitution. The funding capacity of the Avila Ranch Project, taking account of the market value of development being created, the existing general and special taxes, and the City’s established by policy special tax “cap” 1 1.13.9. Costs of Growth: The City shall require the costs of public facilities and services needed for new development be bor ne 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 f acilities which are required to serve the project and which are reasonably related to the new growth attributable to the development. Packet Pg 138 8 of 1.8 percent is estimated to be approximately $2.9 million annually at full buildout of the project. Given market conditions and maximum equivalent HOA rates in the community of $200 per month, and market considerations, and the significant amount of smaller and multifamily units, the aggregate tax burden on residential units may likely limit funding capacity to be below this maximum, resulting in a funding capacity at $1.7 million per year at full buildout of the project. The City Council determined that the Special Tax schedule (as shown in Resolution of Formation Exhibit A, Attachment B) was appropriate. The amount of funding from each special tax component (tax revenue at “buildout” of the Project) include: a. Citywide Services $414,000 b. Local Area Maintenance (City) $1.1 million c. County Services $66,000 d. Capital Reimbursement (through 2035/36) $176,000 e. CFD Administration (City) $97,500 f. CFD Administration (Contract) $33,500 Municipal Service and Capital Reimbursement Components of the Special Tax. Because there are different reasons for the two primary components of the special tax , there are different instructions in the RMA related to each. The first component combines fiscal mitigation of Citywide services and local area maintenance services and will be needed indefinitely, subject to an annual index-based cost increase. This component of the special tax can be adjusted downward if a new property tax sharing agreement with the County is achieved that provides a greater share of property tax to the City. The second component of the special tax is for reimbursement of capital outlay by the Developer in excess of fair share costs. The tax will only be levied through 2035-2036 and/or once reimbursement obligations are met, and is limited to a two percent annual cost increase. The City Council determined both components are necessary and that a single CFD can properl y encompass each of these components. Special Tax Rate Structure. Special property taxes are "parcel" taxes (a given rate per parcel). Varying taxes by use or intensity requires a logical structure, often linked to service demand (and may not be ad valorem). Current special tax calculations determined an "average" special tax for all units in Avila Ranch of $2,400 per year. There are 4 residential prototypes: R-1 (7 DU/ac); R-2 (12 DU/ac; R-3 townhomes (20 DU/ac); and R-4, stacked flats (24 DU/ac). A "flat tax" rate could be set for all residential uses based on the special tax revenue calculations; alternatively, a rate sensitive to unit type (zoning designation or single family/multifamily) and size can be established, based on a variable that is linked to service demand. The City Council determined that a rate sensitive to residential unit type and size was most appropriate. Special Tax on Vacant Land. Special taxes can be levied on land that is designated for development but not yet developed. Such taxes are charged to generate cash flow to cover interim service costs or debt service before the developing area subject to the special tax is fully developed. The combined cost of services funded by the CFD may exceed the available tax revenues during the "buildout" period when there will be a growing number of tax producing parcels. A tax on vacant land (paid by the then-current Packet Pg 139 8 owner of the vacant developable land) can be levied to cover such costs. Analysis shows that significant maintenance cost will not emerge until the related facilities are in place and service demands emerge. The City Council determined that a vacant land tax be levied at the time the Final Subdivision Map is approved and respective subdivision parcels are recorded. Special Tax Prioritization. The RMA can specify funding priorities for special tax revenue for both the service and reimbursement components of the special tax. Given the proposed components, the City Council determined the priority for funding is as follows: 1) funding for reimbursement of Developer funding advances; 2) special funding for local area maintenance; and 3) "fiscal mitigation" for the City. Exemption for Commercial Uses. Special taxes can be charged on commercial uses to pay their proportional share of service costs. There is a small amount (15,000 square feet) of commercial space planned for the Avila Ranch neighborhood. Given its limited scale the commercial uses the City Council determined such uses should be exempted from the special tax unless a change of use is subsequently approved and to charge a vacant land tax until parcel is developed. Exemption for Affordable Housing Units. Property owned by non-profit entities or with price restrictions in the deed are not categorically exempted from special taxes. The key policy exemption to be considered is an exemption on affordable housing owned by non- profit entities. There are 67 affordable units proposed, 9% of total units (35 for low income at 80% of median income, and 32 for moderate at 120% of median income). Taxing affordable housing units will increase operating costs and thus may decr ease feasibility for the non-profit entities or the subsidies that they can offer lower income households. Options include: 1) an exemption for the non-profit owned or deed restricted units; or 2) establishing a discounted special tax reflecting benefits to the City of providing affordable housing units. The City Council determined that a reduced special tax on affordable units, 50% of the lowest tax rate on market rate residential units, be levied. Other Exemptions. Certain types of property ownership are categorically exempt from special taxes (e.g., lands owned by government entities), others may be exempted for policy reasons by the RMA. Little or no cost is expected from these parcels. Exemptions include government owned property; property-owners’ association property (common areas); assessor’s parcels consisting of public or utility easements; and property having conservation-oriented deed restrictions. The City Council determined that these non- developed parcels be exempted from the special tax. Indexing for Cost Increases Over Time. Special taxes are typically “indexed,” increased over time to reflect inflationary cost increases as permitted by the Statute. Without a “cost inflator” special taxes will diminish in value proportional to the rate of in flation on the costs of providing municipal services. There are various “cost indices” that track price inflation including the CPI, the CCI and the ENR construction cost index. The publication American County and City also publishes a municipal cost index that tracks Packet Pg 140 8 regional increases in municipal service costs. The City Council determined that the City apply a composite of these indices to change the component of special taxes used for City services from year-to-year. The special tax component for infrastructure purposes is limited by the Statute to two percent per year. Property Tax Contingency. At the present time, the Avila Ranch area does not generate any property taxes to the City due to the existing Property Tax Sharing Agreement with the County; this is one of the reasons the CFD has been proposed. A portion of the proposed Avila Ranch special tax is for "fiscal mitigation" linked to the existing property tax agreement that yields no property tax to the City. In the event that a portion of the property tax is provided to the City, the "fiscal mitigation" portion of the special tax could be reduced. It is possible that at some future date the Property Tax Sharing Agreement with the County will be amended providing new revenue to the City. The Rate and Method of Apportionment could include a clause that provided for a reduction in the overall special tax proportional any property tax revenue received by the City. Alternatively, the Rate and Method of Apportionment need not contain such a provision. The City Council determined that a provision to reduce the special taxes proportional to any property tax received as a result of a new Property Tax Sharing Agreement with the County. Duration of the Special Tax. The Rate and Method must indicate the duration of the special tax. Special taxes that provide a source of debt service on CFD municipal bonds (or other capital expenditure) sunset when debt is retired. The City Council determined that an “indefinite” duration for the services portion of the special tax, and that the reimbursement component will be retired when reimbursement is completed (estimated to be no later than 2035/36). Special Tax Accounts and Allocation. The special tax requirement has been calculated based on three separate cost components: 1) "fiscal mitigation" for the lack of property tax from the area (both City and some County); 2) special funding for local area maintenance and also eventual local facilities replacement; and 3) funding for reimbursement of Developer funding advances (e.g., the capital component). The City Council determined that individual trust accounts be established for the three funding components be established along with terms that specify funds annually appropriated on a “cost-applied” basis. CONCURRENCES The Community Development Director concurs that the proposed CFD is consistent with the entitlements granted for the project. The Public Works Director concurs that the revenue generated by the CFD will be sufficient to cover the costs and obligations associated with City services to be provided, and that the mechanism exists to adjust those costs and revenues accordingly. In addition, the property owners of Avila Ranch have executed waivers and are otherwise agreeable to the creation of the CFD in order to help fund the services and infrastructure needed to support the development project. Packet Pg 141 8 FISCAL IMPACT When the Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) of the General Plan were updated in 2014, they were accompanied by a fiscal analysis that identified the overall fiscal impact that buildout of the General Plan would have on the city’s ability to continue to provide the high level of service expected by the community. This fiscal impact analysis of the City’s land use plan is an essential aspect of land use planning in California, where property tax growth is statutorily limited. As a result, communities have to be careful to balance land uses between commercial activities that produce net revenues to support City operations, and residential uses that cost more to support than they produce in direct revenues. Normally, individual projects are not accompanied by project-specific fiscal analyses. In the case of Avila Ranch, a detailed fiscal analysis has been prepared for the following reasons: 1. The size of the project warrants a project-specific look. 2. The phasing of the project could result in short term fiscal impacts that would limit the ability of the City to maintain or deliver public facilities in the earlier phases of the project. This may result in the need for a Community Facilities District to support project maintenance or infrastructure costs. 3. Negotiations with the developer regarding the Development Agreement rely on a detailed understanding of the specific fiscal effects of the project. 4. Discussions with the County regarding the tax exchange agreement are also informed by a more detailed understanding of the tax revenue and costs that will be generated by the project. The fiscal impact analysis for the Avila Ranch project was prepared by Applied Development Economics. This is the same firm that prepared the fiscal and economic analysis for the General Plan update. In summary, the analysis shows that the project at full buildout will generate about $850,600 per year in general fund revenues and $1.3 million per year in municipal service costs. The annual cost revenue deficit is $494,887. The numbers are based on current cost and the current tax sharing agreement with the County and can be positively impacted based on a positive outcome of the ongoing negotiations with the County. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In accordance with Sections 15162 & 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines, an Addendum to the certified Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Avila Ranch project has been prepared to address the formation of a CFD, a funding mechanism intended to implement development under the Avila Ranch project (Attachment B). The Addendum did not find that the CFD would introduce new or modified environmental impacts that were not already previously disclosed and analyzed through the certified Final EIR. All mitigation measures prescribed for the approved development project would still apply with the implementation of the CFD, and no new mitigation measures would be required. Packet Pg 142 8 NEXT STEPS Following action on the Avila Ranch CFD Resolution of Formation and conducting the election the City Council will need to formally certify the election results and adopt an Ordinance that establishes the Avila Ranch CFD Special Tax. These actions are anticipated to occur at the November 7, 2017 City Council meeting. Attachments: a - Avila Ranch CFD Resolution of Formation b - Avila Ranch Exhibits A-C to Resolution Of Formation c - Avila Ranch Financing Plan & Community Facilities District Hearing Report d - Example Avila Ranch CFD Ballot e - Addendum to the Avila Ranch Final Environmental Impact Report Packet Pg 143 8 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2017 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING AVILA RANCH COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2017-1 PURSUANT TO THE MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES ACT OF 1982 AND, IN ITS CAPACITY AS LEGISLATIVE BODY OF SUCH DISTRICT, SUBMITTING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT TO THE ELECTORS OF THE DISTRICT AND ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE AVILA RANCH DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the development of the territory commonly known as Avila Ranch will necessitate the provision of additional City facilities and services; and WHEREAS, the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (Section 53311 et. seq. of the California Government Code) (the “Act”) authorizes the City to establish a community facilities district to finance such facilities and services; and WHEREAS, by its Resolution No. 10833 (2017 Series), the City Council proposed to establish Avila Ranch Community Facilities District (the “District”) under the terms of the Act, declared its intention to levy a special tax in connection with the District, and set the time and place for a public hearing on the establishment of the District; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was given as required by law; and WHEREAS, on September 19, 2017, at 4:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as practicable, in the City Council Chambers at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, the City Council held a full and fair public hearing on the establishment of the District (the “Hearing”); and WHEREAS, at the Hearing, the testimony of all testimony of all interested persons or taxpayers for or against the establishment of the District, the extent of the District, or the furnishing of specified types of public facilities or services was heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the report entitled Avila Ranch Financing Plan and Community Facilities District Hearing Report filed by the City Manager with the City Council prior to the Hearing and on file in the Office of the City Clerk, which report is hereby finally approved; and WHEREAS, the Registrar of Voters of the County of San Luis Obispo has informed the City that there are no persons registered to vote within the boundaries of the District; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received unanimous consent from the landowners in the District to waive all time limits and requirements with respect to the conduct of an election Packet Pg 144 8 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ with regard to the levy of a special tax in connection with the District (including any requirements for a summary or arguments in connection therewith); and WHEREAS, the City Council, having considered and overruled all protests, determines to proceed with the establishment of the District. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, ON ITS OWN BEHALF AND IN ITS CAPACITY AS LEGISLATIVE BODY FOR THE TERRTIORY OF AVILIA RANCH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The recitals stated above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. The City Council finds and determines that all proceedings in connection with the District have been valid and in conformity with the requirements of the Act. This finding is final and conclusive, pursuant to Section 53325.1 of the Act. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby establishes the District as a community facilities district, designated the “Avila Ranch Community Facilities District No. 2017-1” under the terms of the Act. SECTION 4. The boundaries of the territory included in the District are shown on the map entitled Exhibit C. CFD Boundaries was recorded with the County Recorder of the of County of San Luis Obispo on October 3, 2017 as Instrument No. 201704456. This map was recorded pursuant to Sections 53328.5 of the Government Code and 3111 of the Streets and Highways Code. A copy of the map is on file in the Office of the City Clerk and available for public inspection. SECTION 5. The facilities and services to be financed by the District are as described in Exhibit “A” to this Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the “Facilities and Services”). The City Council determines that the facilities to be financed by the District are necessary to meet increased demands placed upon local agencies are a result of development occurring in the District. SECTION 6. Except where funds are otherwise available, and subject to approval by the electors of the District, a special tax sufficient to pay for all the Facilities and Services, along with the incidental expenses described in Attachment “A” to this Resolution, will be annually levied within the District (the “Special Tax”). The Special Tax will be secured by recordation of a continuing lien against all nonexempt real property in the District. The rate and method of apportionment of the Special Tax are described in Attachment “B” to this resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the “Rate and Method of Apportionment”). Except as otherwise set forth in the Rate and Method of Apportionment, the Special tax will be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes are collected and shall be subject to the same penalties and the same procedure, sale, and lien priority in case of Packet Pg 145 8 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 3 R ______ delinquency as is provided for ad-valorem taxes. The Rate and Method of Apportionment contains sufficient detail to allow each landowner or resident within the District to estimate the maximum Special Tax that he or she will have to pay. SECTION 7. The Special Tax will be levied annually, for an indefinite period with no expiration or sunset. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Special Tax to pay for public facilities will be levied against any parcel after Fiscal Year 2035-2036. For the purposes of this Section, “public facilities” does not include services described in Section 53313 of the Act. SECTION 8. Under no circumstances may the Special tax on a residential parcel in the District be increased in any fiscal year as a consequence of delinquency or default in payment of the Special Tax levied on another parcel or parcels by more than ten percent (10%) above the amount that would have been levied in that fiscal year had there never been any such delinquency or default. SECTION 9. Upon recordation of a notice of special tax lien pursuant to Section 3114.5 of the California Streets and Highways Code, a continuing lien to secure each levy of the special tax shall attach to all non-exempt real property in the District, and this lien shall continue in force and effect until the special tax obligation is prepaid and permanently satisfied and the lien cancelled in accordance with law or until collection of the tax by the City Council ceases. SECTION 10. The Special Tax, if levied, will be subject to the following accountability measures: (i) Proceeds of the Special Tax will be deposited in a special account ( “Special Account”) and used only for the purpose of financing the Facilities and Services and the Incidental Expenses; and (ii) An annual report will be filed by the Finance Officer of the City at least once a year containing a description of the amount of funds and the status of any project included in the Facilities and Services. The provisions of this Section are a limitation on the expenditure of Special Tax proceeds. The City does not, solely by virtue of this Section or this Resolution, or solely by virtue of the levy or collection of the Special Tax, assume any obligation to provide any particular service or to purchase, construct, expand, improve, or rehabilitate any property of any particular kind. SECTION 11. The City’s Department of Finance, which is located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA and whose telephone number is (805) 781-7124 (the “Finance Department”), will be responsible for preparing the annual roll of special tax obligations with respect to the District and for estimating future tax levies pursuant to Section 53340.2 of the Act. SECTION 12. The City Council finds that the Special Tax has not been precluded by majority protest pursuant to Section 53324 of the Act. SECTION 13. The City Council proposes to establish an appropriations limit, pursuant to Article XIIIB, Section 8(h) of the California Constitution, for the District, at an Packet Pg 146 8 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 4 R ______ amount equal to $3,000,000 (the “Appropriations Limit”). Such limit shall be adjusted for changes in the cost of living, or changes in population, pursuant to Section 53325.7 of the Act. SECTION 14. The City Council finds that on at least one of the ninety days prior to the close of the Hearing, there were less than twelve persons registered to vote within the territory of the District. Consequently, pursuant to Section 53326(b) of the Act, the electors of the District, for the purposes of approving the Special Tax, shall be the landowners of the District. The City Council determines that the identities of the sole landowner of the District (and the number of acres, or portions thereof, of land in the District that is owned by such landowner) is as set forth in Exhibit “C”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 15. The City Council hereby calls a special election of the qualified electors of the District, to be held on [October 26th] at [11 am] (the “Special Election”). The Special Election will be conducted by the City Clerk, as elections official. The vote will be by the landowners of the District, and each landowner of the District who is the owner of record at the close of the Hearing, or is the authorized representative thereof, shall have one vote for each acre or portion of an acre of land that he or she owns within the District. The number of votes to be voted by a particular landowner will be specified on the ballot provided to that landowner. The Special Election will be conducted by mail ballot, with ballots distributed to each elector by personal service of the elections official, and the Special Election may be closed prior to the hour specified in this resolution, if all qualified voters have voted. All time limits specified in Section 53326 of the Act and all requirements of law pertaining to the conduct of the Special Election are hereby waived, pursuant to Section 53326(a) of the Act, as are any requirements of Section 53327 of the Act with respect to analysis or arguments. SECTION 16. The levy of the Special Tax, and the establishment of the Appropriations Limit, area hereby submitted to the qualified electors of the District at the Special Election. The question to be put to the qualified electors shall be as set forth below: Shall a special tax, as specified in the Rate and Method of Apportionment set forth in Resolution No. 10833 (2017 Series) payable by parcels within the boundaries of Avila Ranch Community Facilities District No. 2017-1, be levied annually, commencing in fiscal year 2018-19, for the purpose of financing services, facilities and incidental expenses as set forth in Resolution No. 10833 (2017 Series) and subject to an appropriations limit of $3,000,000, with annual adjustment for inflation? SECTION 17. Environmental Determination. The City Council hereby adopts an Addendum to the certified Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Avila Ranch project based on the following findings: That formation of the CFD will not require a subsequent or supplemental EIR in accordance with Sections 15162 and 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines; all mitigation measures prescribed for the approved development project would still apply with the implementation of the CFD; no new mitigation measures would be required; and the Addendum and the FEIR reflect the City’s independent judgment and analysis. SECTION 18. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent Packet Pg 147 8 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 5 R ______ jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the Resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Resolution, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion hereof, irrespective of that fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 19. The City Clerk is authorized to take all actions necessary for the conduct of the Election. SECTION 20. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2016. ____________________________________ Mayor Heidi Harmon ATTEST: ____________________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________. Packet Pg 148 8 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 6 R ______ ____________________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk Packet Pg 149 8 A-1 EXHIBIT A City of San Luis Obispo Avila Ranch Community Facilities District No. 2107-1 (Services) San Luis Obispo County, California AMENDED RATE, METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT, AND MANNER OF COLLECTION OF SPECIAL TAX 1. Basis of Special Tax Levy A Special Tax authorized under the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (Act) applicable to the land in the Avila Ranch Community Facilities District No.2017-1 (Services) (CFD) of the City of San Luis Obispo (City) shall be levied and collected according to the tax liability determined by the City through the application of the appropriate amount or rate, as described below. 2. Definitions “Act” means the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended, Sections 53311 and following of the California Government Code. “Administrative Expenses” means the actual or estimated costs incurred by the City to form the CFD and to determine, levy, and collect the Special Taxes, including compensation of City employees for administrative work performed in relation to the CFD, the fees of consultants and legal counsel, the costs of collecting installments of the Special Taxes on the general tax rolls, preparation of required reports, and any other costs required to administer the CFD as determined by the City. “Administrator” means the City Manager of the City, or her or his designee. “Affordable Unit” means a Unit built on a Parcel of Single-Family Parcel for which an Affordable Housing Agreement has been entered into for the property designating the Unit as affordable. The City Manager, or its designee, shall determine which Units are designated as Affordable Units and maintain an Affordable Unit Listing, which shall contain all designated buildable parcels by tract and lot number, and in the case of Large Lots Parcels remaining before May 1 of the preceding Fiscal Year, the number of designated Affordable Units for each such Large Lot Parcel; all entries shall indicate the effective date of designation. The Affordable Unit Listing also shall be updated to reflect those Units no longer qualifying as Affordable Units, also known as Market- Rate Units. The Affordable Unit Listing, which shall contain all qualifying Affordable Units as of April 30, shall be made available to the Administrator by July 1 of each year for purposes of determining the Maximum Special Tax for Parcels pursuant to Section 4. Packet Pg 150 8 Avila Ranch CFD No. 2017-1 (Services) Rate and Method of Apportionment and Manner of Collerciton of Special Tax October 11, 2017 . A-2 P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\Resolution of Formation Documents\Exhibit A_Avila Ranch Rate and Method of Apportinment v4_10-11-17.docx “Annual Infrastructure Costs” means for each Fiscal Year, the total cost of (1) Authorized Facilities and (2) any amounts needed to cure actual or estimated delinquencies in Special Taxes for the current or previous Fiscal Year. “Annual Services Costs” means for each Fiscal Year, the total cost of (1) Authorized Services, (2) Administrative Expenses, and (3) any amounts needed to cure actual or estimated delinquencies in Special Taxes for the current or previous Fiscal Year. “Assessor’s Parcel Map” means an official map of the County Assessor designating parcels by Assessor’s Parcel Number. “Assessor's Parcel Number” means the Parcel and Parcel number as recorded by the County Assessor on the equalized tax roll. “Authorized Facilities” means those facilities, as listed in the resolution forming the CFD. “Authorized Services” mean those services, as listed in the resolution forming the CFD. “Base Year” means the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2018 and ending June 30, 2019. “Building Permit” means a permit issued by the City for the construction of a Residential Use structure. “Building Square Foot(age)” has the same meaning as that defined for the School Mitigation Fee by California Government Code Section 65995 for “Assessable Space,” which is “all of the square footage within the perimeter of a residential structure, not including any carport, walkway, garage, overhang, patio, enclosed patio, detached accessory structure, or similar area” as determined upon issuance of the initial Building Permit. “CFD” means the Avila Ranch Community Facilities District No. 2017-1 (Services) of the City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. “City” means the City of San Luis Obispo in San Luis Obispo County, California. “Council” means the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo acting for the CFD under the Act. “County” means the County of San Luis Obispo, California. “County Assessor’s Parcel” means a lot or Parcel with an assigned Assessor’s Parcel Number in the maps used by the County Assessor in the preparation of the tax roll. “Developed Parcel” means any Taxable Parcel with a Building Permit issued for Residential Uses. “Development Plan” means a condominium plan, apartment plan, site plan, or other development plan that identifies such information as the type of structure, acreage, square footage, or number of Units that are approved to be developed on Single Family Parcels and Multifamily Residential Use Parcels. “Final Map Parcel” means a Parcel designated for development as a single-family residence which is part of a Final Subdivision Map. Packet Pg 151 8 Avila Ranch CFD No. 2017-1 (Services) Rate and Method of Apportionment and Manner of Collerciton of Special Tax October 11, 2017 . A-3 P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\Resolution of Formation Documents\Exhibit A_Avila Ranch Rate and Method of Apportinment v4_10-11-17.docx “Final Subdivision Map” means a recorded map designating the final Parcel Subdivision for individual single family residential Parcels. “Fiscal Year” means the period starting July 1 and ending the following June 30. “Infrastructure Special Tax” means the Special Tax identified in Attachment 1 for each Land Use Category identified to fund the costs of Authorized Facilities. The Infrastructure Special Tax is increased by the Infrastructure Special Tax Escalation Factor in each Fiscal Year following the Base Year. “Infrastructure Special Tax Escalation Factor” means a factor of 2 percent in any Fiscal Year following the Base Year by which the Special Tax for the previous Fiscal Year will be increased for the current Fiscal Year. “Land Use Category” means the categories of taxable land uses shown in Attachment 1. “Large Lot Parcel” means a Parcel created by a Large Lot Subdivision Map. “Large Lot Subdivision Map” means a recorded subdivision map creating Parcels by land use. However, the Large Lot Subdivision Map does not delineate Single-Family Parcels. A Final Subdivision Map will create individual Single Family Parcels. “Market-Rate Unit” means a Unit that is not an Affordable Unit. “Maximum Annual Special Tax” means the greatest amount of Special Tax that can be levied against a Parcel in a given Fiscal Year. The Maximum Annual Special Tax is the sum of the Fiscal Services Special Tax and Infrastructure Special Tax assigned to each Taxable Parcel. “Maximum Annual Special Tax Revenue” means the greatest amount of revenue that can be collected in total from a group of Parcels (such as Developed Parcels) by levying the Special Tax. “Multifamily” or “Multifamily Residential Use” means any Parcel or Development Project designated or developed for more than one residential dwelling unit per parcel. Such uses may consist of apartments, condominiums, townhomes, time-share units, row houses, duplexes, or triplexes. “Municipal Costs Index” means the index published by American City & County. “Other Land Use” means a Parcel with land uses other than Residential Uses. Such Parcels are Tax-Exempt Parcels “Parcel” means any County Assessor’s Parcel in the CFD based on the equalized tax rolls of the County. “Public Parcel” means any Parcel that is or is intended to be publicly owned, as designated in any final map that is normally exempt from the levy of general ad valorem property taxes under California law, including public streets; schools; parks; and public drainageways, landscaping, wetlands, greenbelts, and open space. “Remainder Parcel” means a Parcel that is created as the result of the recordation of a Large Lot Parcel Map or Final Small Lot Subdivision Map, which results in a Parcel within the boundaries of a Large Lot Parcel, that has not been mapped for final development approval. Such a Packet Pg 152 8 Avila Ranch CFD No. 2017-1 (Services) Rate and Method of Apportionment and Manner of Collerciton of Special Tax October 11, 2017 . A-4 P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\Resolution of Formation Documents\Exhibit A_Avila Ranch Rate and Method of Apportinment v4_10-11-17.docx Remainder Parcel may contain taxable and tax-exempt uses, such as Residential Uses, and Public Parcels, such as school or park sites. Once designated as a Remainder Parcel, such Parcel will be considered a Large Lot Parcel for the purposes of future Subdivisions and for the provisions of Sections 4 through 6. “Residential Use” means a Parcel designated for residential use, such as single family residential units, residential condominiums, townhouses, Multifamily Residential Uses, or apartments. “RMA” means the Rate and Method of Apportionment of the Special Tax. “Services Special Tax” means the Special Tax identified in Attachment 1 for each Land Use Category identified to fund the costs of Authorized Services. The Services Special Tax is increased by the Services Special Tax Escalation Factor in each Fiscal Year following the Base Year. “Services Special Tax Escalation Factor” an annual percentage increase in the Fiscal Mitigation Special Tax and Local Area Special Tax based upon the Consumer Price Index (CPI) (prior calendar year annual average, San Francisco, All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) Index), the CPI (prior calendar year annual average, Pacific West Cities, All Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers), or the Municipal Cost Index annual average, whichever is greater, but not exceeding four (4) percent. “Single Family Parcel” means, in any Fiscal Year, all Parcels in the CFD for which a building permit was issued or may be issued for construction of a Unit that is a single family residential, residential condominium, or townhouse Unit. “Special Tax(es)” mean(s) any tax levy under the Act in the CFD. “Subdivision” or “Subdivided” means a division of a Parcel into two or more Parcels through the Subdivision Map Act process. A Subdivision may also include the merging of two or more Parcels to create new Parcels. “Tax Collection Schedule” means the document prepared by the Administrator for the County Auditor-Controller to use in levying and collecting the Special Taxes each Fiscal Year. “Taxable Parcel” means any Parcel that is not a Tax-Exempt Parcel. “Tax-Exempt Parcel” means a Parcel not subject to the annual Special Tax. Tax-Exempt Parcels include Public Parcels, Undeveloped Parcels, and Other Use Parcels. Certain privately-owned Parcels also may be exempt from the levy of annual Special Taxes including common areas owned by homeowner’s associations or property owner associations, wetlands, detention basins, water quality ponds, and open space, as determined by the Administrator. “Undeveloped Parcel” means a Parcel that is a Large Lot Parcel or Remainder Parcel. “Unit” means (a) for Single Family Parcel dwelling unit; and (b) for Multifamily Residential Use Parcel, such as an individual residential unit in an apartment building. Packet Pg 153 8 Avila Ranch CFD No. 2017-1 (Services) Rate and Method of Apportionment and Manner of Collerciton of Special Tax October 11, 2017 . A-5 P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\Resolution of Formation Documents\Exhibit A_Avila Ranch Rate and Method of Apportinment v4_10-11-17.docx 3. Duration of the Special Tax Parcels in the CFD will remain subject to the Services Special Tax in perpetuity. Parcels in the CFD will be subject to the Infrastructure Special Tax through FY 2035-36. If the Special Tax ceases to be levied, the City will direct the County Recorder to record a Notice of Cessation of Special Tax. Such notice will state that the obligation to pay the Special Tax has ceased and that the lien imposed by the Notice of Special Tax Lien is extinguished. The Notice of Cessation of Special Tax, in addition, will identify the book and page of the Book of Maps of Assessment and Community Facilities Districts where the map of the boundaries of the CFD is recorded. 4. Administrative Tasks Administrative tasks required of the Administrator are discussed below: A. Annual Special Tax Escalation. The Administrator shall increase the Fiscal Mitigation Special Tax and Local Area Special Tax by the Services Special Tax Escalation Factor in each Fiscal Year following the Base Year. The Administrator shall increase the Infrastructure Special Tax Infrastructure Special Tax Escalation Factor in each Fiscal Year following the Base Year. B. Assignment of the Maximum Annual Special Tax to Taxable Parcels. As Taxable Parcels are Subdivided or combined, the Administrator will assign the Maximum Annual Special Tax to each new Taxable Parcel based on the records of the City: 1. Assignment of the Maximum Annual Special Tax to Developed Parcels. The Services Special Tax and Infrastructure Special Tax are assigned to Developed Parcels using the following procedures. a. Identify the Building Square Footage for the Residential Use for the Taxable Parcel, as identified in the Building Permit. b. Identify the Land Use Category for the Taxable Parcel based upon the Residential Use type and Building Square Footage in Attachment 1. c. Assign the Services Special Tax for the Taxable Parcel based upon the Land Use Category using the criteria identified in Sections 4.B.1.a and 4.B.1.b, and as increased by the Services Special Tax Escalation Factor and Infrastructure Special Tax Escalation Factor. d. Assign the Infrastructure Special Tax for the Taxable Parcel based upon the Land Use Category using the criteria identified in Sections 4.B.1.a and 4.B.1.b, and as increased by the Infrastructure Special Tax Escalation Factor. e. Sum the Services Special Tax and Infrastructure Special Tax to determine the Maximum Annual Special Tax for the Taxable Parcel. Packet Pg 154 8 Avila Ranch CFD No. 2017-1 (Services) Rate and Method of Apportionment and Manner of Collerciton of Special Tax October 11, 2017 . A-6 P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\Resolution of Formation Documents\Exhibit A_Avila Ranch Rate and Method of Apportinment v4_10-11-17.docx 2. Assignment of the Maximum Annual Special Tax to Final Map Parcels. The Services Special Tax and Infrastructure Special Tax are assigned to Final Map Parcels using the following procedures. a. Assign the Services Special Tax for the Final Map Parcel, as shown in Attachment 1, and as increased by the Services Special Tax Escalation Factor. b. Assign the Infrastructure Special Tax for the Final Map Parcel, as shown in Attachment 1, and as increased by the Infrastructure Special Tax Escalation Factor. c. Sum the Services Special Tax and Infrastructure Special Tax to determine the Maximum Annual Special Tax for the Taxable Parcel. 3. Assignment of the Maximum Annual Special Tax to Undeveloped Parcels. Undeveloped Parcels are not subject to the Maximum Annual Special Tax. C. Affordable Units that Become Market Rate Units. If, in any Fiscal Year, a Unit that previously had been designated as an Affordable Unit no longer qualifies as such, the City shall update the Affordable Unit Listing by denoting the change in status of the Unit, together with the effective date thereof. The Maximum Annual Special Tax on the Unit that no longer qualifies as an Affordable Unit shall be increased to double the amount that would have applied in that Fiscal Year if the Unit had remained as an Affordable Unit. In subsequent Fiscal Years, this increased Maximum Annual Special Tax shall continue to escalate by the Tax Escalation Factor. D. Conversion of a Tax-Exempt Parcel to a Taxable Parcel. If a Tax-Exempt Parcel is not needed for public use and is converted to a taxable use or transferred to a private owner, it shall become subject to the Special Tax. The Maximum Annual Special Tax for such a Parcel will be assigned according to the provisions of Section 4.A and 4.B. E. Taxable Parcel Acquired by a Public Agency. A Taxable Parcel acquired by a public agency shall be reclassified as a Tax-Exempt Parcels and is no longer subject to the Special Tax levy. F. Maintenance of Parcel Records. The Administrator will maintain a development status for each Parcel within the CFD as Parcels are Subdivided and developed. The record will contain the Assessor’s Parcel Number, Land Use Category, number of Units per Taxable Parcel, the Fiscal Mitigation Special Tax, Local Area Special Tax, Infrastructure Special Tax, and Maximum Annual Special Tax for each Taxable Parcel. 5. Assignment of the Maximum Annual Special Tax A. Classification of Parcels. By June 30 of each Fiscal Year, using the Definitions in Section 2, the Administrator shall cause: 1. Each Parcel to be classified as a Taxable Parcel or Tax-Exempt Parcel. 2. Each Parcel to be classified as a Developed Parcel, Final Map Parcel, or an Undeveloped Parcel. Packet Pg 155 8 Avila Ranch CFD No. 2017-1 (Services) Rate and Method of Apportionment and Manner of Collerciton of Special Tax October 11, 2017 . A-7 P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\Resolution of Formation Documents\Exhibit A_Avila Ranch Rate and Method of Apportinment v4_10-11-17.docx B. Assignment of the Maximum Annual Special Tax to Taxable Parcels. The Maximum Annual Special Tax will be assigned to each Taxable Parcel each Fiscal Year using the procedures (not all steps may be applicable for each such Parcel) in Section 4. 6. Calculating Annual Special Taxes The Administrator will compute the Annual Costs and determine the annual Special Tax levy for each Taxable Parcel based on the assignment of the Special Tax in Section 5. The Administrator will then determine the tax levy for each Taxable Parcel using the following process: A. Compute the Annual Services Costs using the definition of Annual Services Costs in Section 2. B. Calculate the Services Special Tax levy for each Taxable Parcel by the following steps: Step 1: Compute 100 percent of the Services Special Tax revenue for all Developed Parcels. Step 2: Compare the Annual Services Costs with the amount calculated in the previous step. Step 3: If the Annual Services Costs are lower than the amount calculated in Step 1, decrease proportionately the Services Special Tax levy for each Developed Parcel until the revenue from the Special Tax levy equals the Annual Services Costs. Step 4: If the Annual Services Costs are greater than the amount calculated in Step 1, increase proportionately the Services Special Tax levy for each Final Map Parcel until the revenue from the Special Tax levy equals the Annual Services Costs, or 100 percent of the Services Special Tax for all Final Map Parcels, if needed to fund Annual Services Costs. C. Compute the Annual Infrastructure Costs using the definition of Annual Infrastructure Costs in Section 2 D. Calculate the Infrastructure Special Tax levy for each Taxable Parcel by the following steps: Step 1: Compute 100 percent of the Infrastructure Special Tax revenue for all Developed Parcels. Step 2: Compare the Annual Infrastructure Costs with the amount calculated in the previous step. Step 3: If the Annual Infrastructure Costs are lower than the amount calculated in Step 1, decrease proportionately the Infrastructure Special Tax levy for each Developed Parcel until the revenue from the Special Tax levy equals the Annual Infrastructure Costs. Step 4: If the Annual Infrastructure Costs are greater than the amount calculated in Step 1, increase proportionately the Infrastructure Special Tax levy for each Final Map Parcel until the revenue from the Special Tax levy equals the Annual Services Costs, or 100 percent of the Services Special Tax for all Final Map Parcels, if needed to fund Annual Infrastructure Costs. Packet Pg 156 8 Avila Ranch CFD No. 2017-1 (Services) Rate and Method of Apportionment and Manner of Collerciton of Special Tax October 11, 2017 . A-8 P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\Resolution of Formation Documents\Exhibit A_Avila Ranch Rate and Method of Apportinment v4_10-11-17.docx E. Sum the amount determined in Sections 6.B and 6.D above. F. Levy on each Taxable Parcel the amount calculated in Section 6.E above. G. Prepare the Tax Collection Schedule and, unless an alternative method of collection has been selected pursuant to Section 9, send it to the County Auditor requesting that it be placed on the general, secured property tax roll for the Fiscal Year. The Tax Collection Schedule will not be sent later than the date required by the Auditor for such inclusion. The Administrator will make every effort to correctly calculate the Special Tax for each Parcel. It will be the burden of the taxpayer to correct any errors in the determination of the Parcels subject to the tax and their Special Tax assignments. 7. Interpretation, Application and Appeal of Special Tax Formula and Procedures Any taxpayer who feels that the amount of the Special Tax assigned to a Parcel is in error may file a notice with the Administrator appealing the levy of the Special Tax. The Administrator will then promptly review the appeal, and if necessary, meet with the applicant. If the Administrator verifies that the tax should be modified or changed, the Special Tax levy will be corrected and, if applicable in any case, a refund will be granted. Interpretations may be made by Resolution of the Council for purposes of clarifying any vagueness or ambiguity as it relates to the Special Tax rate, the method of apportionment, the classification of properties, or any definition applicable to the CFD. Without Council approval, the Administrator may make minor, non-substantive administrative and technical changes to the provisions of this Exhibit that do not materially affect the rate, method of apportionment, and manner of collection of the Special Tax for purposes of the administrative efficiency or convenience or to comply with new applicable federal, state or local law. 8. Prepayment of the Special Tax Obligation The Special Tax for a Taxable Parcel may not be prepaid. The Special Tax is collected to fund Authorized Services in perpetuity, or until the Council determines that the Special Tax should no longer be collected. 9. Manner of Collection The Special Tax will be collected in the same manner and at the same time as ad valorem property taxes, provided, however, that the Administrator or its designee may directly bill the Special Tax and may collect the Special Tax at a different time, such as on a monthly or other periodic basis, or in a different manner, if necessary, to meet the City’s financial obligations. Packet Pg 157 8 DRAFTAttachment 1Avila Ranch CFD No. ___Maximum Annual Special Tax - Base Year of FY 2018-19No. ofServicesInfrastructureMaximum AnnualLand Use CategoryUnitsSpecial TaxSpecial TaxSpecial Tax[1][2] [3][4]Single Family Residential - 1,500 Sq. Ft.322 $2,749.80$300.00 $3,049.80Single Family Residential - <1,500 Sq. Ft.76 $1,832.86$200.00 $2,032.86Multifamily Residential - 1,500 Sq. Ft.38 $2,749.80$300.00 $3,049.80Multifamily Residential - < 1,500 Sq. Ft.252 $1,832.86$200.00 $2,032.86Affordable Multifamily Residential32$916.43$100.00 $1,016.43Undeveloped Parcels [5]Other Land Uses$0.00$0.00$0.00Public and Deed Restricted Land$0.00$0.00$0.00"att1"[1] This Special Tax rate will be increased by the Services Special Tax Escalator in each Fiscal Year following the Base Year of FY 2018-19.[2] This Special Tax rate will be increased by the Infrastructure Special Tax Escalator in each Fiscal Year following the Base Year of FY 2018-19.[3] This Special Tax may be collected in each Fiscal Year through FY 2027-28. This Special Tax will no longer be collectedfollowing FY 2027-28.[4] Beginning with FY 2028-29, the Maximum Annual Special Tax will be equal to the Services Special Tax as the Infrastructure Special Tax will no longer be collected beyond FY 2027-28..[5] Undeveloped Parcels are Final Map Parcels without a Building Permit.Prepared by EPS 8/18/2017F:\Active Projects\162000\161181 Avila Ranch CFD Tecgnical Support\Models\161181 ModelPacket Pg 1588 Exhibit B City of San Luis Obispo CFD No. 2017-1 (Services) Draft List of Authorized Services List of Authorized Services The authorized services to be funded from the levy and collection of annual special taxes include those set forth below in addition to the costs associated with collecting and administering the special taxes, annually administering the District, and costs associated with forming the District. The authorized services to be funded include: 1. Maintenance and lighting of parks, parkways, streets, roads, and open space. 2. Flood and storm protection services, including, but not limited to, the operation and maintenance of storm drainage systems. 3. Police protection services, including, but not limited to, criminal justice services. However, criminal justice services shall be limited to providing services for jails, detention facilities, and juvenile halls. 4. Fire protection and suppression services, and ambulance and paramedic services. 5. Maintenance and operation of any real property or other tangible property with an estimated useful life of five or more years that is owned by the local agency or by another local agency pursuant to an agreement entered into under Section 53316.2. List of Authorized Facilities The authorized facilities to be funded from the levy and collection of annual special taxes include: 1. Local park, recreation, parkway, and open-space facilities. 2. The district may also finance the construction or undergrounding of water transmission and distribution facilities, natural gas pipeline facilities, telephone lines, facilities for the transmission or distribution of electrical energy, and cable television lines to provide access to those services to customers who do not have access to those services or to mitigate existing visual blight. 3. The district may also finance the acquisition, improvement, rehabilitation, or maintenance of any real or other tangible property, whether privately or publicly owned, for flood and storm protection services, including, but not limited to, storm drainage and treatment systems and sandstorm protection systems. 4. A community facilities district may also finance the purchase, construction, expansion, improvement, or rehabilitation of any real or other tangible property with an estimated useful life of five years or longer or may finance planning and design work that is directly related to the purchase, construction, expansion, or rehabilitation of any real or tangible property. The facilities need not be physically located within the Dstrict. Packet Pg 159 8 Packet Pg 1608 Avila Ranch Financing Plan & Community Facilities District Hearing Report Prepared for: City of San Luis Obispo Prepared by: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. October 10, 2017 EPS #161181 Packet Pg 161 8 Table of Contents 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................ 1 2. AVILA RANCH PROJECT OVERVIEW ............................................................................. 3 Avila Ranch Development Plan ................................................................................. 3 Project Planning and Regulation ............................................................................... 5 3. SERVICES AND IMPROVEMENTS TO BE FUNDED ................................................................ 6 Municipal Services .................................................................................................. 6 Infrastructure Improvements ................................................................................... 8 4. FUNDING AND FINANCING SOURCES ......................................................................... 10 Avila Ranch Funding Sources ................................................................................. 10 Economic Considerations ....................................................................................... 12 5. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES AND RELATED ACTIONS ...................................................... 13 Appendices APPENDIX A Avila Ranch Services CFD Preliminary Rate Allocation, Local Area Maintenance and Fiscal Mitigation Combined APPENDIX B Avila Ranch Infrastructure Cost and Allocation Analysis List of Tables Table 1 Sources and Uses of Avila Ranch Infrastructure Financing ...................................... 2 Table 2 Summary of Avila Ranch Services CFD, Preliminary Rate Allocation at Development Stabilization .............................................................................. 6 Table 3 Infrastructure Costs by Type of Infrastructure ...................................................... 8 Packet Pg 162 8 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Avila Ranch Financing Plan and Community Facilities Hearing Report (Financing Plan) identifies the municipal services and infrastructure required to serve the Avila Ranch Project and describes how these will be funded and/or financed over time. In addition to providing a general description of how required municipal services and infrastructure will be funded, the Financing Plan provides a basis for financial terms included in the Development Agreement and also for the Community Facilities District Rate and Method of Apportionment. The Avila Ranch Project will create a new City neighborhood located at the northeast corner of Buckley Road and Vachell Lane. The Avila Ranch Development Plan allows up to 720 dwelling units; a “Town Center” with 15,000 square feet of local-serving retail and office uses; 18 acres of pocket parks, mini-parks and neighborhood parks; and 53 acres of open space, including riparian corridors and farmed agricultural land. The Financing Plan addresses how the Avila Ranch Project will pay for both municipal services and the infrastructure needed as the new neighborhood is constructed and occupied by new residents and businesses. Municipal services include both “Citywide” services and also local area maintenance services provide by the City within the Project area. Services covered by the Financial Plan include maintenance responsibilities for bike paths in the County, and fulfillment of airport noise complaint mitigation agreed to between the Airport Land Use Commission, the project, and the San Luis Obispo County Airport. The need for special funding for these services is created, in part, by the Property Tax Sharing Agreement (adopted by the City and the County in 2008) as a part of the area’s annexation to the City that provides no property tax to the City. Infrastructure needed for the Avila Ranch includes contributions to Citywide, Specific Plan and other subarea development impact fee programs, mitigating impacts upon regional (off- site) infrastructure, and funding “backbone” and subdivision-related improvements within the Project area. Funding for recurring municipal services will be derived from municipal taxes, service charges and fees typically levied by the City augmented by a newly created special tax levied by a Mello- Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) created for the Project Area. Funding for infrastructure improvements will be derived from a variety of sources including direct developer equity investment to build or contribute to building needed infrastructure improvements. Table 1 presents the “sources and uses” of funding for the range of infrastructure required. The key source of infrastructure funding will be “developer equity;” it is estimated that the developer will invest an estimated $57.0 million directly in project-related infrastructure, including paying the City’s development impact fees, which will be updated as part of the City’s development impact fee update. Some of the developer’s investment in City or region-serving infrastructure will be subject to private reimbursement from other benefitting properties or potential impact fee crediting from the City because the developer is either “oversizing” the improvement relative to their nexus-based “fair share” costs, correcting existing deficiencies, or advancing the improvement before its actual need. Because Avila Ranch is located on the periphery of the City, and timing of development is in advance of other development projects in the area, Packet Pg 163 8 Avila Ranch Financing Plan & Community Facilities District Hearing Report October 11, 2017 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 2P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\Resolution of Formation Documents\Avila Ranch Financing Plan & Hearing Report_10-11-17.docx existing infrastructure in both the City and County needs significant upgrading to serve the needs of the Avila Ranch development. Additionally, Avila Ranch is required to participate in the cost of future cumulative, regional facilities that the development impacts. Participation in these projects will be through mitigation fee payments or participation in City impact fee programs. Table 1 Sources and Uses of Avila Ranch Infrastructure Financing The City’s (or other development’s) share of City or region-serving infrastructure will be funded by the City’s development impact fees, exactions on other developers, and other City or regional funding sources. The Avila Ranch CFD may provide an additional source for developer reimbursement and will provide for capital replacement over time, while also providing funding for City services. The preparation of the Financing Plan occurred through a cooperative effort between the Developer team and City staff and their respective consultants, concurrently with preparation of the Avila Ranch Development Plan and related entitlement documents including the Project Environmental Impact Report, the Fiscal Impact Report, the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, Development Plan and the Development Agreement. As part of the preparation of the Financing Plan, care has been taken to assure that the financial burdens upon the developer are consistent with the developer’s need for a reasonable return on its equity investment, that CFD special taxes fall within the City’s related property tax burden policy, and that the City has identified sources for its (or other development’s share of infrastructure costs). Finally, the specific actions required to implement and administer the financing mechanisms are identified in Chapter 5, providing guidance as to how the City will proceed with implementation following action on the Entitlement Documents. Type Description Developer or Builder Equity Developer Equity subject to Credits or Reimbursement Community Facilities District Special Taxes City or Regional Sources In‐tract Infrastructure Developer builds neighborhood streets and facilities shown in Subdivision Map Backbone Infrastructure Developer builds major infrastructure serving Specific Plan Area shown in Subdivision Map Regional Infrastructure Nexus‐based share of major infrastructure (EIR Mitigation, etc.) Regional Infrastructure Oversizing of major infrastructure Citywide or Areawide Infrastructure included in Development Impact Fee Programs Fees paid when building permits issued Infrastructure Item Funding Source Packet Pg 164 8 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 3 2. AVILA RANCH PROJECT OVERVIEW The Avila Ranch Project will create a new City neighborhood within the boundaries of the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP), and will be regulated by the Development Plan and Specific Plan adopted by the City. The Project site is approximately 150 contiguous acres located at the northeast corner of Buckley Road and Vachell Lane, and includes three separate parcels: APN 053-259-006, APN 053-259-004, and APN 053-259-005. Avila Ranch Development Plan The Avila Ranch Development Plan (Development Plan) allows up to 720 dwelling units; a “Town Center” with 15,000 square feet of local-serving retail and office uses; 18 acres of pocket parks, mini-parks and neighborhood parks; and 53 acres of open space, including riparian corridors and farmed agricultural land. These features are described in the Development Plan text and appendices, and on pages 25-89 of the Development Plan. The Development Plan also calls for community gardens, a bicycle and pedestrian pathway along the Tank Farm Creek riparian corridor, and bike connections to the Chevron Project to the north and the Octagon Barn bike facilities to the southwest. Another key improvement specified in the Development Plan is the extension of Buckley Road to South Higuera Street, consistent with the City’s Circulation Element. Residential Uses The Development Plan includes up to 720 residential units of varied density and type. The R-1 units are proposed to be typical single-family homes with front-loaded and alley-loaded garages. The R-2 portions of the development obtain access from alleys and common driveways limiting direct vehicular access points to residential streets. This circulation design allows many of these R-2 units to front on open space areas or the internal residential collector streets, resulting in attractive landscaped setbacks rather than a series of driveways. These project circulation features along with attention to enhancing streetscapes and corridors with landscaping, utilizing interesting architectural features such as front porches, and maintaining tree-covered sidewalks, and unobstructed views of surrounding open spaces provide the underlying framework for creating a walkable and interconnected neighborhood. The R-3 and R-4 units are included at locations that take advantage of adjacent open spaces, and/or proximity to local jobs, transit, and shopping. Table 2 Avila Ranch Development Plan Residential Use Summary Residential Category Quantity Single Family R-1 101 Single Family R-2 297 Single Family R-3 197 Single Family R-4 125 Total Residential Units 720 Packet Pg 165 8 Avila Ranch Financing Plan & Community Facilities District Hearing Report October 11, 2017 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\Resolution of Formation Documents\Avila Ranch Financing Plan & Hearing Report_10-11-17.docx Neighborhood Commercial Uses The Neighborhood Commercial area will allow for 15,000 square feet of building area. It will serve as a focal point and activity center for the project, and will provide shared parking for nearby open space and parks uses, bicycle parking and storage facilities, public plazas for gatherings and special events, and transit connections. Because of the nearby retail shopping center on South Higuera Street, this neighborhood center will focus on small-scale convenience items, and possibly provide some professional service office space. Parks and Recreation Uses The Development Plan designates 18 acres of parkland, which exceeds the General Plan parkland requirement of 16.5 acres (10 acres per 1,000 population per the Parks and Recreation element) by 1.5 acres. Proposed facilities include a centrally located 9.5-acre neighborhood park as well as mini-parks, pocket parks, and community gardens. The “Designated Park” area does not include passive open space and recreational trails, which are counted as part of the “designated Open Space.” The neighborhood park will be linked to surrounding neighborhoods, the Tank Farm Creek riparian corridor and to the regional bikeway system by separated Class I bike paths and Class II bike lanes, and special pedestrian/bike bridges over Tank Farm Creek. According to the concept plan approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission, the neighborhood park will include group BBQs, basketball courts, tot lots, baseball diamonds, soccer fields, pickle ball courts, tennis courts, a dog park, a skate park, and a community meeting pavilion area. Eight mini-parks and a pocket park will also serve the neighborhoods. Each will be one-half to 2.5 acres in size and provide facilities such as community gardens, tot lots, passive play areas, BBQ and picnic areas, basketball courts, community gardens, dog park, and PC1 - 15 landscaping. These mini- and pocket parks will serve residents within a two-block radius and fill the few “gaps” in the coverage for the neighborhood park facilities. The mini-parks will be phased with adjacent residential development to provide park facilities for future residents near their homes. Open Space Uses The Open Space designation is intended to preserve undeveloped or minimally developed land for preservation of natural resources, production agriculture and public safety. The Land Use and Circulation Element (“LUCE”) requires 50 percent of the site area to be dedicated as open space, with up to one-third of that amount allowed to be provided offsite. For this 150-acre project site, there would be a minimum requirement of 50 acres of onsite open space, with the remainder to be provided offsite. As proposed, there are 53 acres of open space proposed onsite, which does not include parks and recreational facilities. The balance of the required open space, 22 acres, will be provided offsite through open space or agricultural conservation easements, or through the development impact fee established by the AASP. The Avila Ranch Development Plan designates the following specific areas for open space: Planning area creeks, to protect and enhance habitat and recreational values; Agricultural buffer areas outside of the URL along the Buckley Road frontage and the easterly project boundary; Packet Pg 166 8 Avila Ranch Financing Plan & Community Facilities District Hearing Report October 11, 2017 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 5P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\Resolution of Formation Documents\Avila Ranch Financing Plan & Hearing Report_10-11-17.docx The ACOS Reservation Space in conformance with the ALUP; and Tank Farm Creek corridor as a linear park, bikeway and passive recreation areas. Project Planning and Regulation The Avila Ranch Project has been designed to be consistent with the City’s General Plan policy framework. The Project, however, will require amendment to the Airport Area Specific Plan, to convert the area from its present commercial designation to a primarily residential area. The foundational and parallel entitlement documents include the following: General Plan Zoning Ordinance Airport Area Specific Plan Avila Ranch Development Plan Avila Ranch Environmental Impact Report Avila Ranch Fiscal Impact Report Avila Ranch Development Agreement Tentative Vesting Subdivision Map and Conditions Packet Pg 167 8 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6 3. SERVICES AND IMPROVEMENTS TO BE FUNDED The Financing Plan addresses how the Avila Ranch Project will pay for both municipal services and the infrastructure needed as the new neighborhood is constructed and occupied by new residents and businesses. Municipal Services Municipal services include both “Citywide” services and also local area maintenance services provide by the City within the Project area. The need for special funding for these services is created, in part, by the Property Tax Sharing Agreement (adopted by the City and the County in February 2008 as a part of a larger annexation of Airport Area Specific Plan properties) that provides no property tax to the City. The anticipated future municipal services costs have been calculated based on a fiscal impact analysis of the Avila Ranch Project and also a detailed assessment of local area maintenance requirements prepared by City staff in collaboration with the Developer team. Table 2 provides a summary of these municipal services costs which are further documented in Appendix A – Municipal Services Cost Worksheet. Table 2 Summary of Avila Ranch Services CFD, Preliminary Rate Allocation at Development Stabilization Citywide Services The Avila Ranch Project is unique from a fiscal perspective given the fact that the Property Tax Sharing Agreement (with San Luis Obispo County pursuant to Revenue and Tax Code Section 99) adopted when the area was annexed to the City provides no transfer of property taxes to the City. This Agreement was adopted by the City because the area at that time was designated in the City’s General Plan for commercial and industrial uses and these uses were assumed to generate other taxes (sales and use taxes, etc.) that would offset the cost of providing municipal services. The Tax Sharing Agreement follows the framework established in the 1998 Master Agreement and provides that within the AASP annexation area, no annual property tax increment shall be transferred from the County to the City, and all existing and future sales tax accruing from annexed area within the Airport Area are to accrue to the City. Item Local Area Maintenance [1] Fiscal Mitigation City CFD Admin [2] Contract CFD Admin [2]Total Annual Costs in CFD at Buildout $1,168,813 $414,156 $97,500 $33,609 $1,714,079 Annual Cost per Unit at Buildout [3]$1,623 $575 $135 $47 $2,381 Avg. Cost per Unit per Month at Buildout $135 $48 $11 $4 $198 Average Annual Tax Burden 0.28% 0.10% 0.02% 0.01% 0.41% [1] Includes City and County direct costs, and Transportation and Leisure, Cultural & Social Services operating costs. [3] Reflects development of 720 units. Does not currently include commercial. [2] City CFD Admin reflects an FTE to oversee CFD. Contract CFD Admin reflects a 2% charge; to be confirmed. Packet Pg 168 8 Avila Ranch Financing Plan & Community Facilities District Hearing Report October 11, 2017 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 7P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\Resolution of Formation Documents\Avila Ranch Financing Plan & Hearing Report_10-11-17.docx Also, there was a presumption that, in the aggregate and after factoring in existing and projected sales tax revenues, the 2008 620-acre annexation would be fiscally positive. For example, the City and County analysis showed that annexation of the Airport Area would be fiscally beneficial to the City and result in an immediate fiscal "net" revenue (operating revenues less operating costs) of approximately $450,000 upon annexation of the area (largely due to the existing sales base in the area), increasing to $750,000 upon build-out. At the time of annexation in 2008, there were existing sales tax revenues of $300,000 annually in the annexed area, according to the February 2008 Staff Report. Nevertheless, the City and EPS deemed it prudent to evaluate the Avila Ranch project on its own to guard against any future volatility in the sales tax revenues and in light of the fact that a significant shift in land use was being considered related to the rezoning of the Avila Ranch property from business park to residential uses. The Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared for the Avila Ranch Project documented municipal service costs and also the municipal revenues that the Project area is expected to generate as it is constructed and occupied.1 Key citywide services include the following: General Government Police protection Fire protection Transportation Leisure, Cultural and Social Services (includes Park and Landscape Maintenance) Community Development Citywide services provided to the Avila Ranch area are estimated to cost some $1.5 million annually when the Project area is fully developed, before accounting for offsetting municipal revenue. The net expenditures, after accounting for revenues and off-setting local area maintenance services, are estimated to cost the City approximately $414,000 per year.2 Local Area Maintenance The Avila Ranch Specific Plan includes a high standard of infrastructure and public facilities that will require maintenance. City staff and the Developer team have collaborated to develop a detailed assessment of the maintenance requirements of the infrastructure facilities, as documented in Appendix A. Local area maintenance services provided to the Avila Ranch area are estimated to cost approximately $1.1 million annually when the Project area is fully developed. Key services include the following: Maintenance of parks and greenbelts Maintenance of residential collectors and arterials, including lighting Maintenance of the Venture Drive bridge over Tank Farm Creek 1 Avila Ranch Fiscal Impact Analysis, ADE, April 2017 2 Fiscal expenditures reflect the revised fire costs and Avila Ranch’s share. The fire costs were revised subsequent to the ADE analysis referenced above. Packet Pg 169 8 Avila Ranch Financing Plan & Community Facilities District Hearing Report October 11, 2017 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 8P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\Resolution of Formation Documents\Avila Ranch Financing Plan & Hearing Report_10-11-17.docx Maintenance of storm drains The Buckley Road bike path (County) and County Airport Sound Abatement services Infrastructure Improvements Infrastructure and municipal facilities required to serve the Project include “Backbone” and “In- tract” Infrastructure as well as “City-serving or regional infrastructure” which is generally located beyond the Project boundary but require improvement (at least in part) due to development of the Project area. These future municipal services costs were estimated by conducting a fiscal impact analysis of the Avila Ranch Project and also a detailed assessment of local area maintenance requirements prepared by City staff in collaboration with the Developer team. Table 3 provides a summary of these infrastructure costs which are further documented in Appendix B – Project Infrastructure Cost Worksheet. Table 3 Infrastructure Costs by Type of Infrastructure Backbone and In-tract Infrastructure The Avila Ranch Project, proposed for a largely undeveloped area, will require the full complement of local infrastructure to serve the Project area including streets and in-street utilities, drainage, parks and trails, and bikeways. These improvements are typically divided into “in-tract” improvements, such as neighborhood streets and utilities, and “backbone” improvements, including collector streets and public facilities (such as parks) that serve the whole project area. Key Backbone Improvements include the following: Buckley Road Extension from Vachell Lane to South Higuera Street Venture Road Residential Collector Tank Farm Creek and Buckley Frontage Bike Path Type of Infrastructure Total Project Costs [1] Transportation $37,234,884 Parks $6,645,500 Water and Sewer $427,500 Public Safety $1,346,250 Intract Improvements $20,896,000 Offsite Improvements $552,000 Total Infrastructure Expenses $67,102,134 Sources: Avila Ranch LLC; City of San Luis Obispo. [1] Total Project Infrastructure costs whether Avila Ranch is building or paying fees. Packet Pg 170 8 Avila Ranch Financing Plan & Community Facilities District Hearing Report October 11, 2017 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\Resolution of Formation Documents\Avila Ranch Financing Plan & Hearing Report_10-11-17.docx Horizon Lane Collector south of Suburban Earthwood Collector Various Transit Stops Improvements to City-serving and Regional Infrastructure The Avila Ranch project, as it develops, will contribute to the demand for City-serving and region-serving infrastructure improvements, including the following: Improvements related to Buckley Road along the Project’s frontage Vachell Lane improvements Various sidewalk improvements Intersection improvements at Tank Farm Road/South Higuera and South Street/South Higuera Horizon Lane south of Tank Farm Bob Jones Trail Bike Path Vachell Lane Widening Packet Pg 171 8 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10 4. FUNDING AND FINANCING SOURCES Avila Ranch Funding Sources Developer Equity Developer equity will be the primary source of funding for infrastructure improvements needed to serve the Avila Ranch area. Developer (or builder) equity will pay impact and mitigation fees, fund construction of all “in-tract” and “backbone” improvements located within the Avila Ranch area, fund the Project’s “fair share” allocation of off-site “regional” improvements, of which some will be subject to fee credits, and advance funding over and above the “fair share” costs, a portion of which will be subject to reimbursement by the City. It is estimated that total developer equity necessary to fund the backbone and in-tract infrastructure and region-serving infrastructure (including the amount beyond the nexus-based “fair share” amount) is $57.0 million. Participation in Area and Citywide Development Impact Fee Programs The Avila Ranch Project will be subject to the City’s various development impact fee programs, including the existing Airport Area Specific Plan fees, the Citywide Traffic Impact fee, LOVR interchange reimbursement fee, special ad hoc fees for environmental mitigation, and water and sewer connection fees as levied at the time building permits are issued. This obligation typically involves paying the impact fees at the time individual building permits are issued. Additional fees are charged by regional agencies including the local school districts. It is important to note that the current AASP does not include fee categories for residential or retail land uses. During 2017 the City engaged in a comprehensive effort to update and reorganize its impact fees. This update includes the recalculation of existing impact fees (excluding the water and sewer connection charges), the consideration of fees for public safety and other community facilities, and the consolidation and redistribution of cost items included in the City’s area impact fee programs. The AASP impact fee program will need to be revised or replaced to incorporate appropriate fee levels for the Avila Ranch project. Construction and dedication of “in-tract” improvements As is common practice, the developer of Avila Ranch will build in-tract and backbone infrastructure within, and on the periphery of, the Avila Ranch area to the specification of the City as documented in the Tentative Subdivision Map and subsequently dedicate these improvements and underlying lands to the City. “Fair Share” allocation of other improvement costs The development of the Avila Ranch Project will increase traffic on existing roadways and create demand for other City/County infrastructure. Many of these improvements are facilities located beyond the project boundary. This additional demand was studied in detail as part of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the mitigation measures identified to maintain policy- based levels of service on these facilities. The mitigation program includes Avila Ranch completing improvements along Higuera Road, extending Buckley Road from Vachell to Higuera, as well as improving Buckley as it fronts the development, among others. The EIR requires these improvements to be installed ahead of need and improved to the 2035 General Plan buildout configuration to the extent feasible. Consequently, the project will construct improvements that Packet Pg 172 8 Avila Ranch Financing Plan & Community Facilities District Hearing Report October 11, 2017 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 11P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\Resolution of Formation Documents\Avila Ranch Financing Plan & Hearing Report_10-11-17.docx are necessary to correct existing deficiencies and to accommodate traffic and other impacts above and beyond its own impacts. Funding regional improvements above the “Fair Share” allocation The Avila Ranch developer has offered to provide funding for regional improvements beyond the Project boundary, and beyond its fair share to build out the improvement to their ultimate configuration to maximum extent feasible. While not expressly obligated to do so, such additional contribution assures that the regional improvements will be built in a timely and efficient manner, benefiting the developer, the City, and the County. Consequently, there are no improvements that are being funded directly by the City or others. Funding for the costs above the project’s fair share will come from future development impact fees generated by the project itself in the form of AASP, citywide and LOVR impact fees, direct contribution from other projects benefiting from those improvements, and fees generated elsewhere in the City and AASP. In some cases, although a project is eligible for reimbursement, Avila Ranch will carry the full cost burden because a facility is not included in one of the funding mechanisms mentioned above. Development Impact Fee or Exaction Revenue Insofar as other developers/builders are obligated to pay their “fair share” of infrastructure improvements by paying the Citywide and area development impact fees or additional nexus- based “exactions,” a portion of this revenue will be used for reimbursement for investments above “fair share” made by the Avila Ranch developer (or other nearby developers that may advance funding for construction of fee-funded facilities and improvements). Community Facilities District The owners of the property have requested and the City has agreed to form a Community Facilities District (CFD) subject to Council action for the Avila Ranch area. Such a CFD, pursuant to the Community Facilities District Act of 1982, allows for the levy of a special tax on real property located within the designated boundary of the CFD for a range of purposes including providing funding for municipal services, local area maintenance, and infrastructure. It is common for the special taxes to be used to service municipal bonds issued for the CFD to fund new development-related infrastructure; however, the CFD for Avila Ranch will be used to fund ongoing City services and infrastructure maintenance as described below. Usage of this financing mechanism is warranted for a number of reasons, including that the project provides significantly greater amount of parks space, open space, bike trails, and other amenities than typical of other developments in the City. The Avila Ranch CFD, as currently envisioned, will provide funding for City service costs not covered by existing taxes (i.e., “fiscal mitigation”) and also for funding maintenance of municipal improvements located within the Avila Ranch area. The CFD may also be used as a source of funding to meet the City’s obligation to reimburse developer funding of regional improvements above “fair share” and also as a source for repair and replacement of local area serving facilities (e.g., local streets, drainage and flood protection facilities, and landscaping). Other Funding Sources Funding for the City’s share of regional improvement costs may be derived from a variety of sources typically used by the City to fund infrastructure, including proceeds from federal, State, and regional grants. However, no grants are currently identified and; moreover, grant funded infrastructure projects require prevailing wages. Packet Pg 173 8 Avila Ranch Financing Plan & Community Facilities District Hearing Report October 11, 2017 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 12P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\Resolution of Formation Documents\Avila Ranch Financing Plan & Hearing Report_10-11-17.docx Economic Considerations Project Feasibility As a part of achieving new development as envisioned in the City’s General Plan and specified in specific plans or other zoning actions, it is in the interest of the City to cooperate with developers and builders to promote feasibility of new development, i.e., that new development generates economic returns sufficient to attract necessary private equity investment and commercial lending. While market conditions can constrain investment at low points in the business cycle, over the longer terms the type and amount of development authorized by the City and the costs imposed for needed infrastructure and facilities should balance so as not to unnecessarily impede desired development. Financial Burden Measures A variety of methods are used to determine the cost burden placed upon new development associated with providing the necessary infrastructure including in-tract and backbone infrastructure improvements and contributions to City-serving infrastructure through payment of impact fees or other mechanisms. The Avila Ranch Project, given the real estate values created and the total cost of infrastructure improvements, is shown to fall within reasonable levels of financial burden. Incidence of Burdens Depending upon the type of funding relied upon to develop a project, the “incidence” of the burden (who pays?) varies. Equity provided by the developer for project costs including contributions to public infrastructure and facilities is a burden on the equity investors in the project. Special taxes or assessments on real property are a burden on the local homeowners or businesses subject to these taxes or assessments. Excise taxes (e.g., sales taxes, utility taxes, transient occupancy taxes) are a burden on those engaging in purchases of these goods. The City has established CFD policies which place a 1.8 percent “cap” on property tax burdens. The Avila Ranch project is located in County Tax Rate Area (TRA) 003-022 which has a total current tax rate of 1.07225 percent,3 including the basic 1 percent rate plus “overrides” related to voter- approved general obligation bonds and special taxes or assessments. Future additional tax overrides may also be approved in the future. In addition to this policy “cap,” market conditions also influence the amount of tax levied. For example, an increase in the amount of taxes levied on real property will affect a home buyers’ ability to qualify for mortgage financing and in turn, the price they are willing to pay for the new home. In the City of San Luis Obispo, Home Owners Associations’ burdens range from approximately $100 per month (peak phases of Serra Meadows, Toscana, Trillium) to a high of $239 per month at Avivo, a full-service condominium project that provides structural replacement, common open space, and community buildings. 3 San Luis Obispo County Auditor-Controller. Packet Pg 174 8 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 13 5. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES AND RELATED ACTIONS The Financing Plan will be implemented concurrent with approval and subsequent development of the Avila Ranch area. Key components of implementation will include the following. Development Agreement The Entitlement Documents for the Avila Ranch Project will include a Development Agreement, a contract between the Developer and the City that vests the entitlement over a long term (15 or 20 years) as consideration for extraordinary benefits to be received by the City for granting the vesting. The Avila Ranch Development Agreement largely provides a framework and security for funding the regional infrastructure improvements and the related reimbursement to the Developer for investments that exceed the “fair share” cost allocation for these improvements. Development Impact Fees and Exactions The Avila Ranch Project development will be subject to the City’s development impact fees as they will exist at the time building permits are issued. At the present time, the Project is subject to the City’s water and wastewater connection fees, transportation impact fee, Airport Area Impact Fees, Los Osos Valley Road Interchange Fee, parks fees, and public art in lieu fees. Concurrent with consideration of the Avila Ranch Project, the City is engaged in an effort to update its development impact fees, potentially resulting in the inclusion of new facilities in the Citywide fees and also reallocation of infrastructure items among the area impact fees and the Citywide fees. The Project will also be responsible for building or funding improvements, termed “exactions,” as specified in the Final Environmental Impact Report. The Development Agreement will include further specification regarding the Project’s development impact fee and exaction obligations. Fee Obligations Subject to the terms included in the Development Agreement, new development in the Avila Ranch Project will pay the fees existing at the time building permits are issued, i.e., be subject to the fees that result from the Development Impact Fee Update. Reimbursement Agreement(s) The Avila Ranch Development Agreement will enable and specify the terms and security for reimbursement agreements that will be created for each of the individual regional improvements. Presently, reimbursement agreements are expected for the following off-site, Citywide or regional facilities: Suburban Widening east of Earthwood Horizon Collector south of Suburban to Avila Ranch with right-of-way Source of Reimbursement Agreement funding A number of infrastructure improvements are specified in the City’s development impact fee programs and Environmental Impact Fee mitigation measures that the Avila Ranch Developer will fund or build beyond its “fair share” allocation of cost. These contributions will be eligible for reimbursement from fees paid by other developers benefiting from these improvements or from other sources. Packet Pg 175 8 Avila Ranch Financing Plan & Community Facilities District Hearing Report October 11, 2017 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 14P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\Resolution of Formation Documents\Avila Ranch Financing Plan & Hearing Report_10-11-17.docx Projects Eligible for Private Reimbursement Two projects have been identified that may be eligible for private reimbursement. Alternatively, these improvements may be incorporated into the updated Impact Fee Program. Buckley Road Extension Bike Path Vachell/Buckley Intersection Control (if installed) Projects Eligible for Impact Fee Credits Insofar as the Developer builds or directly funds infrastructure improvements that are included in one of the City’s development impact fees (e.g., Airport Area, Traffic Impact Fee, etc.), the Developer is eligible to receive a dollar-for-dollar credit against its fee obligations for these improvements. The Development Agreement will specify the precise terms of these fee credits. South Higuera/South Street NB RT Lane (may occur as a private reimbursement) Tank Farm/Higuera SB LT and WB LT South Higuera Sidewalk Tank Farm Creek Bike Path and Bridges Community Facilities District A CFD, as enabled by the Community Facilities District Act of 1982, allows a local jurisdiction to levy a special tax within a specified area to pay for public services and/or infrastructure needed within the area. Over the past three decades, CFDs have become a common mechanism for cities to fund services and finance development-related infrastructure. The levy of any special tax and any related bond issuance is subject to voter approval, if the area is inhabited approval by two-thirds of the voters in the area is required. If fewer than 12 voters are located in the area, approval by the landowners is required (Avila Ranch area currently has no residential uses). City Policy and Approach The City of San Luis Obispo has not, before this Avila Ranch Project, created any CFDs. The City has, in anticipation of Avila Ranch and other development-related financing requirements, adopted policies and procedures related to CFDs that guide formation of the Avila Ranch CFD. A key policy adopted by the City is that “aggregate” property tax burden within the City should not exceed 1.8 percent of assessed value annually. Funding Capacity The funding capacity of a CFD is based upon the type and amount of development within the bounds of the CFD and the amount of the special tax levied against each parcel. Special taxes levied as part of a CFD must clearly specify a “rate and method of apportionment” which defines the amount of the tax levied on each parcel and how the amount may be increased (indexed) over time to account for inflationary cost increases. Generally, CFD special taxes are limited to a fraction of the 1 percent property tax allowed under Article 13 A of the State Constitution. The funding capacity of the Avila Ranch Project, taking account of the market value of development being created, the existing general and special taxes, and the City’s established special tax “cap” of 1.8 percent, is estimated to be approximately $2.9 million annually. Given market conditions and maximum equivalent HOA rates in the community of $200 per month, and the significant amount of smaller multifamily units, the aggregate tax burden on residential units Packet Pg 176 8 Avila Ranch Financing Plan & Community Facilities District Hearing Report October 11, 2017 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 15P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\Resolution of Formation Documents\Avila Ranch Financing Plan & Hearing Report_10-11-17.docx may limit this capacity to below this maximum, resulting in a funding capacity of approximately $1.7 million per year. Special Tax Components The Avila Ranch CFD is primarily being formed to provide a source for funding Citywide services and the maintenance and replacement of public facilities and infrastructure within the Project area. The “Rate and Method of Apportionment” that will be developed as part of CFD adoption will specify how the Avila Ranch special taxes shall be allocated to these uses. Based upon current cost analysis, the allocation of CFD special tax funding at full development of the Avila Ranch Project area would be as follows: Citywide Services $414,000 Local Area Maintenance (City) $1.1 million County Services $66,000 Capital Reimbursement (through 2035/36) $176,000 CFD Administration (City) $97,500 CFD Administration (Contract) $33,500 CFD Administration The City will be required to administer the CFD from year to year. Given the nature of the special tax (a fixed tax rate plus an index-based inflator), this administration is quite simple, involving sending documentation to the County Tax Collector as the annual property tax bills are prepared. This service is typically provided by consultants to the City and costs approximately $10,000 to $20,000 per year depending upon the size of the CFD and complexity of the special tax. There will be some additional administration required by the Finance Department to control CFD funds consistent with the terms of the Rate and Method of Apportionment and related financial reporting (in the CAFR, etc.). Formation Process It is anticipated that the CFD formation will be initiated at the time the Avila Ranch Entitlement Documents are considered for adoption by the City Council. The following steps must be accomplished as part of the CFD formation process: Develop CFD concept and document costs to be funded Map CFD Boundary and conduct voter determination (area occupied area or unoccupied?) Prepare Rate and Method of Apportionment Adopt Resolution of Intention Adopt Resolution of Formation and set date for election Conduct election (or obtain landowner approval) Adopt Ordinance to Levy Special Tax Packet Pg 177 8 APPENDIX A: Avila Ranch Services CFD Preliminary Rate Allocation, Local Area Maintenance, and Fiscal Mitigation Combined Packet Pg 178 8 Table A-1Summary of Avila Ranch Services CFD Preliminary Rate Allocation at Development StabilizationItemLocal Area Maintenance [1]Fiscal MitigationCity CFD Admin [2]Contract CFD Admin [2]TotalAnnual Costs in CFD at Buildout$1,168,813 $414,156 $97,500 $33,609 $1,714,079Annual Cost per Unit at Buildout [3]$1,623$575$135$47 $2,381Avg. Cost per Unit per Month at Buildout$135$48$11$4$198Average Annual Tax Burden0.28% 0.10% 0.02% 0.01%0.41%[1] Includes City and County direct costs, and Transportation and Leisure, Cultural & Social Services operating costs.[3] Reflects development of 720 units. Does not currently include commercial.[2] City CFD Admin reflects an FTE to oversee CFD. Contract CFD Admin reflects a 2% charge; to be confirmed. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/1/2017P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\CFD\Avila Ranch CFD Cost Review 8-01-2017.xlsxPacket Pg 1798 Table A-2Avila Ranch Services CFD Preliminary Rate Allocation, Local Area Maintenance and Fiscal Mitigation CombinedAnnual Revenue/ExpenditureTotal 1 2 3 4 5 6Per Unit (720 Units)Units179292141971010Cumulative Units 179208422619720720Duration/Years30.5222City ComponentLocal Area MaintenanceAnnual Local Area Maintenance Costs($1,103,267) ($319,764) ($100,763) ($77,667) ($365,700) ($239,373)$0($1,532)CFD Project Delivery (Admin. Costs)($97,500)($45,000)($6,752)($5,204)($24,504)($16,040)$0($135)Total LAM Component($1,200,767) ($364,764) ($107,515) ($82,871) ($390,204) ($255,412)$0($1,668)Fiscal MitigationAnnual Fiscal Revenues $850,605 $226,093 $37,043 $226,790 $212,760 $141,120 $6,797 $1,181Annual Fiscal Expenditures $1,529,825 $377,472 $61,155 $451,280 $415,430 $212,987 $11,500 $2,125less Park and Landscape Maintenance$213,528 $42,706 $0 $40,037 $130,786 $0 $0 $297less Transportation$51,536$12,565$2,059$15,334$13,985$7,170$423$72Revised Subtotal, Fiscal Expenditures$1,264,761 $322,201 $59,096 $395,909 $270,659 $205,817 $11,077 $1,757Net Fiscal Impact($414,156) ($96,108) ($22,053) ($169,119) ($57,899) ($64,697) ($4,280) ($575)CFD CalculationsTotal City Costs in CFD (LAM and Fiscal)$1,614,923 $460,872 $129,568 $251,990 $448,104 $320,109$4,280 $2,243Administrative Charge (at 2%)$32,298$9,217$2,591$5,040$8,962$6,402$86$45Total CFD Costs (Annual)$1,647,221 $470,090 $132,159 $257,030 $457,066 $326,512$4,366 $2,288Cumulative CFD Costs$470,090 $602,249 $859,279 $1,316,344 $1,642,856 $1,647,222Cumulative Annual CFD Cost per DU$2,626$2,895$2,036$2,127$2,282$2,288Cumulative Monthly CFD Cost per DU$219$241$170$177$190$191 $191Development Value by Phase$414,360,200 $118,050,500 $19,125,500 $99,320,500 $100,174,500 $77,689,200 $4,500,000Cumulative Development Value$118,050,500 $137,176,000 $236,496,500 $336,671,000 $414,360,200 $418,860,200 $581,750Average Annual CFD Tax Burden by Phase0.40%0.44%0.36%0.39%0.40%0.39% 0.39%County ComponentLocal Area Maintenance($65,546) ($13,425) ($13,721) ($16,050) ($14,775) ($7,575)$0($91)Combined CFD CalculationsTotal Costs (with County) in CFD$1,680,469 $474,297 $143,289 $268,040 $462,879 $327,684$4,280 $2,334Administrative Charge (at 2%)$33,609$9,486$2,866$5,361$9,258$6,554$86$47Total CFD Costs (Annual)$1,714,079 $483,783 $146,155 $273,401 $472,136 $334,238$4,366 $2,381Cumulative CFD Costs$483,783 $629,938 $903,339 $1,375,475 $1,709,713 $1,714,079Cumulative Annual CFD Cost per DU$2,702.70 $3,028.55$2,141$2,222$2,375$2,381Cumulative Monthly CFD Cost per DU$225$252$178$185$198$198 $198Development Value by Phase$414,360,200 $118,050,500 $19,125,500 $99,320,500 $100,174,500 $77,689,200 $4,500,000Cumulative Development Value$118,050,500 $137,176,000 $236,496,500 $336,671,000 $414,360,200 $418,860,200 $581,750Average Annual CFD Tax Burden by Phase0.41%0.46%0.38%0.41%0.41%0.41% 0.41%Cost Allocation per Unit per Month$225.23 $252.38 $178.38 $185.17 $197.88 $198.39Recommended Rate per Unit per Month$225.00 $225.00 $200.00 $200.00 $200.00 $200.00Annual CFD Revenue by Phase$483,300 $561,600 $1,012,800 $1,485,600 $1,728,000 $1,728,000Cost$483,783 $629,938 $903,339 $1,375,475 $1,709,713 $1,714,079Phase Cash Flow($483) ($68,338)$109,461 $110,125 $18,287 $13,921Cumulative Operating Reserve($483) ($68,821)$40,640 $150,765 $169,052 $182,973Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; Avila Ranch LLC; ADE; Kosmont; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.Phase/Revenue and ExpensesEconomic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/1/2017P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\CFD\Avila Ranch CFD Cost Review 8-01-2017.xlsxPacket Pg 1808 Table A-3Local Area Maintenance Annual Cost AssumptionsAvila Ranch CategoryAsset ActivityCost Interval (years)Cost Unit Unit Cost Annual Cost/Unit 1 2 3 4 5 6179292141971010City Maintained AssetsParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Infrastructure & TransportationBridgePed/Bike Bridges100 Each100,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 1 1 Parks and GreenbeltsTransportationNeighborhood WellnessLandscape Maintenance Medians0.083 SF0.04$ 0.48$ 00000Parks and GreenbeltsTransportationNeighborhood WellnessLandscape Maintenance Parkway0.083 SF0.02$ 0.24$ 60,540 9,100 7,000 29,820 41,900 Parks and GreenbeltsTransportationNeighborhood WellnessLandscape Parkway Water (1.21 AF/Ac per WSA)1.000 Acre-Foot3,560.00$ 3,560.00$ 1.68 0.25 0.19 0.83 1.16 - Parks and GreenbeltsTransportationNeighborhood WellnessLandscape Maintenance RAB0.083 SF0.04$ 0.48$ 2,289 4,578 Parks and GreenbeltsTransportationCommunity SafetyLandscape Drainage Basin Inspection1 Each600600.00$ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parks and GreenbeltsTransportationCommunity SafetyLandscape Maintain Water Quality BMPs Monthly0.083 SF0.030.36$ 19,368.00 4,248.00 2,520.00 15,480.00 12,564.00 Parks and GreenbeltsTransportationCommunity SafetyLandscape Inspect Water Quality BMPs per rain0.333 SF0.010.03$ 19,368.00 4,248.00 2,520.00 15,480.00 12,564.00 Parks and GreenbeltsTransportationInfrastructure & TransportationLandscape Retaining50 SF38.00$ 0.76$ 7,250 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessLandscape Sound Berm0.083 SF0.02$ 0.20$ 29,131 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Environmental Health and Open Space Open Space Ongoing Open Space Maintenance1 Acre19.48$ 19.48$ 5.30 2.40 1.70 10.50 14.00 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Environmental Health and Open Space Open Space Operating - Natural Resources Protection1 Acre89.61$ 89.61$ 5.30 2.40 1.70 10.50 14.00 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Environmental Health and Open Space Open SpaceOperational--Ranger Services1 Acre73.04$ 73.04$ 5.30 2.40 1.70 10.50 14.00 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Environmental Health and Open Space Open SpaceRanger Vehicle1 Acre5.00$ 5.00$ 5.30 2.40 1.70 10.50 14.00 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Infrastructure & TransportationBike PathClass I Bike Path Rehabilitation50 SF14.50$ 0.29$ 24,480 12,840 5,760 10,080 19,200 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Infrastructure & TransportationBike PathClass I Bike Path Sealing8 SF0.80$ 0.10$ 24,480 12,840 5,760 10,080 19,200 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Infrastructure & TransportationBike Path Class I Light Energy (1/75 LF)1 Each13.00$ 13.00$ 27 14 6 11 21 - Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Infrastructure & TransportationBike Path Class I Light Maintenance1 Each12.00$ 12.00$ 27 14 6 11 21 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Infrastructure & TransportationBike Path Class I Light Pole Replacement75 Each3,000.00$ 40.00$ 27 14 6 11 21 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Infrastructure & TransportationBike Path Class I Light Replacement25 Each2,500.00$ 100.00$ 27 14 6 11 21 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Infrastructure & TransportationBike PathClass I Vegetation Removal0.25 SF0.05$ 0.20$ 32,640 17,120 7,680 13,440 25,600 - Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkRecreation Structures (Shelters/Pergolas)50 SF150.00$ 3.00$ 400 600 2,900 4,000 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkRecreation Structures (Coatings)10 SF1.67$ 0.17$ 400 600 2,900 4,000 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkOperating - Parks Maintenance1 Acre10,162.47$ 10,162.47$ 3.14 1.34 0.81 10.38 2.58 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkPark Energy Costs1 Acre360.00$ 360.00$ 3.14 1.34 0.81 10.38 2.58 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkPark Water Cost (Avg 1.49 AF/Ac per Parks Plan)1 Acre-Foot3,560.00$ 3,560.00$ 4.68 2.00 1.21 3.84 - Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkPark Water Well Replacement75 Each60,000.00$ 800.00$ 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkPark Water Well Pump and Booster10 Each4,000.00$ 400.00$ 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkPark Water Well Energy Cost0.083 Acre-Foot133.33$ 1,600.00$ 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkParking Lot Rehabilitation40 SF14.50$ 0.36$ 17,200 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkParking Lot Sealing10 SF0.80$ 0.08$ 17,200 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkParks Major Maintenance1 Each Park8,448.28$ 8,448.28$ 2 2 1 2 2 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkPlay Equipment Maintenance15 Each Site100,000.00$ 6,666.67$ 2 2 1 2 2 Parks and GreenbeltsTransportationCommunity SafetyStorm DrainCapital Creek Maintenance15 Each100,000.00$ 6,666.67$ 1.00 Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessTreePark Tree8 Each300.00$ 37.50$ 154 26 25 234 131 - Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Community SafetyTreeRiparian Tree Removal - Storm Event20 Acre150.00$ 7.50$ 5.74 2.37 1.65 2.16 6.16 Residential Collectors and Arterials TransportationInfrastructure & TransportationBridgeBridge Deck Maintenance20 SF50.00$ 2.50$ 3,360 Residential Collectors and Arterials TransportationInfrastructure & TransportationBridgeBridge Replacement100 SF1,700.00$ 17.00$ 3,360 Residential Collectors and ArterialsTransportationInfrastructure & TransportationLighting Street Light Energy1 Each15.00$ 15.00$ 24 5 10 11 14 - Residential Collectors and Arterials TransportationInfrastructure & TransportationLighting Street Light Maintenance1 Each12.00$ 12.00$ 24 5 10 11 14 Residential Collectors and Arterials TransportationInfrastructure & TransportationLighting Street Light Pole Replacement75 Each5,000.00$ 66.67$ 24 5 10 11 14 Residential Collectors and Arterials TransportationInfrastructure & TransportationLighting Street Light Replacement25 Each2,500.00$ 100.00$ 24 5 10 11 14 Residential Collectors and Arterials TransportationInfrastructure & TransportationStreets Operating - Street Maintenance1 SF0.06$ 0.06$ 193,680 42,480 25,200 154,800 125,640 - Residential Collectors and Arterials TransportationCommunity SafetyStorm Drain Drainage Inlets100 Each13,500.00$ 135.00$ 16 4 8 8 4 Residential Collectors and Arterials TransportationCommunity SafetyStorm Drain Manholes100 Each9,500.00$ 95.00$ 21 4 5 11 4 Residential Collectors and Arterials TransportationCommunity SafetyStorm Drain Operating - Flood Control1 LF3.25$ 3.25$ 6,800 550 2,075 2,380 5,500 Residential Collectors and Arterials TransportationCommunity SafetyStorm Drain Pipeline100 LF350.00$ 3.50$ 6,800 550 2,075 2,380 5,500 Residential Collectors and Arterials TransportationInfrastructure & TransportationStreetsAccess Roadway Rehabilitation (Private--Maintained by Homeowners)Residential Collectors and Arterials TransportationInfrastructure & TransportationStreetsAccess Roadway Sealing (Private--Maintained by Homeowners)Residential Collectors and Arterials TransportationInfrastructure & TransportationStreetsCurb and Gutter75 LF35.00$ 0.47$ 10,700 2,400 5,000 6,460 9,100 Residential Collectors and ArterialsTransportationInfrastructure & TransportationStreetsRoadway Rehabilitation75 SF15.00$ 0.20$ 193,680 42,480 25,200 154,800 125,640 Residential Collectors and Arterials TransportationInfrastructure & TransportationStreets Roadway Sealing10 SF1.25$ 0.13$ 193,680 42,480 25,200 154,800 125,640 Residential Collectors and Arterials TransportationInfrastructure & TransportationStreetsReplace Sidewalk100 SF25.00$ 0.25$ 62,700 12,900 29,000 47,100 41,900 Residential Collectors and Arterials Leisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessTreeStreet Tree (25 LF/Each Side)10 Each300.00$ 30.00$ 600 104 80 365 56 319,764$ 100,763$ 77,667$ 365,700$ 239,373$ -$ County Maintained AssetsParks and GreenbeltsParkClass I Bike Path Rehabilitation40 SF 14.50$ 0.36$ 18,096 Parks and GreenbeltsParkClass I Bike Path Sealing8 SF 0.80$ 0.10$ 18,096 Parks and GreenbeltsPark Class I Light Energy 1 Each 13.00$ 13.00$ 20 Parks and GreenbeltsPark Class I Light Maintenance 1 Each 12.00$ 12.00$ 20 Parks and GreenbeltsPark Class I Light Pole Replacement 75 Each 3,000.00$ 40.00$ 20 Parks and GreenbeltsPark Class I Light Replacement 20 Each 1,500.00$ 75.00$ 20 Parks and GreenbeltsParkClass I Vegetation Removal0.25 SF 0.05$ 0.0200$ 18,096 Parks and GreenbeltsBridge Ped/Bike Bridges 100 Each 100,000.00$ 1,000.00$ - County NoiseDU 75.00$ 179 29 214 197 101 Subtotal--County13,425$ 13,721$ 16,050$ 14,775$ 7,575$ -$ Quantity by PhaseSubtotal--City Maintained Assets w/CFD AllocationEconomic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/1/2017P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\CFD\Avila Ranch CFD Cost Review 8‐01‐2017.xlsxPacket Pg 1818 Table A-3Local Area Maintenance Annual Cost AssumptionsAvila Ranch CategoryAsset ActivityCity Maintained AssetsParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Infrastructure & TransportationBridgePed/Bike BridgesParks and GreenbeltsTransportationNeighborhood WellnessLandscape Maintenance MediansParks and GreenbeltsTransportationNeighborhood WellnessLandscape Maintenance ParkwayParks and GreenbeltsTransportationNeighborhood WellnessLandscape Parkway Water (1.21 AF/Ac per WSA)Parks and GreenbeltsTransportationNeighborhood WellnessLandscape Maintenance RABParks and GreenbeltsTransportationCommunity SafetyLandscape Drainage Basin InspectionParks and GreenbeltsTransportationCommunity SafetyLandscape Maintain Water Quality BMPs MonthlyParks and GreenbeltsTransportationCommunity SafetyLandscape Inspect Water Quality BMPs per rainParks and GreenbeltsTransportationInfrastructure & TransportationLandscape RetainingParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessLandscape Sound BermParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Environmental Health and Open Space Open Space Ongoing Open Space MaintenanceParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Environmental Health and Open Space Open Space Operating - Natural Resources ProtectionParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Environmental Health and Open Space Open SpaceOperational--Ranger ServicesParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Environmental Health and Open Space Open SpaceRanger VehicleParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Infrastructure & TransportationBike PathClass I Bike Path RehabilitationParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Infrastructure & TransportationBike PathClass I Bike Path SealingParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Infrastructure & TransportationBike Path Class I Light Energy (1/75 LF)Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Infrastructure & TransportationBike Path Class I Light MaintenanceParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Infrastructure & TransportationBike Path Class I Light Pole ReplacementParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Infrastructure & TransportationBike Path Class I Light ReplacementParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Infrastructure & TransportationBike PathClass I Vegetation RemovalParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkRecreation Structures (Shelters/Pergolas)Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkRecreation Structures (Coatings)Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkOperating - Parks MaintenanceParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkPark Energy CostsParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkPark Water Cost (Avg 1.49 AF/Ac per Parks Plan)Parks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkPark Water Well ReplacementParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkPark Water Well Pump and BoosterParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkPark Water Well Energy CostParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkParking Lot RehabilitationParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkParking Lot SealingParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkParks Major MaintenanceParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessParkPlay Equipment MaintenanceParks and GreenbeltsTransportationCommunity SafetyStorm DrainCapital Creek MaintenanceParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood WellnessTreePark TreeParks and GreenbeltsLeisure, Cultural & Social Services Community SafetyTreeRiparian Tree Removal - Storm EventResidential Collectors and Arterials TransportationInfrastructure & TransportationBridgeBridge Deck MaintenanceResidential Collectors and Arterials TransportationInfrastructure & TransportationBridgeBridge ReplacementResidential Collectors and Arterials TransportationInfrastructure & TransportationLighting Street Light EnergyResidential Collectors and Arterials TransportationInfrastructure & TransportationLighting Street Light MaintenanceResidential Collectors and Arterials TransportationInfrastructure & TransportationLighting Street Light Pole ReplacementResidential Collectors and Arterials TransportationInfrastructure & TransportationLighting Street Light ReplacementResidential Collectors and Arterials TransportationInfrastructure & TransportationStreets Operating - Street MaintenanceResidential Collectors and Arterials TransportationCommunity SafetyStorm Drain Drainage InletsResidential Collectors and Arterials TransportationCommunity SafetyStorm Drain ManholesResidential Collectors and Arterials TransportationCommunity SafetyStorm Drain Operating - Flood ControlResidential Collectors and Arterials TransportationCommunity SafetyStorm Drain PipelineResidential Collectors and Arterials TransportationInfrastructure & TransportationStreetsAccess Roadway Rehabilitation (Private--MaintainResidential Collectors and Arterials TransportationInfrastructure & TransportationStreetsAccess Roadway Sealing (Private--Maintained by Residential Collectors and Arterials Transportation Infrastructure & Transportation StreetsCurb and GutterResidential Collectors and Arterials Transportation Infrastructure & Transportation Streets Roadway RehabilitationResidential Collectors and Arterials Transportation Infrastructure & Transportation Streets Roadway SealingResidential Collectors and Arterials Transportation Infrastructure & Transportation StreetsReplace SidewalkResidential Collectors and Arterials Leisure, Cultural & Social Services Neighborhood Wellness Tree Street Tree (25 LF/Each Side)County Maintained AssetsParks and GreenbeltsParkClass I Bike Path RehabilitationParks and GreenbeltsParkClass I Bike Path SealingParks and GreenbeltsPark Class I Light EnergyParks and GreenbeltsPark Class I Light MaintenanceParks and GreenbeltsPark Class I Light Pole ReplacementParks and GreenbeltsPark Class I Light ReplacementParks and GreenbeltsParkClass I Vegetation RemovalParks and GreenbeltsBridge Ped/Bike BridgesCounty NoiseSubtotal--CountySubtotal--City Maintained Assets w/CFD AllocationTotal Units Annual Cost/Item CFD Allocation Allocation to CFD Allocation Comment/Rationale Comment 720 2.00 2,000$ 2,000$ 100% Normal HOA Cost, but general community benefit- -$ -$ 100% Normal HOA Cost, and primarily local benefit 148,360.00 35,606$ 35,606$ 100% Normal HOA Cost, and primarily local benefit 4.12 14,671$ 14,671$ 100% Normal HOA Cost, and primarily local benefit Acre-Ft price provide by City6,867.00 3,296$ 3,296$ 100% Normal HOA Cost, and primarily local benefit 5.00 3,000$ 3,000$ 100% Inspect and Report on Basin 54,180.00 19,505$ 19,505$ 100%yqygroadway surface 54,180.00 1,625$ 1,625$ 100% Inspect BMPs per significant rain event 7,250.00 5,510$ 5,510$ 100% Normal HOA Cost, and primarily local benefit 29,131.00 5,826$ 5,826$ 100% Normal HOA Cost, and primarily local benefit 33.90 660$ 660$ 100% Normal City Responsibility33.90 3,038$ 3,038$ 100% Normal City Responsibility33.90 2,476$ 2,476$ 100% Normal City Responsibility33.90 170$ 170$ 100% Normal City Responsibility72,360.00 20,984$ 20,984$ 100% Normal HOA Cost, but primarily general community benefit72,360.00 7,236$ 7,236$ 100% Normal HOA Cost, but primarily general community benefit80.40 1,045$ 1,045$ 100% Normal HOA Cost, but primarily general community benefit80.40 965$ 965$ 100% Normal HOA Cost, but primarily general community benefit80.40 3,216$ 3,216$ 100% Normal HOA Cost, but primarily general community benefit80.40 8,040$ 8,040$ 100% Normal HOA Cost, but primarily general community benefit96,480.00 19,296$ 19,296$ 100% Normal HOA Cost, but primarily general community benefit7,900.00 23,700$ 23,700$ 100% Difference between Project Parks/1,000 and City Parks/1,0007,900.00 1,319$ 1,319$ 100%18.25 185,465$ 185,465$ 100% Difference between Project Parks/1,000 and City Parks/1,000 Not sure what this covers; direct maintenance 18.25 6,570$ 6,570$ 100% Difference between Project Parks/1,000 and City Parks/1,00011.73 41,746$ 41,746$ 100% Difference between Project Parks/1,000 and City Parks/1,000yy@ (of $9.98 CCF 2017 Base Water 1.00 800$ 800$ 100%1.00 400$ 400$ 100%1.00 1,600$ 1,600$ 100%gFT17,200.00 6,235$ 6,235$ 100% Difference between Project Parks/1,000 and City Parks/1,00017,200.00 1,376$ 1,376$ 100% Difference between Project Parks/1,000 and City Parks/1,0009.00 76,034$ 76,034$ 100% Difference between Project Parks/1,000 and City Parks/1,000 Break down by Acre? 9.00 60,000$ 60,000$ 100% Difference between Project Parks/1,000 and City Parks/1,000yequipment/improvements replaced every 15 years 1.00 6,667$ 6,667$ 100% Normal City Responsibility570.00 21,375$ 21,375$ 100% Difference between Project Parks/1,000 and City Parks/1,00018.08 136$ 136$ 100% Normal City Responsibility3,360.00 8,400$ 8,400$ 100% Normal City Responsibility3,360.00 57,120$ 57,120$ 100% Normal City Responsibility64.00 960$ 960$ 100% Normal City Responsibility64.00 768$ 768$ 100% Normal City Responsibility64.00 4,267$ 4,267$ 100% Normal City Responsibility64.00 6,400$ 6,400$ 100% Normal City Responsibility541,800.00 30,929$ 30,929$ 100% Normal City Responsibility Not sure what this covers; R&R covered elsewhere40.00 5,400$ 5,400$ 100% Normal City Responsibility45.00 4,275$ 4,275$ 100% Normal City Responsibility17,305.00 56,248$ 56,248$ 100% Normal City Responsibility17,305.00 60,568$ 60,568$ 100% Normal City Responsibility- -$ -$ 0% Maintained by homeowners - -$ -$ 0% Maintained by homeowners 33,660.00 15,708$ 15,708$ 100% Normal City Responsibility Full replacement ever 70 years 541,800.00 108,360$ 108,360$ 100% Normal City Responsibility total city currently spends on this item) 541,800.00 67,725$ 67,725$ 100% Normal City Responsibility Every 8 years. What is the current city schedule? 193,600.00 48,400$ 48,400$ 100%1,205.00 36,150$ 36,150$ 100% Normal City Responsibility, primarily local benefitSame as Park Tree; BRE is $35 1,103,267$ 1,103,267$ 1,103,267$ 18,096 6,560$ 6,560$ 100% County to Maintain Buckley; Avila to Maintain Class I 18,096 1,810$ 1,810$ 100% County to Maintain Buckley; Avila to Maintain Class I 20 261$ 261$ 100%County to Maintain Buckley; Avila to Maintain Class I Not sure County will want lights/lighting 20 241$ 241$ 100% County to Maintain Buckley; Avila to Maintain Class I Not sure County will want lights/lighting 20 804$ 804$ 100% County to Maintain Buckley; Avila to Maintain Class I Not sure County will want lights/lighting 20 1,508$ 1,508$ 100% County to Maintain Buckley; Avila to Maintain Class I Not sure County will want lights/lighting 18,096 362$ 362$ 100% County to Maintain Buckley; Avila to Maintain Class I - -$ -$ 100% County to Maintain Buckley; Avila to Maintain Class I 720 54,000$ 54,000$ 100% Per ALUC Approval Condition65,546$ 65,546$ 65,546$ CFD AllocationEconomic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/1/2017P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\CFD\Avila Ranch CFD Cost Review 8‐01‐2017.xlsxPacket Pg 1828 Table A-4 Fiscal Mitigation Assumptions Budget Category Total General Fund Revenues Taxes Property Tax $0 Property Tax in lieu of VLF $297,169 Sales Tax: General $129,987 Sales Tax: Measure G $64,994 Sales Tax: Public Safety $3,220 Utility Users Tax $122,980 Franchise Fees $34,435 Business Tax Certificates $1,463 Real Property Transfer Tax $22,963 Service Charges Recreation Fees $58,856 Other Charges for Services $38,704 Other Revenue Fines and Forfeitures $3,449 Interest Earnings and Rents $4,263 Other Revenues $2,331 Transfers In Gas Tax/TDA $35,971 Other $29,820 Total Revenues $850,605 General Fund Expenditures General Government $294,029 Police $332,799 Fire [1]$398,463 Transportation [2]$51,536 Leisure, Cultural and Social Services $130,497 Park and Landscape Maintenance [3]$213,528 Community Development $106,747 Transfers Out $2,226 Total Expenditures $1,529,825 Net Fiscal Impact ($679,220) Reduce Parks and Landscape Maintenance [4] $213,528 Reduce for Transportation [4] $51,536 REVISED Net Fiscal Impact ($414,156) [1] [2] Included in LAM; exclude for Fiscal Mitigation. [3] Included in LAM; exclude for Fiscal Mitigation. [4] Included in LAM. Increased per City allocation 7-28-2017; reflects cost of operating station and Avila Ranch's share (25% of 590 acres). Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/1/2017 P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\CFD\Avila Ranch CFD Cost Review 8‐01‐2017.xlsxPacket Pg 183 8 APPENDIX B: Avila Ranch Infrastructure Cost and Allocation Analysis including CFD Reimbursement Amount Packet Pg 184 8 Table B-1Summary of Infrastructure FundingType of InfrastructureTotal Project Costs [1] Avila Ranch Pro Rata Share Total Cost of Projects Built by Avila Ranch Additional Mitigation or Impact Fees Being Paid Amount of Potential Private Reimbursement Amount of Potential Impact Fee Credit for Built Projects Final Out of Pocket for Avila Ranch Transportation $37,234,884 $17,622,154 $21,226,500 $5,883,194 ($561,350) ($3,759,000) $22,789,344 Parks $6,645,500 $6,645,500 $6,645,500 $6,645,500 Water and Sewer $427,500 $427,500 $427,500 $427,500 Public Safety$1,346,250 $1,346,250 $1,346,250 $1,346,250 Intract Improvements$20,896,000 $20,896,000 $20,896,000 $20,896,000 Offsite Improvements$552,000 $552,000 $552,000 $552,000 Total Infrastructure Expenses$67,102,134 $47,489,404 $51,093,750 $5,883,194 ($561,350)($3,759,000) $52,656,594 [1] Total Project Infrastructure costs whether Avila Ranch is building or paying fees.Sources: Avila Ranch LLC; City of San Luis Obispo; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/1/2017P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\Capital Costs&Fees\Avila Ranch Infrastructure Cost Analysis_09-01-2017.xlsxPacket Pg 1858 Table B-2 Avila Ranch Infrastructure Cost and Allocation Analysis Item Total Project Cost Estimate Implementation/ Participation by Avila Ranch Nexus Allocation to Avila Ranch Allocation to Avila Ranch (Absent Credits or Reimbursements) Percent Up-Front Amount Reimbursement Agreement Requested/ Recommended? If Yes, Amount Subject to Private Reimbursement T1 Transit Stops $75,000 Build 100.0%$75,000 100% $75,000 No T2 Buckley Road Widening - Vachell to Avila PL $2,294,500 Build Ph 1 & 4 50.0%$1,147,250 100% $2,294,500 No T3 Suburban Sidewalk Sidewalks W/O Earthwood (Existing Deficiency)$125,000 Build Phase 1 100.0%$125,000 100% $125,000 No T4 Suburban Signal Modifications $125,000 Build Phase 1 100.0%$125,000 100% $125,000 No T5 Venture Residential Collector $2,612,000 Build Phase 1,2,3 100.0%$2,612,000 100% $2,612,000 No T6 Buckley Frontage Bike Path $655,000 Build Phase 1, 4 100.0%$655,000 100% $655,000 No T7 Horizon/Jesperson Collector Avila Ranch $2,163,000 Build Phase 4 75.0%$1,622,250 100% $2,163,000 No T8 US 101/S. Higuera Interchange - Prepare PS&E for SB Ramp Metering $50,000 Complete Phase 1- 2 100.0%$50,000 100% $50,000 No T9 County Offsite Improvements related to Buckley Road Intersections (at HWY 227 and Davenport Creek) (T34)$430,000 Payment to County N/A N/A 100% $430,000 No T10 Vachell Lane Widening, LTL @ Venture, misc sidewalks and Class II Bike Lanes $650,000 Build Phase 1 50.0%$325,000 100% $650,000 No T11 Earthwood Collector Suburban to Venture $418,000 Build Phase 1 75.0%$313,500 100% $418,000 No T12 Buckley Road Extension - Vachell to South Higuera $6,000,000 Build Phase 2 25.0%$1,500,000 100% $6,000,000 No T13 Suburban Widening E/O Earthwood $450,000 Build Phase 4 34.7%$156,150 100% $450,000 Yes $293,850 T14 Horizon Collector South of Suburban to Avila Ranch w/ROW $770,000 Build Phase 4 75.0%$577,500 100% $770,000 Yes $192,500 T15 South Higuera/Vachell Lane $150,000 Build Phase 2 50.0%$75,000 100% $150,000 Yes $75,000 T16 Tank Farm/Higuera SB Dual LT $470,000 Build Phase 1 13.4%$62,980 100% $470,000 No $0 T17 Tank Farm Creek Bike Path $860,000 Build Phase 1,2,3 75.0%$645,000 100% $860,000 No T18 Tank farm Creek Bikepath - Chevron s/o TFR $934,000 Build phase 4 if ROW 100.0%$934,000 100% $934,000 No T19 Tank Farm/Higuera WB Dual RT $670,000 Build Phase 4 13.4%$89,780 100% $670,000 No $0 T20 Buckley Extension Bike Path $500,000 Build Phase 2 25.0%$125,000 100% $500,000 No T21 US 101/LOVR Interchange - Install SB Ramp Metering $250,000 Build Phase 1 100.0% $250,000 100% $250,000 No $0 T22 South Higuera/South Street NB RT Lane $370,000 Build Phase 1 30.8%$113,960 100% $370,000 Yes 1 $0 T23 South Higuera Sidewalk - Vachell to LOVR $125,000 Build Phase 1 100.0% $125,000 100% $125,000 No T24 South Higuera Sidewalk - City Limit to LOVR $80,000 Build Phase 2 24.3%$19,440 100% $80,000 No Subtotal:$21,226,500 $11,723,810 $21,226,500 $561,350 T25 LOVR Interchange (Impact Fees remaining after crediting from above)$3,172,464 Pay Impact Fees 100.0%$3,172,464 100% $3,172,464 No T26 Citywide TIF Impact Fees (Remaining to be paid - reduced for potential TIF Credit shown above) $ 1,501,920 Pay Impact Fees $1,501,920 100% $ 1,501,920 No T27 Horizon Lane S/O Tank Farm to Suburban $594,000 Pay Impact Fees 25.0%$148,500 0%$0 No T28 Prado/Higuera NB Dual LT $750,000 Pay Impact Fees 8.5%$63,750 0%$0 No T29 Prado/Higuera Cumulative Improvements (Dual LT, RT, 2 Thru) $2,000,000 Pay Impact Fees 0.0%$0 0%$0 No T30 AASP Impact Fees (Remaining to be paid - reduced for potential AASP Credit shown above)$0 Pay Impact Fees $0 100%$0 No T31 LOVR/Higuera Intersection Improvements $2,540,000 Pay MIT Fees 25.4%$645,160 25.4% $645,160 No T32 Bob Jones Trail Bike Path $1,250,000 Pay MIT Fees 5.8%$72,500 5.8% $72,500 No T33 Buckley/Vachell Intersection $650,000 Pay MIT Fees 16.5%$107,250 16.5% $107,250 No T34 Buckley/HWY 227 Intersection $2,700,000 Pay MIT Fees 2.7%$72,900 10.0% $270,000 No T35 Tank Farm/Higuera NB RT extension $850,000 Pay MIT Fees 13.4% $113,900 13.4% $113,900 No Subtotal:$16,008,384 $5,898,344 $5,883,194 $0 Total All Transportation:$37,234,884 $17,622,154 $27,109,694 $561,350 Parks - Land and Improvements (18 acres) $6,645,500 100.0%$6,645,500 100% $6,645,500 No Water and Sewer $427,500 100.0%$427,500 100% $427,500 No Public Safety - Interim Fire Station $1,346,250 100.0%$1,346,250 100% $1,346,250 No Intract Improvements - Not Specified Above $20,896,000 100.0%$20,896,000 100% $20,896,000 No Offsite Improvements - Not Specified Above $552,000 100.0%$552,000 100% $552,000 No Subtotal:$29,867,250 $29,867,250 $29,867,250 Grand Total:$67,102,134 $47,489,404 $56,976,944 $561,350 Pay Mitigation Fee - Pro Rata or AASP If Amended into P Build Project (Eligible for City TIF Fee Credits/Reimburs Pay Fee - LOVR Pay Fee - Citywide TIF Pay AASP Fee (or Mitigation Fee as Identified) Pay Mitigation Fee - Pro Rata Build Project (Potential Private Reimbursement) Build Project (No Reimbursement) Build Project (Eligible for AASP Fee Credits/Reimbursem Build Project (Eligible for AASP Fee Credits/Reimbursem Build Project (Eligible for LOVR Credits) Allocation to Avila Ranch Developer Equity Projects to be Built by Avila RanchAvila Ranch Pay Impact Fees/Mitigation FeeOther Costs Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/1/2017 P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\Capital Costs&Fees\Avila Ranch Infrastructure Cost Analysis_09-01-2017.xlsxPacket Pg 186 8 Table B-2 Avila Ranch Infrastructure Cost and Allocation Analysis Item Total Project Cost Estimate T1 Transit Stops $75,000 T2 Buckley Road Widening - Vachell to Avila PL $2,294,500 T3 Suburban Sidewalk Sidewalks W/O Earthwood (Existing Deficiency)$125,000 T4 Suburban Signal Modifications $125,000 T5 Venture Residential Collector $2,612,000 T6 Buckley Frontage Bike Path $655,000 T7 Horizon/Jesperson Collector Avila Ranch $2,163,000 T8 US 101/S. Higuera Interchange - Prepare PS&E for SB Ramp Metering $50,000 T9 County Offsite Improvements related to Buckley Road Intersections (at HWY 227 and Davenport Creek) (T34)$430,000 T10 Vachell Lane Widening, LTL @ Venture, misc sidewalks and Class II Bike Lanes $650,000 T11 Earthwood Collector Suburban to Venture $418,000 T12 Buckley Road Extension - Vachell to South Higuera $6,000,000 T13 Suburban Widening E/O Earthwood $450,000 T14 Horizon Collector South of Suburban to Avila Ranch w/ROW $770,000 T15 South Higuera/Vachell Lane $150,000 T16 Tank Farm/Higuera SB Dual LT $470,000 T17 Tank Farm Creek Bike Path $860,000 T18 Tank farm Creek Bikepath - Chevron s/o TFR $934,000 T19 Tank Farm/Higuera WB Dual RT $670,000 T20 Buckley Extension Bike Path $500,000 T21 US 101/LOVR Interchange - Install SB Ramp Metering $250,000 T22 South Higuera/South Street NB RT Lane $370,000 T23 South Higuera Sidewalk - Vachell to LOVR $125,000 T24 South Higuera Sidewalk - City Limit to LOVR $80,000 Subtotal:$21,226,500 T25 LOVR Interchange (Impact Fees remaining after crediting from above)$3,172,464 T26 Citywide TIF Impact Fees (Remaining to be paid - reduced for potential TIF Credit shown above) $ 1,501,920 T27 Horizon Lane S/O Tank Farm to Suburban $594,000 T28 Prado/Higuera NB Dual LT $750,000 T29 Prado/Higuera Cumulative Improvements (Dual LT, RT, 2 Thru) $2,000,000 T30 AASP Impact Fees (Remaining to be paid - reduced for potential AASP Credit shown above)$0 T31 LOVR/Higuera Intersection Improvements $2,540,000 T32 Bob Jones Trail Bike Path $1,250,000 T33 Buckley/Vachell Intersection $650,000 T34 Buckley/HWY 227 Intersection $2,700,000 T35 Tank Farm/Higuera NB RT extension $850,000 Subtotal:$16,008,384 Total All Transportation:$37,234,884 Parks - Land and Improvements (18 acres) $6,645,500 Water and Sewer $427,500 Public Safety - Interim Fire Station $1,346,250 Intract Improvements - Not Specified Above $20,896,000 Offsite Improvements - Not Specified Above $552,000 Subtotal:$29,867,250 Grand Total:$67,102,134 Pay Mitigation Fee - Pro Rata or AASP If Amended into P Build Project (Eligible for City TIF Fee Credits/Reimburs Pay Fee - LOVR Pay Fee - Citywide TIF Pay AASP Fee (or Mitigation Fee as Identified) Pay Mitigation Fee - Pro Rata Build Project (Potential Private Reimbursement) Build Project (No Reimbursement) Build Project (Eligible for AASP Fee Credits/Reimbursem Build Project (Eligible for AASP Fee Credits/Reimbursem Build Project (Eligible for LOVR Credits) Developer Final Equity (Not Subject to Credit or Reimbursement) If No and If Developer Equity is 100%, Value to City If No and If Developer Equity is 100%, Value to County TIF AASP AASP (Future) LOVR $75,000 $2,294,500 $1,147,250 $125,000 $125,000 $2,612,000 $655,000 $2,163,000 $540,750 $50,000 $430,000 $430,000 $650,000 $214,500 $110,500 $418,000 $104,500 $6,000,000 $1,125,000 $3,375,000 $156,150 $577,500 $75,000 $470,000 $0 $815,000 $45,000 $0 $934,000 $0 $670,000 $0 TBD $500,000 $93,750 $281,250 $250,000 $0 $0 $ 370,000 $0 $ 125,000 $0 $ 80,000 $0 $ 575,000 $2,889,000 $45,000 $250,000 $16,906,150 $2,078,500 $5,344,000 $3,172,464 $0 $1,501,920 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $645,160 $72,500 $72,500 TBD $107,250 $542,750 TBD $270,000 $270,000 TBD $113,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,883,194 $615,250 $270,000 $575,000 $2,889,000 $45,000 $250,000 $22,789,344 $2,693,750 $5,614,000 $6,645,500 $0 $427,500 $1,346,250 $0 $20,896,000 $552,000 $29,867,250 $575,000 $2,889,000 $45,000 $250,000 $52,656,594 $2,693,750 $5,614,000 Amount Subject to Fee Credit Fee Credit and Reimbursement Agreement Status Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/1/2017 P:\161000s\161181AvilaRanch\Capital Costs&Fees\Avila Ranch Infrastructure Cost Analysis_09-01-2017.xlsxPacket Pg 187 8 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Avila Ranch Community Facilities District No. 1-2017 OFFICIAL BALLOT SPECIAL TAX ELECTION This ballot is for a special, landowner voter election. You must return this ballot in the enclosed postage paid envelope to the office of the City Clerk of the City of San Luis Obispo no later than the hour of 6:00 p.m. on October 27, 2011, either by mail or in person. The Clerk’s office is located at 990 Palm Drive San Luis Obispo, CA]. To vote, mark a cross (X) on the voting line after the word “YES” or after the word “NO”. All marks otherwise made are forbidden. All distinguishing marks are forbidden and make the ballot void. If you wrongly mark, tear, or deface this ballot, return it to the City Clerk of the City of San Luis Obispo and obtain another. BALLOT MEASURE: Shall a special tax, as specified in the Rate and Method of Apportionment (Attachment 1 of Exhibit A) to the Resolution of Formation payable solely from lands within the boundary of Avila Ranch Community Facilities District as shown on Exhibit C of the Resolution of Intention be levied annually, commencing in the District’s first fiscal year 2018-19 YES: __________ NO: __________ The property that is the subject of this Ballot is identified as Avila Ranch, County Assessor Parcel No(s): 053-259-004 053-259-005 053-259-006 Total Acreage: [ ] Number of votes: 1 The name of the landowner voter of record of such property and the signor of the Ballot is: ___________________________________ (PRINT VOTER NAME) Signature: ____________________________ ____________________________ ____________________________ Address: _____________________________ _____________________________ Packet Pg 188 8 - 1 - ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE AVILA RANCH PROJECT OCTOBER 24, 2017 A. INTRODUCTION This document is an Addendum to the certified Final Environmental Impact Report (“Final EIR” or “EIR”) prepared for the Avila Ranch Project (State Clearinghouse Number 2015081034). The Final EIR was certified by the lead agency, the City of San Luis Obispo, on September 19, 2017 (see Resolution in the Council Agenda Report of September 19, 2017). The Addendum is intended to update the existing CEQA documentation as appropriate to address the formation of a Community Facilities District (CFD), a funding mechanism intended to implement development under the Avila Ranch project. Because the approved project has not changed, and there are no new significant impacts as a result of the formation of the CFD, an Addendum is the appropriate CEQA document to address the updated project. B. ADDENDUM REQUIREMENTS The Addendum has been prepared in accordance with the relevant provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 (as amended) and the State CEQA Guidelines as implemented by the City of San Luis Obispo. According to §15164(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, an Addendum to an EIR is the appropriate environmental document in instances when “only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15262 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred”. Section 15162(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for a project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or Packet Pg 189 8 - 2 - (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. This Addendum does not require circulation because it does not provide significant new information that changes the certified Final EIR in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect. This Addendum includes this introduction, a description of the proposed project, and a discussion of the impacts for all environmental issue areas listed in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The originally certified Final EIR is available for reference online at the following location: https://tinyurl.com/ydx3d52r. The City shall consider this Addendum with the certified Final EIR as part of the approval of the updated project. C. PREVIOUS CEQA DOCUMENTATION The Avila Ranch Project was analyzed in an Initial Study prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063. Based on this analysis, a Draft EIR was prepared and circulated for public review in accordance with CEQA requirements. The extended 55-day public review period began on November 23, 2016 and ended on January 18, 2017. Portions of the document relating to energy use were subsequently recirculated for additional public review from February 21 to April 7, 2017. Public comments received during these review periods, including testimony from public meetings related to the Draft EIR during these review periods, were responded to in a Final EIR. In some cases, the Final EIR include d minor revisions from the Draft EIR that resulted from public input received. The City Council certified the Final EIR on September 19, 2017. Packet Pg 190 8 - 3 - A mitigation monitoring program was included in the certified Final EIR. Mitigation measures will be included in the project design and implementation. A Notice of Determination (NOD) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15075 was filed on September 20, 2017, following project approval. This began a 30-day period during which any potential court challenges to the project could have been filed. However, no challenges were filed during that time, and the statute of limitations for court challenges related to the project based on the CEQA documentation expired (CEQA Guidelines Section 15075(g)). The CEQA process for the originally approved project was completed at that time. D. UPDATED PROJECT ELEMENTS The following summarizes the key project elements covered by the CEQA documentation for this project, including both the certified Final EIR and this Addendum. The updated project includes the formation and implementation of a Community Facilities District (CFD), which is a financing mechanism that would implement a portion of the development anticipated under the Avila Ranch project. The following discussion summarizes the key aspects of the CFD, including its formation , purpose, and implementation. Please refer to the October 24, 2017, Council Agenda Report for additional details and discussion. 1. Background The City Council adopted the Avila Ranch Community Facilities District (CFD) Resolution of Formation at its September 19, 2017, meeting. This action followed preparation of the proposed CFD as part of the Entitlement Documents that include the Final Environmental Impact Report, the Development Plan, the Subdivision Map, and the Development Agreement. Prior to preparation of the CFD the City Council, as part of the 2017-2019 Financial Plan, included new financial policies that establish a framework for land-secured special tax financing. A CFD, as enabled by the Community Facilities District Act of 1982, allows a local jurisdiction to levy a special tax within a specified area to pay for public services and/or infrastructure needed within the area. Over the past three decades, CFDs have become a common mechanism for cities to fund services and finance development -related infrastructure. The levy of any special tax and any related bond issuance is subject to voter approval, if the area is inhabited approval by two-thirds of the voters in the area is required. If fewer than 12 voters are located in the area, approval by the landowners is required (the Avila Ranch area currently has no residential uses). The owners and developers of the Avila Ranch property have requested and the City has agreed to consider formation of a Community Facilities District (CFD), subject to Council Packet Pg 191 8 - 4 - action on the Avila Ranch entitlement documents. Such a CFD, allows for the levy of a special tax on real property located within the designated boundary of the CFD for a range of purposes including funding municipal services, local area maintenance, and infrastru cture. It is common for the special taxes to be used to service municipal bonds issued for the CFD to fund new development-related infrastructure. The Avila Ranch CFD, as proposed, will be used to fund Citywide services affected by the new development, maintenance of local area public facilities, and reimbursing the Developer for funding advances or construction of key infrastructure items (over and above the Project’s demonstrated “fair share” of such infrastructure costs. 2. Technical Specification of CFD As part of its approval of the Avila Ranch CFD Resolution of Intention, the City Council specified and approved the following technical aspects as documented in the Rate and Method of Apportionment. The key aspects are summarized below, and discussed in greater detail in the October 24, 2017, Council Agenda Report : • Funding Capacity. The funding capacity of a CFD is based upon the type and amount of development in the boundary of the CFD upon which the special tax is levied and the amount of the tax per parcel. Special taxes levied as part of a CFD must be clearly specified by a “rate and method of apportionment” which defines the amount of the tax levied on each parcel and how the amount may be increased (indexed) over time to account for any inflationary cost increases. Generally, and as reflected in the City’s adopted policy, CFD special taxes are limited to a fraction of the 1 percent property tax allowed under Article 13 A of the State Constitution. The funding capacity of the Avila Ranch Project, taking a ccount of the market value of development being created, the existing general and special taxes, and the City’s established special tax “cap” of 1.8 percent is estimated to be approximately $2.9 million annually at full buildout of the project. Given market conditions and maximum equivalent HOA rates in the community of $200 per month, and market considerations, and the significant amount of smaller and multifamily units the aggregate tax burden on residential units may limit capacity likely to be below thi s maximum, resulting in a funding capacity at $1.7 million per year at full buildout of the project. The City Council determined that the Special Tax schedule was appropriate. • Purpose of the Special Tax. The Rate and Method of Apportionment (RMA) specifies the special tax to be levied as part of the Avila Ranch Community Facilities District (CFD). In this case, the special tax will fund local area maintenance costs; provide for fiscal mitigation (City and County) and serve as a source of reimbursement funding if needed. Administrative costs are also included. Detailed analysis of public service costs, including the need for fiscal mitigation and local area facilities maintenance has been conducted as part of ongoing staff work and negotiations with the Avila Ranch Developer. The funding components that have Packet Pg 192 8 - 5 - resulted from this analysis include: a. Citywide Services: $230,000 b. Local Area Maintenance: $1.2 million c. County Services: $88,000 d. Capital reimbursement: (TBD) e. CFD Administration: $20,000 • Components of the Special Tax. Because there are different reasons for including each of the two components, there are different instructions in the RMA related to each. The first component is for local area maintenance services and will be needed indefinitely and can be adjusted if a new property tax sharing agreement with the County is achieved that provides a greater share of property tax to the City. The second component is for reimbursement of capital outlay by the Developer in excess of fair share costs. The tax will only be levied through 2035-2036 and once reimbursements will terminate. The City Council determined that a single CFD addresses all objectives. • Special Tax Rate Structure. Special property taxes are "parcel" taxes (a given rate per parcel). Varying taxes by use or intensity requires a logical structure, often linked to service demand (may not be ad valorem). Current special tax calculations determined an "average" special tax for all units in Avila Ranch of $2,400 per year. There are 4 residential prototypes: R-1 (7 DU/ac); R-2 (12 DU/ac; R-3 townhomes (20 DU/ac); and R-4, stacked flats (24 DU/ac). A "flat tax" rate could be set for all residential uses based on the special tax revenue calculations; alternatively, a rate sensitive to unit type (zoning designation or single family/multifamily) and size can be established, based on a variable that is linked to service demand. Special taxes can be charged on commercial uses to pay their proportional share of service costs. There is a small amount (15,000 square feet) of commercial space planned for the Avila Ranch neighborhood. Given the limited scale of the commercial uses the City Council determined such uses be exempted from the special tax unless a change of use is subsequently approved and to charge a vacant land tax until the parcel is developed. • Special Tax on Vacant Land. Special taxes can be levied on land that is designated for development but not yet developed. Such taxes are charged to generate cash flow to cover interim service costs or debt service before the developing area subject to the special tax is fully developed. The combined cost of services funded by the CFD may exceed the available tax revenues during the "buildout" period when there will be a growing number of tax producing parcels. A tax on vacant land (paid by the then-current owner of the vacant developable land) can be levied to cover such costs. Analysis shows that significant maintenance cost will not emerge until the related facilities are in place and service demand s emerge. The City Council determined that a vacant land tax be levied at the time the Final Subdivision Map is Packet Pg 193 8 - 6 - approved and respective subdivision parcels are recorded. • Special Tax Rate Structure, Prioritization. The RMA specify funding priorities for special tax revenue. There are three components currently identified as specified below: 1) "fiscal mitigation" for the lack of property tax from the area (both City and some County); 2) special funding for local area maintenance and also eventual local facilities replacement; and 3) funding for reimbursement of Developer funding advances (e.g., the capital component). Given these components, the City Council determined the priority for funding recommended is as follows: 1) funding for reimbursement of Developer funding advances; 2) special funding for local area maintenance; and 3) "fiscal mitigation" for the City. • Exemption for Affordable Housing Units. Property owned by non-profit entities or with price restrictions in the deed are not categorically exempted from special taxes. The key policy exemption to be considered is an exemption on affordable housing owned by non-profit entities. There are 67 affordable units proposed, 9% of total units (35 for low income at 80% of median income, and 32 for moderate at 120% of median income). Taxing affordable housing units will increase operating costs and thus may decrease feasibility for the non-profit entities or the subsidies that they can offer lower income households. Options include: 1) an exemption for the n on- profit owned or deed restricted units; or 2) establishing a discounted special tax reflecting benefits to the City of providing affordable housing units. The City Council determined that a reduced special tax on affordable units, 50% of the lowest tax rate on market rate residential units, be levied. • Other Exemptions. Certain types of property ownership are categorically exempt from special taxes (e.g., lands owned by government entities), others may be exempted for policy reasons by the RMA. Little or no cost is expected from these parcels. Exemptions include government owned property; property-owners’ association property (common areas); assessor’s parcels consisting of public or utility easements; and property having conservation-oriented deed restrictions. The City Council determined that these non-developed parcels be exempted from the special tax. • Indexing for Cost Increases Over Time. Special taxes are typically “indexed,” increased over time to reflect inflationary cost increases as permitted by the Statute. Without a “cost inflator” special taxes will diminish in value proportional to the rate of inflation on the costs of providing municipal services. There are various “cost indices” that track price inflation including the CPI, the CCI and the ENR construction cost index. The publication American County and City also publishes a municipal cost index that tracks regional increases in municipal service costs. The City Council determined that the City apply a composite of these indices to change th e component of special taxes used for City services from year-to-year. The special tax component for infrastructure purposes is limited by the Statute to two percent per Packet Pg 194 8 - 7 - year. • Property Tax Contingency. At the present time, the Avila Ranch area does not generate any property taxes to the City due to the existing Property Tax Sharing Agreement with the County; this is one of the reasons the CFD has been proposed. A portion of the proposed Avila Ranch special tax is for "fiscal mitigation" linked to the existing property tax agreement that yields no property tax to the City. In the event that a portion of the property tax is provided to the City, the "fiscal mitigation" portion of the special tax could be reduced. It is possible that at some future date the Property Tax Sharing Agreement with the County will be amended providing new revenue to the City. The Rate and Method of Apportionment could include a clause that provided for a reduction in the overall special tax proportional any property tax revenue received by the City. Alternatively, the Rate and Method of Apportionment need not contain such a provision. The City Council determined that a provision to reduce the special taxes proportional to any property tax received as a result of a new Property Tax Sharing Agreement with the County. • Duration of the Special Tax. The Rate and Method must indicate the duration of the special tax. The Rate and Method must specify the duration of the special tax. Special taxes that provide a source of debt service on CFD municipal bonds (or other capital expenditure) sunset when debt is retired. The City Council determined that an “indefinite” duration for the services portion of the special tax, and that the reimbursement component will be retired when reimbursement is completed (estimated to be no later than 2035/36). • Special Tax Accounts and Allocation. The special tax requirement has been calculated based on three separate cost components: 1) "fiscal mitigation" for the lack of property tax from the area (both City and some County); 2) special funding for local area maintenance and also eventual local facilities replacement; and 3) funding for reimbursement of Developer funding advances (e.g., the capital component). The City Council determined that individual trust accounts be established for the three funding components along with terms that specify funds annually appropriated on a “cost-applied” basis. E. UPDATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Implementation of the CFD would not change or alter the approved Avila Ranch development pattern in any way. The funds raised through the CFD would facilitate the prescribed development as set forth in the various project entitlements, including the approved General Plan Amendment, Airport Area Specific Plan Amendment, Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map. The CFD would also allow the development to occur within the framework of the approved phasing schedule set forth in the Development Plan, but would not accelerate this schedule in any way. Because Packet Pg 195 8 - 8 - the CFD would not alter the approved development pattern or modify the phasing schedule, it would not introduce new or modified environmental impacts that were not already previously disclosed and analyzed through the certified Final EIR. All mitigation measures prescribed for the approved development project would still apply with the implementation of the CFD, and no new mitigation measures would be required. F. DETERMINATION In accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, th e City of San Luis Obispo (City) has determined that this Addendum to the Avila Ranch Project Final EIR is necessary to document changes or additions that have occurred in the project description since the EIR was originally certified. The City has reviewed and considered the information contained in this Addendum in it s consideration of the certified EIR and finds that the preparation of subsequent CEQA analysis that would require public circulation is not necessary. Packet Pg 196 8 Meeting Date: 10/24/2017 FROM: Derek Johnson, City Manager Prepared By: Marcus Carloni, Sustainability Coordinator SUBJECT: REVIEW OF BEVERAGE STRAWS UPON REQUEST ORDINANCE RECOMMENDATION Introduce an Ordinance adding Chapter 8.09 to the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code regulating single use beverage straws. CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION At the June 20, 2017 City Council Hearing, the City Council discussed the potential for a “straws upon request” Ordinance that, if adopted, as the name implies, would require businesses to provide single-use beverage straws to customers only upon request. Council identified this as a priority and the work effort was added as an objective in the Climate Action Major City Goal work program. DISCUSSION Consistency with City Policy A “straws upon request” Ordinance is consistent with policies in the City’s General Plan and Climate Action Plan. Although the General Plan Conservation Open Space Element does not specifically address the use of single-use beverage straws, it does have a number of related policies/goals which recognize the City’s responsibility for waste diversion, efficient use of materials, and recycling while also acknowledging its role in encouraging residents and businesses to do so, as well1. Additionally, the effort is consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan that includes a Solid Waste chapter with an overall goal to “prevent, reduce, reuse and recycle solid waste to minimize the amount of waste being sent to the landfill.” The CAP identifies objectives 2 such as 1 Conservation & Open Space Element (COSE) Policy 5.4.3. Material recycling in private developme nt, businesses and operations. The City will promote waste diversion and material recycling in private development, business and operations, and will encourage businesses or nonprofit entities to provide building materials recycling and source reduction se rvices. COSE Policy 5.5.3. Coordinate waste reduction and recycling efforts. The City will coordinate local, and participate in regional, household and business waste-reduction and recycling efforts. COSE Policy 5.4.1. Best available practices. The City will employ the best available practices in materials procurement, use and recycling, and will encourage individuals, organizations and other agencies to do likewise. “Best available practices” means behavior and technologies that, considering available equipment, life-cycle costs, social and environmental side effects, and the regulations of other agencies: A. Use the least amount of newly refined materials for a desired outcome; B. Direct th e largest feasible fraction of used materials to further use; C. Avoid undesirable effects due to further use of materials. 2 Climate Action Plan WST 1: Increase Waste Diversion. Reduce the community waste stream to as close to zero waste as possible, with 75% diversion rate by the year 2020. CAP WST 2: Public Outreach and Education. Provide waste reduction education to the City’s consumers. Packet Pg 197 9 increasing the waste diversion rate in the City and providing waste reduction education to the City’s consumers. Litter, Waste, Recycling According to the Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA) in San Luis Obispo , 400,000 straws are used every day in SLO County. These straws are not able to be recycled and are ending up as landfill waste or as litter. Single-use straws are seen as an unnecessary waste stream; according to IWMA, studies have shown that 80% of customers will say “no” if asked if they want a straw. In addition, plastic straw litter is consistently found on beaches with the potential to harm marine life. Locally, the Environmental Center of San Luis Obispo (ECOSLO) reports 1,111 plastic straws/stirrers were collected from local beaches at the 2016 SLO County Coastal Cleanup Day, and 1,363 plastic straws/stirrers were collected during the 2017 cleanup day, making plastic straws/stirrers the tenth most collected debris. Finally, the Ocean Conservancy reports that plastic straws and stirrers were the seventh most collected item at the 2016 International Coastal Cleanup which spans 112 countries, collecting 409,097 plastic straws and stirrers. Proposed Ordinance The proposed Ordinance is Attachment A to this report. Key items to know about the Ordinance include the following: 1. What? a. Require vendors such as restaurants, bars, and cafes to only provide customers with a single-use beverage straw once a straw is requested. 2. Where? a. Vendors that provide single-use beverage straws in drinks designed/intended for on-site consumption. 3. How? a. By local Ordinance 4. When? a. Full Ordinance will take effect March 1, 2018. 5. Exceptions: a. Take-out orders are exempt from the Ordinance. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT Consistent with the City’s Public Engagement and Noticing Manual, staff created an Open City Hall webpage to inform and engage community members and affected businesses. The webpage was launched on September 18, 2017 and was sent to open city hall subscribers and website e- notification subscribers. Staff also worked with the Downtown Association and Chamber of Commerce to distribute to local businesses. Forty-five statements have been received as of October 12, 2017; an equivalent of 2.3 hours of public comment at three minutes per statement. Packet Pg 198 9 The feedback received through the Open City Hall page is provided herein as Attachment B. If additional feedback is received through open city hall staff will distribute as agenda correspondence. The majority of feedback received through the Open City Hall page is in support of a “straws upon request” ordinance. A paraphrased summary of responses is provided below: Supportive (41 statements) • Straws are an unnecessary waste stream. • The customer should be able to choose whether or not they want a straw. • Customers often do not request a straw if it’s not automatically provided. • Businesses providing straws should use reusable straws or paper straws instead of plastic. • This could be a cost saving measure for business owners. Unsupportive (4 statements) • This could place a hardship on small business and be a “pain in the neck” for customers. • The City should promote reduce, reuse, recycle rather than additional regulations. IMPLEMENTATION & ENFORCEMENT The proposed Ordinance is designed to take effect approximately three months after final adoption to allow time for staff to perform outreach and allow affected businesses time to make the adjustment. If adopted by Council, staff will send additional notification to affected businesses and make additional information available on the City’s website regarding compliance with the ordinance. Staff will also be working with two local organizations (One with Nature and ECOSLO) to develop outreach materials and go to individual businesses to deliver the message about the new regulations. Enforcement of the recommended changes would continue through the existing operations and resources of Code Enforcement - Community Development Department staff. An administrative fine structure is included in the Ordinance, however, Code Enforcement practice is to educate the business owner prior to issuing fines. CONCURRENCES A team of staff including Administration, Utilities, Community Development, and Public Works participated in the development and review of the draft ordinance. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed ordinance is exempt from the environmental review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Further, the proposed Ordinance is exempt from CEQA on the separate and independent ground that it is an action of a regulatory agency (the City) for the protection of the environment because, among other things, Packet Pg 199 9 it will reduce the amount of single use straws that enter the local landfill, waterways, and beaches. Thus, this Ordinance is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA under Section 15308 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations as an action by a regulatory agency for the protection of the environment. FISCAL IMPACT The proposed Ordinance adds additional regulations to the City’s Municipal Code. All complaints of this type are currently investigated and enforced by Code Enforcement staff. At this time, the impacts of implementing and enforcing the additional elements of the ordinance can be incorporated into existing resources. Additional resources may be required if further outreach is desired during implementation. ALTERNATIVES 1. Amend the proposed ordinance. The City Council may modify the proposed amendments to the Municipal Code. Specific direction should be given to staff regarding any modifications. 2. Continue the proposed ordinance. The City Council may continue action, if more information in needed. Direction should be given to staff regarding additional information needed to make a decision. 3. Reject the proposed ordinance. The City Council may reject the proposed ordinance although public testimony and current research demonstrate that an ordinance is needed. Attachments: a - Draft Ordinance b - Open City Hall Feedback Packet Pg 200 9 O ______ ORDINANCE NO. #### (2017 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 8.09 TO THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING SINGLE-USE BEVERAGE STRAWS WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) has the police power to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community, including the ability to protect and enhance the natural environment; and WHEREAS, the City’s General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element has a number of policies and goals (COSE 5.4.3, 5.5.3, & 5.4.1) that recognize the City’s responsibility for waste diversion, efficient use of materials, and recycling, and encouraging residents and businesses to do so as well; and WHEREAS, the City’s Climate Action Plan Solid Waste Chapter has an overall goal to prevent, reduce, reuse and recycle solid waste to minimize the amount of waste being sent to the landfill and to provide waste reduction education to the City’s consumers; and WHEREAS, the City’s Climate Action Plan Solid Waste Chapter has an ultimate goal of reducing the amount of waste that ends up in the landfill which can reduce solid waste-related greenhouse gas emissions associated with transport and organic decomposition of materials; and WHEREAS, the Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA) in San Luis Obispo reports that approximately 400,000 beverage straws are used every day in San Luis Obispo County which are not being recycled and ending up as landfill waste or as litter; and WHEREAS, the IWMA reports that studies have shown that 80% of customers will say no if asked if they want a straw; and WHEREAS, Environmental Center of San Luis Obispo (ECOSLO) reports that plastic straws and stirrers were the #10 most collected debris at the 2017 SLO County Coastal Cleanup Day – totaling 1,363 straws and stirrers collected; and WHEREAS, the Ocean Conservancy reports that plastic straws and stirrers were the number seven most collected items at the 2016 International Coastal Cleanup which spans 112 countries, collecting 409,097 plastic straws and stirrers; and WHEREAS, regulating the use of single use beverage straws within the City will help protect the City’s natural environment from contamination and degradation; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October 24, 2017 for the purpose of considering regulations to restrict the use of single-use beverage straws; and Packet Pg 201 9 Ordinance No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2 O ______ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference as the findings of the City Council. SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The proposed Ordinance is exempt from the environmental review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Further, the proposed Ordinance is exempt from CEQA on the separate and independent ground that it is an action of a regulatory agency (the City) for the protection of the environment because, among other things, it will reduce the amount of single use straws that enter the local landfill, waterways, and beaches. Thus, this Ordinance is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA under Section 15308 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations as an action by a regulatory agency for the protection of the environment. SECTION 3. Action. Chapter 8.09, establishing regulations to restrict the use/distribution of single-use beverage straws in the city, is hereby added to the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code as follows: Chapter 8.09 – SINGLE USE STRAWS 8.09.010 - Definitions. The following words and phrases, whenever used in this chapter, shall have the meanings defined in this section unless the context clearly requires otherwise: A. “Dine-in customer” means a customer that consumes a food or beverage order on the same premise it was ordered. B. “Single-use” means a product that is designed to be only used one time in its same form by the customer, food vendor or entity. C. “Take-out food orders” means prepared meals or other food or beverage items that a customer purchases at an establishment and are intended for consumption elsewhere. D. “Vendor” means any business providing food or beverages within the City of San Luis Obispo. 8.09.020 – Beverage Straws Upon Request On or after March 1, 2018, any vendor shall ask each dine-in customer if the customer wants a single use beverage straw before providing a single use beverage straw to the customer. 8.09.030 – Exceptions Packet Pg 202 9 Ordinance No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 3 O ______ Take-out food orders are exempt from this ordinance. 8.09.040 Implementation and Enforcement A. In addition to any other remedy authorized by this code, any violation of the provisions of this chapter by any person or restaurant is subject to administrative fines as provided in Chapter 1.24 of this code. SECTION 4. Severability. If any subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforcement of the remaining portions of this Ordinance, or any other provisions of the city’s rules and regulations. It is the city’s express intent that each remaining portion would have been adopted irrespective of the fact that any one or more subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid or unenforceable. SECTION 5. Effective Dates. A summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of Council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in The Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this Cit y. This Ordinance shall go into effect on March 1, 2018. A copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall be on file in the Office of the City Clerk on and after the date following introduction and passage to print and shall be available to any member of the public. INTRODUCED on the ____ day of ____, 2017, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the ____ day of ____, 2017, on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ____________________________________ Mayor Heidi Harmon ATTEST: ____________________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Packet Pg 203 9 Ordinance No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 4 O ______ _____________________________________ 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 204 9 All Statements sorted chronologically As of October 11, 2017, 4:39 PM Open City Hall is not a certified voting system or ballot box. As with any public comment process, participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The statements in this record are not necessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials. All Statements sorted chronologically As of October 11, 2017, 4:39 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5434 Straws Upon Request Regulations What do you think of the proposed regulations to require businesses to only provide straws to patrons once a straw is requested? Packet Pg 205 9 As of October 11, 2017, 4:39 PM, this forum had: Attendees: 111 All Statements: 45 Hours of Public Comment: 2.3 This topic started on September 18, 2017, 5:05 PM. All Statements sorted chronologically As of October 11, 2017, 4:39 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5434 Page 2 of 9 Straws Upon Request Regulations What do you think of the proposed regulations to require businesses to only provide straws to patrons once a straw is requested? Packet Pg 206 9 Name not shown inside Neighborhood 1 (registered)October 11, 2017, 2:49 AM This is a long-overdue regulation in my opinion. Let's please make this happen! Name not available (unclaimed) October 10, 2017, 6:56 PM This issue is preposterous. I can hardly believe that we are paying government employees to waste their time on this. Name not shown inside Neighborhood 7 (registered)October 10, 2017, 9:51 AM I support straws on request option Name not available (unclaimed)October 10, 2017, 7:12 AM Dtraws are bad for the environment, made of plastic and bad for wildlife. They do not decompose well. I like thid proposed rule, I think it will help reduce waste. Name not available (unclaimed)October 9, 2017, 1:28 PM As a local resident I support the effort to curtail the use of beverage straws unless they are specifically requested by consumers. Even when they are requested I would like to see a provision where only bio- degradable straws can be provided. Living within 4 blocks of a convenience store/market I see a lot of discarded trash along neighborhood streets, and plastic straws are certainly among the frequent offensive materials. Any actions to reduce this blight would benefit our community. Ellie Vendegna outside Neighborhoods (registered)October 9, 2017, 8:54 AM Once I learned about how wasteful single use straws were I immediately switched to using reusable cups with reusable straws. It is an easy change and removing these wasteful plastics would encourage people to buy reusable materials. Name not available (unclaimed)October 8, 2017, 10:13 PM Just as with the water bottles, there is no need to provide more plastic to throw away. We must continue to take steps to do what is best for this planet. Let SLO be among the leaders. Name not available (unclaimed)October 8, 2017, 12:40 PM Straws Upon Request Regulations What do you think of the proposed regulations to require businesses to only provide straws to patrons once a straw is requested? All Statements sorted chronologically As of October 11, 2017, 4:39 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5434 Page 3 of 9 Packet Pg 207 9 I support this proposal. Reducing plastic use and disposal is an honorable city priority. Name not shown inside Neighborhood 8 (registered)October 8, 2017, 12:29 AM We have far too much plastic in our land, our ocean AND IN our bodies. This is common sense! Yes Yes YES. And agree, only water if asked. Nancy Cohn outside Neighborhoods (registered)October 7, 2017, 7:59 PM When I was walking a beach in Mexico I picked up in one half hour over 100 plastic straws. I see absolutely no need for plastic straws period, but if someone asks why not use paper straws. Plastic straws create so much waste and pollution. This can be a no brainer just like the ban on smoking. Once people get used to it, it no longer is even an issue. Name not shown inside Neighborhood 6 (registered) October 7, 2017, 7:36 PM HECK YES, let's ban some more stuff we do not like. Using the power of government to achieve our personal, but noble , goals is what liberal democracy is about. The end justifies the means. Let us have many more meetings so we can ban a bunch more stuff that will help Mother Earth. I love the environment so anything someone thinks banning might help should be banned. It's the least we can do if we truly care. The science is settled! Jail the deniers..... If only government had more power and authority think what a world we could have. Ban on my fellow ban-ers and darn be he who cries banned enough....... Name not shown inside Neighborhood 6 (registered)October 7, 2017, 6:01 PM Sure. Upon request seems an easy modification of a habit. I'd like to see a similar effort with take-out food where restaurants would NOT automatically include plasticware with the order. I image that most people do take-out for home use and thus have utensils handy anyways. Name not available (unclaimed)October 7, 2017, 5:32 PM Yes! I would say to disallow them unless required for accessibility, but I suppose this is a good first step. You could also consider requiring restaurants to provide only paper straws upon request for single use and reuseable for within restaurants. Plastic cups for one time use should also head the way of straws and polystyrene, with only paper cups available. Name not shown outside Neighborhoods (registered)October 7, 2017, 5:06 PM Straws Upon Request Regulations What do you think of the proposed regulations to require businesses to only provide straws to patrons once a straw is requested? All Statements sorted chronologically As of October 11, 2017, 4:39 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5434 Page 4 of 9 Packet Pg 208 9 I support requiring customers to ask for a straw and not have one provided automatically. I would like to see only metal or compostable straws when requested. Rick Castello outside Neighborhoods (registered)October 7, 2017, 8:04 AM I support having straws be optional, and additionally would encourage the drink sellers to offer for purchase a reusable and more eco-friendly metal or plastic (or bamboo?) straw, similar to the way it's done with reusable bags, as it gives businesses an opportunity for additional revenue and branding in return for the additional effort they'll be required to go through with the change. Name not available (unclaimed)October 7, 2017, 7:47 AM We fully support phasing out single use straws ~ we carry our own stainless steel straws and even when we request no plastic straws, servers still put them in drinks. Maybe food vendors could offer stainless steel straws for sale onsite, or at least biodegradable paper straws, for customers that would like to use a straw but didn't bring one. Once straws are seen as an option rather than as a given, consumers will begin to bring their own, just like reusable shopping bags. With community education and encouragement will come strong community support ~ save the oceans and keep SLO green! Name not shown inside Neighborhood 7 (registered)October 6, 2017, 8:26 PM Agree with providing straws only on request. I'd like to see businesses provide real spoons for stirring coffee and real plates and utensils for food. Only paper and plastic for take out. Look to Arcata and what they've done. Name not available (unclaimed)October 6, 2017, 8:16 PM I think it's a great idea -- I'd like to see all food businesses have real spoons for stirring coffee and plates and utensils. Make plastic and paper only upon request or for take out. Look to Arcata and their laws in this -- so much less waste. Name not available (unclaimed)October 6, 2017, 8:02 PM I think it's a great idea to only serve straws to patrons who ask for them but I don't think this needs to be a government regulation. Let food and beverage establishment owners and managers decide for themselves what their policies will be. Name not available (unclaimed)October 6, 2017, 7:46 PM Straws Upon Request Regulations What do you think of the proposed regulations to require businesses to only provide straws to patrons once a straw is requested? All Statements sorted chronologically As of October 11, 2017, 4:39 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5434 Page 5 of 9 Packet Pg 209 9 It's an idea who's time has come. We don't need them and if you like to use them bring your own reusable one. I have a stainless steel one. We need to stop contributing to the plastic load in the ocean. Name not shown inside Neighborhood 1 (registered)October 6, 2017, 3:24 PM I think all straws should be banned all together! They are terrible for our landfills, and are totally unnecessary. Please work to ban all plastic materials in SLO county! Name not available (unclaimed)October 6, 2017, 2:26 PM No more straws! I carry reusable straws on my person to avoid single use plastics. One at work, one in my bag and a couple at home. Any progress on this is good progress Name not shown outside Neighborhoods (registered)October 6, 2017, 12:34 PM Yes! Great idea. One step towards having less plastic and waste. Next step biodegradable straws, because far as i understand they would cause less harm if they entered into our waterways and oceans. October 6, 2017, 11:36 AMName not shown inside Neighborhood 5 (registered) HAHAHAHA!!!! DO IT!!! This is perfect for SLO, a formerly nice place to live. Name not available (unclaimed)October 5, 2017, 5:38 PM I support the proposal. Jeffery Andrews inside Neighborhood 12 (registered)October 5, 2017, 5:34 PM Not only should the straws be provided upon request, but they should also be made of a reusable or compostable material. We've done away with plastic bags, time to do the same with plastic straws! http://www.ecocycle.org/bestrawfree/faqs Elena Wolff inside Neighborhood 1 (registered)October 4, 2017, 2:42 PM This is a great start to reducing plastic in the waste stream, and the use of single use plastics in general. I work in a restaurant, and have tested out only giving customers straws when they request them. If I don't provide a Straws Upon Request Regulations What do you think of the proposed regulations to require businesses to only provide straws to patrons once a straw is requested? All Statements sorted chronologically As of October 11, 2017, 4:39 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5434 Page 6 of 9 Packet Pg 210 9 straw and the customer wants one, they will ask me to provide one for them. However, more often than not, the customer will happily drink their beverage without a straw. Putting straws in every beverage served is so unnecessarily wasteful, and this regulation seems like a great middle ground to stop excessive waste while not taking anything away from businesses or customers. I am in full support of this regulation! Name not available (unclaimed)October 2, 2017, 10:30 PM Why not encourage our businesses and City vendors to transition to compostable straws? We banned styrofoam "to go" containers but not the practice of buying food "to go". Apply this approach to straws. Getting a plastic, single-use straw on demand is not a sustainable solution because it doesn't avoid the impact of the plastic straw. It might decrease the number of straws disposed eventually but straws are sold/purchased in large quantities by businesses. We can change the tool without changing the behavior and achieve a better outcome. Using a straw is not a bad behavior if the straw's material has minimal to no negative environmental impact. Krista Kolby outside Neighborhoods (registered)September 28, 2017, 5:22 PM The thing is, if we are going to ban plastic bottles then we are going to have to go to cups which will most likely need a lid and a straw both made out of plastic. If we aren't going to allow plastic bottles, then we must be diligent about the type of cups that will now begin filling the trash cans and the landfill. It isn't really a solution. I agree that plastic bottles need to go away but I certainly don't want to create a situation where we are using mountains of cups, lids and straws either. Definitely need to ban polystyrene before we ban plastic bottles or there will be an uptick in polystyrene cup use. We all know that polystyrene does not decompose and will stay on earth forever. Frankly it is shocking that it is still in use. Name not available (unclaimed)September 28, 2017, 3:15 PM I am all for it. Can't think of a downside except to the straw manufacturers. Name not shown outside Neighborhoods (registered)September 22, 2017, 9:33 AM I absolutely support the idea of only giving plastic straws upon request. It will help the business owners in cost, and reduce unnecessary waste. Name not available (unclaimed)September 21, 2017, 5:07 PM I support any straw only upon request measure with hopes for an outright ban of plastic straws. Thank you Charles Myers inside Neighborhood 7 (registered)September 21, 2017, 4:11 PM Straws Upon Request Regulations What do you think of the proposed regulations to require businesses to only provide straws to patrons once a straw is requested? All Statements sorted chronologically As of October 11, 2017, 4:39 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5434 Page 7 of 9 Packet Pg 211 9 As a long-time restaurant owner, I agree with regulations to decrease one time straw use. This "custom" only developed in the past 10 years or so and is incredibly wasteful. When a beverage arrives with a straw in it, the straw is already wasted if the customer didn't require a straw. Let restaurant customers ask for a straw. Name not available (unclaimed)September 21, 2017, 3:58 PM Yes, restrict plastic straw distribution unless specifically requested Name not shown inside Neighborhood 10 (registered)September 21, 2017, 2:01 PM While not as good as an outright ban, this is a great middle ground as it allows straw fans to continue using theirs while reducing straw use overall. Name not shown inside Neighborhood 8 (unverified)September 20, 2017, 7:27 PM Yes, please require businesses to only provide straws to patrons once a straw is requested. They are wasteful. Thank you kindly for the opportunity to comment. Name not shown inside Neighborhood 8 (registered)September 20, 2017, 5:50 PM I fully support this regulation to provide straws only upon request. Straws are not required for most people, and giving these single-use items out automatically only encourages waste and increases the volume of unrecyclable plastic in our landfills. Name not shown inside Neighborhood 7 (registered)September 20, 2017, 2:48 PM I support requiring businesses to only supply plastic straws by request and ultimately moving to paper straws (which could be exempt from the straws by request regulation). Roz Phillips inside Neighborhood 1 (registered)September 20, 2017, 12:27 PM I support regulations to require business to only provide plastic straws to patrons on request and use of paper straws could be made exempt from the by-request-only regulations. In the long run I would also like to see regulations to require replacing plastic straws with paper straws, but providing straws on request is a good start. Name not available (unclaimed)September 19, 2017, 3:18 PM Straws Upon Request Regulations What do you think of the proposed regulations to require businesses to only provide straws to patrons once a straw is requested? All Statements sorted chronologically As of October 11, 2017, 4:39 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5434 Page 8 of 9 Packet Pg 212 9 YES!!! Elaine Genasci inside Neighborhood 1 (registered)September 19, 2017, 10:39 AM Yes, I agree, businesses should only give straws to customers who ask. I would also like to see the plastic straw banned and only paper straws used by business in SLO. Name not available (unclaimed)September 18, 2017, 10:59 PM Straws upon request is a great idea. Name not shown inside Neighborhood 1 (registered)September 18, 2017, 8:40 PM I support a ban on single use plastic straws. Paper straws work great. Dale Stoker inside Neighborhood 2 (registered)September 18, 2017, 8:13 PM This is a great idea. Currently, I always ask for no straw in my drinks and I think this would be a cost saving move for business owners not to mention the large, positive impact it will have on our environment. SLO should implement this regulation. Name not available (unclaimed) September 18, 2017, 7:54 PM I really don't think this is a good idea. It would place a hardship on small business and just be a pain in the neck for customers. Are you going to stand in line again if you forgot to ask? Or if your child drops their straw on the floor and you need a new one? The effort would be better spent by further promoting the concepts of reduce, reuse, recycle, rather than further unnecessary, micro-managing intrusions into the lives of SLO residents. Straws Upon Request Regulations What do you think of the proposed regulations to require businesses to only provide straws to patrons once a straw is requested? All Statements sorted chronologically As of October 11, 2017, 4:39 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5434 Page 9 of 9 Packet Pg 213 9 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg 214 9 Meeting Date: 10/24/2017 FROM: Greg Hermann, Acting Assistant City Manager Prepared By: Marcus Carloni, Sustainability Coordinator SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF SINGLE-USE PLASTIC BOTTLES AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS TO INCREASE AVAILABILITY OF WATER BOTTLE FILLING STATIONS RECOMMENDATION Introduce an Ordinance (Attachment A) to regulate the sale/distribution of plastic beverage bottles on City property and at events on City property (including city facilities/office, streets , sidewalks, and parks), and establishing regulations to increase the availability of water bottle filling stations in the City. CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION At the January 3, 2017 City Council Study Session, Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance restricting the sale/distribution of all single-use plastic beverage bottles on City property and events on City property (including city facilities/offices, streets, sidewalks, and parks) and to increase the availability of water bottle filling stations in t he City. Council’s direction is summarized below: City Council Direction 1. (Focus) Restrict the sale/distribution of single-use plastic bottles a. On all City property including streets and sidewalks (e.g. city offices, parks, streets, sidewalks) b. At events on City property requiring a permit (e.g. the Farmer’s Market or a special event at Mission Plaza) 2. (Filling Stations) Increase the availability of water bottle filling stations in City facilities, City parks, private developments with public spaces, and in Capital Improvement Projects as feasible. 3. (Phasing) Establish a phased approach to implementing the regulations 4. (Exemptions) Establish waivers and exclusions to allow flexibility 5. (Fines) Establish a fine schedule for compliance Packet Pg 215 10 BACKGROUND For a detailed review/discussion on the following topics please see the City Council Study Session Staff Report from January 3, 2017 provided herein as Attachment C. 1. City Policy Review 2. Current City Practices 3. Research of plastic water bottle regulations in other agencies 4. Outcomes of plastic water bottle regulations 5. Plastic Bottle Recycling 6. Local Business Perspective (survey sent to affected businesses and event purveyors) DISCUSSION Plastic Bottles vs. Aluminum Cans Research presented at the Council study session showed that other agencies focused their efforts on restricting the sale/distribution of plastic water bottles on City property, however, Council directed staff to restrict the sale/distribution of all single use plastic beverage bottles on City property in an effort to further reduce waste and environmental impacts associated with plastics. With this direction, Council asked staff to research the environmental impacts of plastic bottles vs. aluminum cans since restricting the sale/distribution of all plastic bottles on City property (e.g. soda bottles) may increase the use of aluminum cans. Research included discussions with representatives from SLO County Integrated Waste Management Authority, CalRecycle, California Environmental Protection Agency, and the American Beverage Industry which yielded inconclusive results. Representatives indicated that life-cycle analyses of aluminum cans and plastic bottles with sufficient data/equivalent methodology allowing a logical comparison of the environmental impacts of these materials has not been performed. It was evident that the different material manufacturers (aluminum industry, plastic industry, glass industry) performed their own life-cycle analyses, however, their conclusions indicate that their respective products were better for their environment than their competitor’s product, and each appeared to apply their data using different methodology. A consistent theme in staff’s research was that aluminum appears to be more energy intense in its production as compared to plastic bottles. However, many variables1 are involved in determining the environmental impact of aluminum cans versus plastic bottles, yielding inconclusive 1 Variables include the location and process of obtaining virgin materials, shipping said materials to a manufacturing facility, production intensity, production location, transporting the finished product to end users, recycling rates, location of re-processing facility/transporting material to said facility, energy intensity of re -processing the recycled material, amount of recycled content in end product, end use of recycled material (e.g. turning plastic b ottles back into plastic bottles vs. using the recycled plastic in other materials such as carpeting), and number of times the material can be recycled. Packet Pg 216 10 research. Although aluminum cans appear to be more energy intense than plastic bottles during the production process, the following bullets help to provide a better understanding of the life cycle of aluminum cans and may indicate that environmental impact across the lifecycle of the two materials is not significantly different – helping to show some of the potential benefits of using aluminum cans as compared to plastic bottles. As such, staff has drafted the ordinance to restrict the sale/distribution of all plastic beverage bottles as directed by Council. 1. Plastic bottles are commonly found littering creeks and beaches. According to ECOSLO plastic bottles and plastic bottle caps have been in the top 10 of debris collected during SLO County Beach Cleanup Day for at least the past three years. At the September 2017 Beach Cleanup Day ECOSLO reports collecting 2,504 plastic bottle caps (#5 on the top 10 list) and 1,989 plastic bottles (#7 on the top 10 list). Internationally, the Ocean Conservancy reports that plastic beverage bottles (1,578,834 bottles) and plastic bottle caps (1,578,834 plastic bottle caps) were the #2 and #3 most collected items at the 2016 International Coastal Cleanup which spans 112 countries. 2. More plastic bottles are produced/sold than aluminum cans. According to CalRecycle, in 2016 11.3 Billion plastic bottles (PETE #1) vs. 8 Billion aluminum cans were sold in California. 3. Aluminum cans are recycled far more than plastic bottles. According to CalRecycle, in 2016 the recycling rate for aluminum cans was 91% vs. 76% for plastic bottles (PETE #1). This means approximately 720 Million aluminum cans (91% recycling rate) vs. 2.7 Billion plastic bottles (76% recycling rate) are ending up in landfills or as litter throughout California. 4. Recycling aluminum cans eliminates more carbon emissions than recycling plastic bottles. According to IWMA, for every 10 pounds of aluminum recycled, 37 pounds of carbon emissions are eliminated from the air and for every 10 pounds of clear plastic water or soda bottles recycled, 3.3 pounds of carbon emissions are eliminated. 5. Far more plastic bottles are exported out of the United States for processing than aluminum cans; adding to the carbon footprint of plastic bottles. According to CalRecycle, in 2016 we exported 120,000 tons of plastic bottles (mainly to China) vs. 1,649 tons of aluminum cans. 6. Aluminum cans breakdown much faster in a landfill than plastic bottles. According to CalRecycle, aluminum cans take approximately 80 to 100 years to breakdown in a landfill vs. as long as 700 years for plastic bottles. Proposed Ordinance The proposed Ordinance is provided as Attachment A to this report. Key items to know about the Ordinance include the following: 1. What? Packet Pg 217 10 a. Restriction on the sale/distribution of single-use plastic beverage bottles less than 21 ounces in size. b. Increase the availability of drinking water in public areas (e.g. water bottle filling stations in City parks). c. Increase the availability of drinking water systems in City facilities. 2. Where? a. On City property and at events on City property. City property includes offices, facilities, plazas, parks, streets, and sidewalks. 3. How? a. City funds are not to be used to purchase single-use bottled beverages. b. Place conditions on event permits issued by the city. c. Place conditions on new or amended contracts, agreements leases, etc. d. Enforce with administrative fine structure and tiered structure by size of event. 4. When? a. The Ordinance will not take full effect until March 1, 2018. 5. Increasing Availability of Public Drinking Water a. Creates City policy to increase availability of drinking water in public areas with emphasis on providing water bottle filling stations. b. Include in Capital Improvement projects when feasible c. Encourage the inclusion of water bottle filling stations for public use in private developments. Staff plans to include this effort in the current Zoning Regulations update to encourage development projects to include water bottle filling stations within publicly accessible spaces such as outdoor use areas and pedestrian routes. 6. Flexibility and Exceptions: a. City permit issuer must find that the event location has sufficient and reasonable access to reliable on-site water. b. Use of plastic bottles allowed during situations to protect public health, safety and welfare and during times of emergency. c. When no reasonable alternative to plastic bottles exists and strict compliance would create undue hardship. CURRENT USE OF WATER BOTTLE FILLING STATIONS Through the 2017-19 Financial Plan process the City Council allocated $60,000 to the CIP budget for the installation of water bottle filling stations in the City. Public Works anticipates being able to install approximately five water bottle filling stations per fiscal year (three in city facilities and three outdoors). So far this year, Public Works has installed two new filling stations in City Hall2 and one new station at Sinsheimer Park (adjacent to the newly remodeled playground). Public Works is evaluating additional locations and in the remaining portion of this 2 The upstairs filling stations has saved 1,300 plastic bottles in the 1.5 months since installation and the downstairs filling station has saved 4,350 plastic bottles in the 8.5 months since installation. Packet Pg 218 10 fiscal year plans to install filling stations at the Ludwick Community Center, Sinsheimer Stadium, Community Development/Public Works Department Offices (919 Palm), French Park, and Mission Plaza. For fiscal year 2018-19, Public Works is evaluating filling stations at the Higuera Street crosswalk near Ross and GAP, Laguna Lake Park, the Parks and Recreation Department Office, the City’s Corporation Yard, and the Swim Center. With the 2019-21 Financial Plan, Public Works staff will propose a Capital Improvement Plan Project to implement additional water bottle filling stations in the City that the City Council and community can evaluate and prioritize with the Financial Plan process. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT Consistent with the adopted Public Engagement and Noticing Manual, staff created an Open City Hall webpage to inform and engage community members and affected businesses. The webpage was launched on September 18th and was sent to Open City Hall subscribers and website e- notification subscribers. Staff also worked with the Downtown Association and Chamber of Commerce to distribute information to local businesses. Forty-one statements have been received as of October 12, 2017; an equivalent of 2.1 hours of public comment at three minutes per statement. The feedback received through the Open City Hall page is provided herein as Attachment B. If additional feedback is received through Open City Hall staff will distribute that feedback as agenda correspondence. The feedback received through the Open City Hall page is in support of the subject regulations. A paraphrased summary of responses is provided below: Supportive (41 Statements): • Support for plastic water bottle and all plastic bottle regulations. • Installing water bottle filling stations is important and will help people us use less plastic bottles. • Production and recycling use energy – we should be preventing use of the material in the first place. Concerns: • This may have an impact on events like the Farmer’s Market. • Filling stations may be expensive Santa Rosa Park (2) City Hall Police Station City Hall Sinsheimer Park Packet Pg 219 10 • Filling stations may get dirty and need to be maintained IMPLEMENTATION & ENFORCEMENT The ordinance is designed to take effect approximately three months after final adoption to allow time for staff to perform outreach and allow affected businesses to adjustment. If adopted by Council, staff will send additional notification to affected businesses and make additional information available on the City’s website regarding compliance with the ordinance. Staff will also be working with two local organization (One with Natu re and ECOSLO) to develop outreach materials and go to individual businesses to deliver the message about the new regulations. Enforcement of the recommended changes would continue through the existing operations and resources of Code Enforcement - Community Development Department staff. An administrative fine structure is included in the Ordinance, however, Code Enforcement practice is to educate the business owner prior to issuing fines. CONCURRENCES A city-wide team of staff representing Administration, Public Works, Parks and Recreation and Utilities Departments, participated in the development and review of the draft ordinance. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed ordinance is exempt from the environmental review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Further, the proposed Ordinance is exempt from CEQA on the separate and independent ground that it is an action of a regulatory agency (the City) for the protection of the environment because, among other things, it will reduce the amount of single use plastic bottles that enter the local landfill or end up as litter. Thus, this Ordinance is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA under Section 15308 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations as an action by a regulatory agency for the protection of the environment. FISCAL IMPACT The proposed Ordinance adds additional regulations to the City’s Municipal Code. All complaints of this type are currently investigated and enforced by Code Enforcement staff. At this time, the impacts of implementing and enforcing the additional elements of the Ordinance can be incorporated into existing resources. Additional resources may be required if further outreach is desired during implementation. Additionally, through the 2017-19 Financial Plan process the City Council allocated $30,000 per year to the CIP budget for the installation of water bottle filling stations in the City. Packet Pg 220 10 ALTERNATIVES 1. Amend the proposed ordinance. The City Council may modify the proposed amendments to the Municipal Code. Specific direction should be given to staff regarding any modifications. 2. Continue the proposed ordinance. The City Council may continue action, if more information in needed. Direction should be given to staff regarding additional information needed to make a decision. 3. Reject the proposed ordinance. The City Council may reject the proposed ordinance although public testimony and current research demonstrate that an ordinance is needed. Attachments: a - Draft Ordinance b - Open City Hall Feedback c - Council Study Session Staff Report (January 3, 2017) Packet Pg 221 10 O ______ ORDINANCE NO. #### (2017 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 8.07 TO THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING SINGLE-USE PLASTIC BEVERAGE BOTTLES ON CITY PROPERTY LESS THAN 21 OUNCES IN SIZE WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) has the police power to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community, including the ability to protect and enhance the natural environment; and WHEREAS, the City’s General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element has numerous policies and goals related to efficient use of materials and recycling in the City including COS E Policy 5.5.3 which indicates that the city will coordinate local waste-reduction and recycling efforts in the community; and WHEREAS, the City’s General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element has policies and goals related to the City employing best practices in City facilities and operations including COSE Policy 5.4.2 which indicates that the City will set a community example for waste diversion and material recycling in City facilities, services and operating systems and require similar in contracts and procurement for public goods and services and capital improvements; and WHEREAS, the City’s Climate Action Plan Solid Waste Chapter has an ultimate goal of reducing the amount of waste that ends up in the landfill which can reduce solid waste-related greenhouse gas emissions associated with transport and organic decomposition of materials; and WHEREAS, for the year 2016 the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) indicates that 11.3 billion plastic bottles (PETE #1) were sold in California with 8.6 billion of those plastic bottles being recycled; the remaining 2.7 billion plastic bottles end up in landfills or as litter; and WHEREAS, CalRecycle estimates, using per capita rates, that within the City of San Luis Obispo approximately 13,306,000 PETE plastic bottles were purchased in fiscal year 2015-16 with 5,404,000 of those bottles being recycled (41% recycling rate); indicating that a large number of PETE plastic bottles purchased within the City end up as litter or in the landfill. WHEREAS, the Ocean Conservancy reports that plastic beverage bottles (1,578,834 bottles) and plastic bottle caps (1,578,834 plastic bottle caps) were the number two and number three most collected items at the 2016 International Coastal Cleanup which spans 112 countries; and WHEREAS, the City is situated entirely within the 84 square mile San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed. The City’s watershed and creek system are important natural resources as exemplified in various policies of the City’s General Plan. As part of the City’s natural resource program, the City performs regular creek clean-ups. During these clean-ups, the City finds and discards a Packet Pg 222 10 Ordinance No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2 O ______ significant amount of plastic bottles and bottle caps. These products ultimately flow to the Pacific Ocean contributing to concerns related to water quality and habitat protection both within the creek system as well as the marine environment; and WHEREAS, plastic beverage bottles take as long as 700 years to decompose in a landfill and, while advances in water bottles have reduced packaging and weight of bottle containers that ultimately reach waste facilities, alternatives to plastic bottles, such as reusable bottles produce an insignificant amount of waste in comparison; and WHEREAS, regulating the use of plastic beverage bottles will help to minimize waste associated with plastic bottle usage and help to maximize the operating life of landfills; and WHEREAS, regulating the use of plastic beverage bottles within the City will help protect the City’s natural environment from contamination and degradation; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a study session in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on January 3, 2017, and directed staff to develop regulations to restrict the sale/distribution of plastic beverage bottles on City property and increase the availability of water bottle filling stations in the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October 24, 2017 for the purpose of considering said regulations as an addition to Chapter 8.07 of the Municipal Code; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference as the findings of the City Council. SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The proposed Ordinance is exempt from the environmental review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Further, the proposed Ordinance is exempt from CEQA on the separate and independent ground that it is an action of a regulatory agency (the City) for the protection of the environment because, among other things, it will regulate the sale and distribution of bottled beverages and reduce the amount of said products that enter local landfill and waterways . Thus, this Ordinance is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA under Section 15308 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations as an action by a regulatory agency for the protection of the environment. SECTION 3. Action. Chapter 8.07, establishing regulations to restrict the sale/distribution of plastic beverage bottles on City property and increase the availability of water bottle filling stations in the city, is hereby added to the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code as follows: Packet Pg 223 10 Ordinance No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 3 O ______ Chapter 8.07 – PLASTIC BOTTLED BEVERAGES AND WATER BOTTLE FILLING STATIONS 8.07.010 - Definitions. The following words and phrases, whenever used in this chapter, shall have the meanings defined in this section unless the context clearly requires otherwise: A. “Bottled Beverage” means drinking water, sparkling water, enhanced water, soda, sport drinks, juice, or other similar product in a Rigid Plastic Bottle having a capacity of 21 fluid ounces or less, and intended primarily as a single service container. B. “City Property” means real property, including buildings thereon, owned or leased by the City of San Luis Obispo (“City”), and in the City’s possession or in the possession of any entity under contract with the City. This includes but is not limited to City offices and facilities, plazas, parks, and public right-of-way (sidewalks and streets). C. “City Street” means the public right-of-way (e.g. streets, sidewalks, public alleys) D. “Event” means any activity which requires a permit pursuant to Chapter 5.80 or Section 12.20.050.C of this code with three hundred or more persons in attendance or any event which requires a permit pursuant to Chapter 5.80 or Section 12.20.050.C which is located at Mission Plaza or the Jack House. E. “Participant Athletic Event” means an event in which a group of people collectively walk, jog, run, bicycle or otherwise participate in a sport or similar activity on City Property. F. “Rigid Plastic Bottle” means any formed or molded container made of predominantly plastic resin, having a relatively inflexible fixed shape or form, and intended primarily as a single service container. 8.07.020 – Sale/Distribution of Single-Use Plastic Bottled Beverages (under 21 Ounces) on City Property Restricted On or after March 1, 2018, no person may sell or distribute bottled beverages at an event held indoors or outdoors on City Property. 8.07.030 – New Leases, Permits, and Agreements On or after March 1, 2018, the city shall not issue any new leases, contracts, permits, bid proposals, solicitations, or other form of agreement allowing use of City Property for purposes that would include the sale/distribution of bottled beverages. This provision shall apply to any such permit renewed, extended, or materially amended as of March 1, 2017. 8.07.040 – Restricting Use of City Funds Packet Pg 224 10 Ordinance No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 4 O ______ A. City funds shall not be used to purchase bottled beverages except as exempted or allowed under this ordinance. The City’s purchasing policies shall be amended for consistency with this ordinance. B. It shall be City policy not to have drinking water systems in City offices/facilities that use bottled beverages of any size where sufficient alternatives exist and are feasible. City offices/facilities shall conform drinking water system to this policy where reasonable. 8.07.050 – Increasing Availability of Public Drinking Water A. It shall be City policy to increase the availability of drinking water for public consumption in public areas by ensuring access to drinking fountains, potable water hook-ups, and with particular emphasis on providing water bottle filling stations. City departments will take all reasonable and appropriate steps to promote and facilitate achievement of the intent and requirements of this ordinance. B. It shall be City policy that Capital Improvement Projects in a park, plaza, playground, or other public space shall install devices that provide appropriate availability of drinking water for public consumption such as water bottle filling stations, drinking fountains, and/or potable water hook-ups for public use, if the department finds the installation is proximate and feasible with the scale and scope of the project. C. It shall be City goal to encourage the inclusion of water bottle filling stations for public use in privately-owned developments. 8.07.060 Exceptions A. The provisions of this ordinance shall not apply where the City Manager or department finds that relying on bottled beverages (e.g. bottled water) is necessary in a given situation to protect the public health, safety and welfare, and no reasonable alternative will serve the same purpose. B. The provisions of this ordinance shall not apply to emergencies. C. The City Manager or designee responsible for permitting an event or issuing a lease on City Property may waive the requirements of this ordinance in full or in part if it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City Manager or designee that strict compliance would not be feasible, would create undue hardship or practical infeasibility, or that other reasonable circumstances warrant waiving the requirements of this ordinance. D. The provisions of this ordinance shall not apply where there are hydration requirements for employees working outside (i.e. fieldwork) and no reasonable alternative to plastic beverage bottles will serve the same purpose. E. The provisions of this ordinance shall not apply to the sale/distribution of bottled beverages to participants of a participant athletic event. F. The provisions of this Ordinance do not apply to an event where the applicant submitted a complete application for review, or received approval, prior to the effective date of this ordinance (November 23, 2017). Packet Pg 225 10 Ordinance No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 5 O ______ G. Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to impair a lease, contract, permit, bid proposal, solicitation, or other form of agreement to which the City is a party on the effective date of this Ordinance. 8.07.070 Implementation and Enforcement A. Prior to March 1, 2018, the City and departments issuing permits and/or other agreements shall take appropriate steps to update application checklists and other materials as well as educate and inform the public about the requirements of this ordinance. B. In addition to any other remedy available, any violation of the provisions of this ordinance by any person is subject to following administrative fines pursuant to the procedures of Chapter 1.24: 1. A fine not to exceed $200 for an event of 1 to 200 persons; 2. A fine not to exceed $400 for an event of 201 to 400 persons; 3. A fine not to exceed $600 for an event of 401 to 600 persons; and 4. A fine not to exceed $1,000 for an event of 600 or more persons. SECTION 4. Severability. If any subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforcement of the remaining portions of this Ordinance, or any other provisions of the city’s rules and regulations. It is the city’s express intent that each remaining portion would have been adopted irrespective of the fact that any one or more subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid or unenforceable. SECTION 5. Effective Dates. A summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of Council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in The Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This Ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage with phased implementation as established herein. A copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall be on file in the Office of the City Clerk on and after the date following introduction and passage to print and shall be available to any member of the public. INTRODUCED on the ____ day of ____, 2017, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the ____ day of ____, 2017, on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ____________________________________ Mayor Heidi Harmon ATTEST: Packet Pg 226 10 Ordinance No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 6 O ______ ____________________________________ 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 227 10 All Registered Statements sorted chronologically As of October 12, 2017, 4:25 PM Open City Hall is not a certified voting system or ballot box. As with any public comment process, participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The statements in this record are not necessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials. All Registered Statements sorted chronologically As of October 12, 2017, 4:25 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5433 Plastic Beverage Bottle Regulations and Water-Bottle Filling Stations What do you think of the proposed regulations to restrict the sale/distribution of plastic beverage bottles on City property and increase the availability of water bottle filling stations? Packet Pg 228 10 As of October 12, 2017, 4:25 PM, this forum had: Attendees: 84 Registered Statements: 20 All Statements: 41 Hours of Public Comment: 2.1 This topic started on September 18, 2017, 5:06 PM. All Registered Statements sorted chronologically As of October 12, 2017, 4:25 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5433 Page 2 of 6 Plastic Beverage Bottle Regulations and Water-Bottle Filling Stations What do you think of the proposed regulations to restrict the sale/distribution of plastic beverage bottles on City property and increase the availability of water bottle filling stations? Packet Pg 229 10 carol Mortensen inside Neighborhood 7 October 12, 2017, 3:57 PM We have a bottle deposit that we pay on plastic and glass bottles. Is there a program for the city to recoup these funds? If not, we should not sell them; we should only sell refillable bottles. If this is impossible to supervise or regulate, only allow glass bottles to be sold inside the city. Plastic bottles are not finding their way to recycling facilities. We could also charge an additional city recycling fee. Name not shown inside Neighborhood 7 October 12, 2017, 1:32 PM Reducing plastic bottle waste is a good idea. Re-filling stations are a nice idea as well but who is going to pay for them? Our city government already spends more than it should. I am not in favor of more taxes to pay for things like this. Name not shown inside Neighborhood 1 October 11, 2017, 2:40 AM It's a great idea! I'm all for it. Name not shown outside Neighborhoods October 8, 2017, 11:16 AM This is a great idea for the environment and the health of all species, including man. Perhaps businesses could make up for potential lost revenue by selling reusable bottles. Name not shown outside Neighborhoods October 8, 2017, 6:42 AM I support the initiative to restrict plastic beverage bottles and increase the availability of water bottle filling stations to reduce waste. I would like to see paper cups available or refillable bottles for sale close to the refilling stations for the rare times one forgets to carry their own bottle. Name not shown inside Neighborhood 6 October 7, 2017, 5:47 PM I support this initiative. It might be good to restrict and not fully ban the bottles at events. Bringing your own bottle takes some foresight and it's very likely some otherwise environmentally aware people forget their bottle or join the event on the spur, making a total ban probably unwise or even dangerous to public wellbeing at such events. I could imagine a phase-in period coupled with public education about the availability (or lack of) of single-use bottles. Karin Delia Horwitz outside Neighborhoods October 7, 2017, 2:05 PM Plastic Beverage Bottle Regulations and Water-Bottle Filling Stations What do you think of the proposed regulations to restrict the sale/distribution of plastic beverage bottles on City property and increase the availability of water bottle filling stations? All Registered Statements sorted chronologically As of October 12, 2017, 4:25 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5433 Page 3 of 6 Packet Pg 230 10 Yes, Banning the sale and use of one use plastic bottles at city events is the right thing to do, and I applaud our city government leaders for championing this important action. Having water stations that have clean and healthy water is a wonderful and appropriate civic service. Justin Bradshaw inside Neighborhood 1 October 5, 2017, 11:26 AM I support the idea of reducing plastic bottle waste by banning them on city property... and especially for refilling stations. I personally carry a reusable bottle everywhere I go and encourage others to do the same. This is a defensible way for the city to do that. My concerns are twofold: 1 - the straw ban will be met with ridicule and harm the efforts of the bottle ban. It seems like small effects compared to the blowback. 2 - I want to see ways to buy reusable bottles next to some of the filing stations. Perhaps vending machines with them should be available? Name not shown outside Neighborhoods October 3, 2017, 7:36 PM As an environmentally conscientious person I am thrilled that SLO City is taking drastic steps to alleviate plastic on our streets and in our waste dumps. However, I am concerned that the so called "watering stations" to replace bottled water is going to have it's own set of problems. SLO County Health Agency has already shown that it cannot perform up to what is expected regulation wise by way of the many complaints lodged against it over the past several years. Having watering stations will add one more item to the list to inspect and regulate by a department that is already challenged. I think some more brain storming and long term planning needs to be put in place before measures are taken to remove all plastic bottles away from entities using SLO City property. Linda Poppenheimer outside Neighborhoods September 29, 2017, 10:28 AM I applaud the City of San Luis Obispo for tackling this issue. It takes more water to make the bottle, clean it, and fill it than is actually in the bottle. Just because a package is recyclable does not mean that a. people will recycle it and b. that is worth using resources to make it. Bottled water is a wasteful and socially unjust product. Installing water refilling stations around town and promoting them will help people make the change. I hope the City passes this regulation and that it expands throughout the County. Krista Kolby outside Neighborhoods September 28, 2017, 5:05 PM I definitely think this is a step in the right direction. I would like to see plastic bottle use eliminated as well as straws. I would also like to see a ban on polystyrene use in SLO county. I actually think banning polystyrene is Plastic Beverage Bottle Regulations and Water-Bottle Filling Stations What do you think of the proposed regulations to restrict the sale/distribution of plastic beverage bottles on City property and increase the availability of water bottle filling stations? All Registered Statements sorted chronologically As of October 12, 2017, 4:25 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5433 Page 4 of 6 Packet Pg 231 10 more important than the plastic bottle issue because at least the bottles can be recycled whereas polystyrene stays in the environment forever. Name not shown inside Neighborhood 10 September 21, 2017, 2:00 PM Support. This is the way the world is heading, and we should not drag our feet. Kelly McCleary inside Neighborhood 7 September 21, 2017, 7:47 AM I support the City taking these steps to reduce the use of plastic beverage bottles on City property and to increase the availability of water filling stations around the city. Name not shown inside Neighborhood 8 September 20, 2017, 5:55 PM I fully support any regulation which reduces the availability of single-use plastic bottles and encourages re-filling of reusable bottles. Recycling uses energy and is not the answer - preventing the use of this material is sorely needed. People buy plastic bottles out of convenience, but they can also refill a container if it is made convenient. Roz Phillips inside Neighborhood 1 September 20, 2017, 12:15 PM I support restricting the sale and distribution of single-use plastic beverage bottles on SLO city property. I also feel that it is important to provide free water bottle filling stations. Name not shown inside Neighborhood 8 September 19, 2017, 10:40 AM I am completely for the reduction of plastic bottle waste by regulating the sale and distribution of plastic bottles on City property. My main concern when thinking out the practical details of implementing this, though, was how events like Thursday night Farmers Market will be impacted. I believe that with the proper balance of installing filling stations in proportion to the amount of restrictions of plastic bottles, Farmers Market vendors (and vendors for similar events) will be able to adapt with little negative impact to the local economy. If we start shifting the culture to a more sustainable way of living, we will all adapt. Also, with the rising popularity of reusable and insulated water bottles, it seems like the culture is already shifting to accommodating less plastic bottles (and thus less waste). Overall, I think limiting the sale and distribution of plastic bottles on City owned property is a wonderful and very responsible idea. Go SLO!! Jan Marx inside Neighborhood 2 September 19, 2017, 9:32 AM Plastic Beverage Bottle Regulations and Water-Bottle Filling Stations What do you think of the proposed regulations to restrict the sale/distribution of plastic beverage bottles on City property and increase the availability of water bottle filling stations? All Registered Statements sorted chronologically As of October 12, 2017, 4:25 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5433 Page 5 of 6 Packet Pg 232 10 Yes, I support this program. Wendi Craig outside Neighborhoods September 19, 2017, 6:30 AM I applaud the City of San Luis Obispo taking this step in discouraging the single use of plastic bottles. I am glad the city plans to put in the water stations to provide an alternative. Thank you for taking this step to increase awareness of this harmful and unncessary use of plastics. I am proud that our city is a leader in protecting the health and beauty of our planet. Name not shown inside Neighborhood 1 September 18, 2017, 8:33 PM I would support the increase in water refilling stations and restrictions on single use plastic water bottles, soda and sports drinks. I also support a ban on plastic single use straws. Dale Stoker inside Neighborhood 2 September 18, 2017, 8:09 PM Yes, I'm in favor of the plastic bottle ban and I appreciate this isn't limited to water as initially proposed. Please ensure there is a plan in place to create refill stations before fully banning bottles. Plastic Beverage Bottle Regulations and Water-Bottle Filling Stations What do you think of the proposed regulations to restrict the sale/distribution of plastic beverage bottles on City property and increase the availability of water bottle filling stations? All Registered Statements sorted chronologically As of October 12, 2017, 4:25 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5433 Page 6 of 6 Packet Pg 233 10 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg 234 10 Meeting Date: 1/3/2017 FROM: Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager Prepared By: Marcus Carloni, Special Projects Manager SUBJECT: REVIEW OF SINGLE -USE PLASTIC WATER BOTTLE AND WATER BOTTLE FILLING STATION REGULATIONS RECOMMENDATION 1. Receive a presentation on single-use plastic water bottle and water bottle filling station regulations and policy options; and 2. Provide direction to staff regarding any changes to current policies and practices. REPORT IN BRIEF At the February 2, 2016 City Council meeting, the City Council directed staff to agendize a Study Session related to regulations for single-use plastic water bottles (“plastic bottles”) and the addition of water bottle filling stations in the City. In particular, the City/County of San Francisco’s Ordinance was directed to be used as a model. (Attachment A, City Council Meeting Minutes). The purpose of this study session is for the City Council to provide specific policy direction to staff so that additional outreach can occur and staff can craft an ordinance and complete environmental review, as required dependent on the ultimate scope of the project. Community members who spoke at the meeting cited concerns regarding the environmental impacts associated with the resources required to manufacture plastic bottles which are used once and subsequently end up as litter, in a landfill, or at a processing facility for recycling. City Council discussion focused on having a Study Session to review plastic bottle regulations and water bottle filling station efforts implemented in San Francisco as well as nationally. The research section of the report focuses on a discussion of San Francisco’s regulations and also provides an analysis and summary table of common policy elements found in four other communities’ regulations. Most agencies, including San Francisco, focus on environmental concerns throughout the lifecycle of a plastic bottle as the basis for their regulations. The effort focuses on reducing consumption of plastic bottles due to their associated natural resource depleting impacts during manufacture/transportation as well as reducing the impacts associated with waste that ends up in the landfill, as litter, or is recycled. The communities which were reviewed address regulating plastic bottles in different ways, but the commonality is a limitation on the sale/use of single-use plastic water bottles (referring to those constructed with recyclable Polyethylene Terephthalate or PETE) by restricting the spending of city funds. The regulations also typically included a concomitant commitment to the installation of water bottle filling stations. This report also provides relevant City policies, information on state and local plastic bottle Packet Pg 235 10 recycling, discusses current City practices related to purchasing of plastic bottles and use of water bottle filling stations, and also summarizes the results of a survey that was sent to potentially affected businesses/events. The report concludes by providing questions to facilitate City Council discussion and direction, should Council want to pursue policy and/or operational changes. CITY POLICY REVIEW When considering new regulations, it is necessary to first review existing plans and policies to determine if there is guidance within those items that can inform discussion and potential action on new policies. General Plan Policies The General Plan does not specifically address the use of plastic bottles or water bottle filling stations, but does have a number of related policies/goals (provided below) which recognize the City’s responsibility for efficient use of materials and recycling while also acknowledging its role in encouraging residents and businesses to do so as well. 1. Conservation & Open Space Element (COSE) Policy 2.2.5. Model City. The City will be a model of pollution control efforts. It will manage its own operations to be as pollution free as possible. The City will work with other agencies and organizations to help educate citizens in ways to prevent air pollution. 2. COSE Policy 4.6.3. Sustainable design in City facilities. Incorporate conservation and sustainable energy sources and features in existing and new City facilities. 3. COSE Goal 5.2: Efficient use of materials. The City will use materials efficiently in its buildings and facilities, services and operations, and encourage others to do the same 4. COSE Policy 5.4.1. Best available practices. The City will employ the best available practices in materials procurement, use and recycling, and will encourage individuals, organizations and other agencies to do likewise. “Best available practices” means behavior and technologies that, considering available equipment, life-cycle costs, social and environmental side effects, and the regulations of other agencies: A. Use the least amount of newly refined materials for a desired outcome; B. Direct the largest feasible fraction of used materials to further use; C. Avoid undesirable effects due to further use of materials. 5. COSE Policy 5.4.2. Material recycling in City facilities and operations. The City will set a community example for waste diversion and material recycling in City facilities, services and operating systems to achieve a goal of 100 percent recycling of paper, bottles and cans and require similar goals in contracts and procurement for public goods and services and capital improvements. 6. COSE Policy 5.5.2. Promote City materials reuse and recycling. The City will manage its Packet Pg 236 10 operations to foster reuse and recycling by: A. Avoiding use of inks, papers, and plastics that inhibit recycling or that produce pollutants in preparation for recycling. 7. COSE Policy 5.5.3. Coordinate waste reduction and recycling efforts. The City will coordinate local, and participate in regional, household and business waste-reduction and recycling efforts. Climate Action Plan The San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan (CAP) is a policy document that provides a road map to achieve the City’s greenhouse gas reduction goals. According to the CAP, the majority of local emissions reductions come from building efficiency, transportation, and waste reduction strategies. Although not specifically contemplated as a strategy in the CAP, decreasing plastic bottle usage and increasing the use of reusable alternatives decrease the GHG emissions associated with manufacture and transport of single use bottles. Additionally, reduced consumption of single-use plastic bottles can reduce the amount of plastic bottles that end up as litter or in the landfill, consistent with the CAP’s Solid Waste Chapter which has an ultimate goal of reducing the amount of waste that ends up in the landfill. The solid waste chapter identifies strategies to increase the community’s waste diversion rate; the amount of material diverted from the landfill which can then be recycled, composted or reused. These strategies help reduce the amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with transport and decomposition of waste. Revenue and Finance (Municipal Code Title 3) Title 3 of the City’s Municipal Code provides purchasing policies for “environmentally preferred purchases” (Municipal Code Section 3.24.075) which indicate the intent of the City Council that the City take a leadership role in recycling its waste products as well as the purchase of recycled products for use in the delivery of City services. Specifically, section E (below) requires the purchase of equipment, supplies, and services that result in less harm to the natural environment. Section 3.24.075.E. City departments shall examine their purchasing specifications and, where feasible, purchase equipment, supplies, and services that result in less harm to the natural environment. This involves the purchase of equipment, supplies, and services in a manner that uses less harmful materials, employs recycled or recovered materials (where appropriate and available), and utilizes techniques intended to result in less impact on the environment than other available methods Packet Pg 237 10 -San Francisco Quick Facts- • Ban on drinking water bottles • 21 ounces or less • Locations: (not citywide) - City/County Property: offices, facilities, parks, streets, sidewalks - Events on City/County Property (when permit is required with attendance exceeding 100 persons) • Exceptions: - Participants in “Participant Athletic Events” (e.g. marathon) - Infeasible, no reasonable alternative, undue hardships. • Policy to increase availability of drinking water in public areas (filling stations, drinking fountains, water hook- ups). • Phased implementation timeline (2014 to 2018) RESEARCH San Francisco Ordinance No. 28-14 (Attachment B) Adopted in 2014, San Francisco amended their environmental code to restrict the sale/distribution of plastic water bottles (21 ounces or less) on City/County property only (e.g. facilities, parks, streets and sidewalks); including events held on City property. The Ordinance did not include any restrictions for businesses or events on private property (i.e. not a city/county- wide ban. This is accomplished by barring the use of City/County funds for purchase of bottled water and placing restrictions on new leases, permits, or other agreements on City/County property awarded by the City and County of San Francisco. The Ordinance also modified City/County policy to increase the availability of drinking water in public areas, especially public parks frequently used for special events. The modified policy requires capital improvement projects in parks, plazas, playgrounds, or other public spaces to install bottle-filling stations, drinking fountains, and/or potable water hook-ups for public use, as feasible and proximate with the scale/scope of the project. The policy also encourages the inclusion of bottle-filling stations/drinking fountains for public use in privately-owned public open spaces. Currently San Francisco has about 40 bottle filling stations installed or planned for installation in public areas. Consistent with the majority of other plastic bottle regulations, San Francisco cites environmental reasons for implementing the ban, specifically reducing the production of waste from plastic bottles. The San Francisco Ordinance strives to reduce consumption of plastic bottles due to the “tens of millions of single-use plastic water bottles from San Francisco that end up in the recycling stream, or landfill annually.” The Ordinance further indicates environmental impacts from the petroleum, energy, and pollution associated with production, transportation, and processing (e.g. recycling) of the bottles. San Francisco also notes the regulation and quality1 of San Francisco’s tap water supply and the lower cost of tap water as compared to bottled water. 1 San Francisco Ordinance No. 28-14. Section 2. Finding (h): “In the United States, public water is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which requires multiple daily tests for bacteria and makes results available to the public. The Food and Drug Administration, which regulates bottled water, only requires weekly testing and does not share its findings with the EPA or the public. Packet Pg 238 10 Approaches from Other Agencies In addition to San Francisco, a range of communities with adopted plastic bottle regulations were reviewed to study the scope and methods for implementation and enforcement. Four communities were selected for further discussion herein due to the amount of information available on their regulations; the full text of each is provided in Attachment C. A breakdown of common elements found in these regulations is provided below which is preceded by a summary table which compares the key elements of the different regulations. Furthermore, a table of communities which have implemented bans across the United States is provided for reference in Attachment D. Most communities focus on the environmental concerns of natural resource depletion and associated plastic bottle waste at a national and local level as the basis for an ordinance including: 1. Producing bottles for American consumption requires an estimated equivalent of more than 17 million barrels of oil, not including the energy for transportation, requiring 3 liters of water to produce each single liter of bottled water, and producing more than 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide (Seattle, WA). 2. Depletion of water from aquifers used to fill plastic water bottles (Concord, MA) 3. Americans purchase of 31 billion liters of water (2006) mostly sold in PET bottles requiring nearly 900,000 tons of plastic produced from fossil fuels (Seattle, WA). 4. Reducing dependence on plastics that end up in the waste stream; estimated to end up as litter or in the landfill more often than they are recycled (Concord, MA) 5. An estimated two million tons of plastic water bottles end up in landfills each year (San Francisco). 6. High number of plastic bottles ending up in the landfill take several hundred years to decompose (San Francisco) 7. Local policies associated with reducing waste and greenhouse gas emissions such as San Francisco’s “zero waste” policy. 8. Use of reusable bottles, drinking fountains, and water bottle filling stations produce an insignificant amount of waste as compared to single-use bottles (San Francisco). Most ordinances have several common/key elements including: 1. Focus: The majority of communities regulate plastic water bottle sale/use on their own property by restricting use of their funds for purchase of bottles and prohibiting the use at certain special events 2. Phasing: a period of time is given to allow time for affected businesses to adjust to the requirements before a ban is in effect. 3. Exemptions: Waivers and exclusions are authorized by those with authority to issue permits and are provided to allow flexibility in locations, such as parks, that do not currently have convenient access to safe drinking water. Exemptions are also provided to ensure public health, safety, and welfare during times of emergency (including degradation to the public water supply). San Francisco, in particular, requires annual reporting of all issued exemptions. Packet Pg 239 10 4. Water Bottle Filling Stations: Encourage additional drinking fountains and water bottle filling stations in community buildings and throughout the community. 5. Fines: Fine structures are established for those who do not comply with the restrictions of the ban. Generally, the structure begins at a warning with subsequent escalating fines. Some communities have additional elements which further specify the scope of their regulations including: 1. Focus on the use/sale of plastic water bottles of varying sizes (21 to 34 ounces and less). 2. Regulations do not include a ban of soda or flavored/carbonated beverages contained in plastic bottles (note: these bottles are manufactured with the same type of plastic as water bottles) (note: research indicates this may be due to the ability to provide alternative access to water (e.g. water bottle filling stations) and also because certain communities had already implemented a tax on soda). Other considerations addressed by communities include: 1. Toronto exempted all authorized special events in City facilities and parks from the ban. 2. Concord, MA is the only community in the United States to ban the retail sale of water in plastic bottles. The towns ban took effect in January 2013 and regulates the retails sale of single-use plastic (PETE) bottles of 34 ounces or less. 3. Chicago, IL instituted a tax in January 2008. The $0.05 per bottle tax applies to the retail sale of bottled water (plastic and glass) sold within City limits. Outcomes of Regulation There is relatively little data on the outcomes of plastic water bottle regulations. However, commonly occurring criticism of the regulations include concerns related to restricting the sale/use of the “healthy option” (i.e. water) rather than restricting the sale/use of the “less healthy” option (i.e. soda and other sugar-sweetened bottled beverages) and that reducing availability of the healthy option increases consumption of the less healthy option. This topic was a part of a focused study conducted at the University of Vermont by the American Journal of Public Health in July 2015 (see Attachment G). The subject study examined how the removal of bottled water on a university campus, along with the implementation of a minimum healthy beverage requirement, affected the purchasing behavior, healthiness of beverage choices, and consumption of calories and added sugars of university campus consumers. Utilizing shipment data for all bottled beverages sold to the university, the study reviewed consumption habits over three semesters (Spring 2012: before the regulations, Fall 2012: during transition to a 30% healthy beverage availability requirement, Spring 2013: bottled water removed as an option). The study found that when bottled water was banned, the per capita number of bottles shipped to campus increased significantly; indicating that the ban did not reduce the number of bottles entering the waste stream from the university. The study also suggests that consumers not only continued to buy bottled beverages but also made less healthy beverage choices after the regulations were in place. It should be noted that the University of Vermont made an effort to provide alternative water sources by retrofitting sixty drinking fountains with spouts to fill Packet Pg 240 10 reusable bottles, accompanied by a marketing campaign. Also, as noted in the study, it is limited by the short duration of data collection (only collecting one semester of data during full implementation of the bottled water ban) and further research would be needed to better understand whether consumers adjust their behavior over time to make healthier beverage choices. The long-term observations may reveal that the potential negative impact of banning bottled water is a short-term setback. Packet Pg 241 10 The chart below compares the key elements of ordinances from the agencies selected for research. Packet Pg 24210 Plastic Bottle Recycling According to the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), in 2013 there were approximately 21 billion California Refund Value (CRV) eligible containers that were sold, more than 18 Billion of which were recycled. The remaining 3 billion end up in landfills or as litter. CalRecycle indicates that recycling reduces carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses in the air by limiting the need to manufacture new products from raw materials; for every 10 pounds of clear plastic water or soda bottles, 3.3 pounds of carbon emissions disappear. Beverages sold in plastic bottles (water, soda, or other) are made of PETE (also PET) which stands for Polyethylene Terephthalate and is a form of polyester.2 PETE is commonly made (recycled) into flakes and pellets which are used in carpet, fiberfill/geotextiles, strapping, molding compounds, and food/non-food containers.3 At the local level, CalRecycle estimates4 that within the City of San Luis Obispo approximately 13,306,000 PETE bottles were purchased in fiscal year 2015-16 with 5,404,000 (or 41%) of those bottles being recycled; indicating that a large number of PETE plastic bottles purchased within the City end up as litter or in the landfill. Countywide, the recycling rate of PETE increases to 52%. CURRENT CITY PRACTICES Use of City Funds for Purchase of Bottles. Current City policy does not explicitly restrict the usage or sale of single-use plastic water bottles on City property or at City events. Generally plastic water bottles and soda bottles/cans are purchased for use at City events (workshops or other gatherings), advisory body and City Council meetings, and are vended in some City offices. Water Availability. The majority of City buildings have water available from drinking fountains or from water fillers attached to a break-room sink. At least one drinking fountain can be found in all City parks with the exception of approximately 8 of the smallest parks (e.g. Cheng Park located at Santa Rosa Street and Marsh Street). Water Bottle Filling Stations. The Public Works Department (Parks Maintenance and Facilities Maintenance) has a current practice to install water bottle filling stations in City parks and facilities as feasible. For example: when existing park-located drinking fountains reach the end of their useful life they are replaced with a fountain with a typical drinking fountain and a water bottle filling station. Currently the City has four water bottle filling stations as pictured below: 2 National Association for PET Container Resources (NAPCOR), PET Sustainability, 2015. Available at: http://www.napcor.com/PET/sustainability.html 3 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), Plastics Recycling - Polyethylene Terephthalate, 2016. Available at: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Plastics/Markets/PETEProfile.htm 4 Estimate based on PETE bottles sold throughout California in fiscal year 2015 -16 with per capita sales applied to San Luis Obispo’s City/County population. Recycling rate based on PETE from recycling centers and Cold Canyon Processing Facility. Packet Pg 243 10 LOCAL BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE A bottled water ban similar to that of San Francisco could impact businesses/events in San Luis Obispo that operate on City property; including streets, sidewalks, parks, and City buildings. This would include businesses that operate at Farmer’s Market and events such as Concerts in the Plaza and the SLO Marathon. To aid the City Council in decision making, staff designed a survey, using San Francisco’s Ordinance as a model. The survey was sent to businesses/event purveyors (with 63 responses) that would be potentially affected by plastic water bottle regulations. The results of the survey are provided as Attachment E and a summary is provided below. Note: totals exceed 100% because respondents were allowed to select more than one option. Seven core questions were asked of the respondents with intent to obtain an understanding of 1) the types/sizes of plastic bottles being used, 2) if the sale of beverages in plastic bottles was a significant component of the business/event, and 3) if the respondent would be concerned with restrictions on the sale of plastic bottles at City events/on City property. 1) The majority of respondents (60%) did not sell beverages contained in plastic bottles. Select all that apply. Currently my business sells (or plans to sell in the future) the following: Water Soda Flavored/ Carbonated water or similar We don’t sell beverages in plastic bottles Santa Rosa Park (2) City Hall Police Station (retrofit) Packet Pg 244 10 2) 37% sold water contained in plastic bottles 3) The majority of bottles sold (including water, soda, and other types) ranged from 12 to 16 ounces. 4) The majority of respondents (68%) indicated the success of their business did not depend on the sale of beverages contained in plastic bottles while 16% indicated “yes” and 16% indicating “somewhat." 5) Respondents were split between being concerned and not being concerned with the passage of regulations banning the sale of plastic bottles at City events/on City property: a) 45% were not concerned with the passage of a ban b) 43% were concerned with passage of a ban c) 12% were neutral 6) The general reasons provided in the survey for being concerned with passage of a ban are paraphrased below: a) Costumers want to buy the product/Bottled water sale is a notable portion of the profit margin b) Athletic type events have participants who need access to water c) Less convenient/No convenient alternative d) Recycling addresses the problem e) Too many local regulations f) Eliminating drinking water bottles encourages consumption of a less healthy alternative (e.g. soda). It is also important to note that, although not expressed in the survey responses, non-profit groups use city facilities to host fundraisers and a potentially significant portion of the revenue generated during these events may arise from the sale of bottled water. IMPLEMENTATION If the City Council’s direction is to prepare regulations limiting the use/sale of single-use plastic water bottles on City property/at City events and encouraging the use of water bottle filling stations similar to that of San Francisco’s Ordinance, the additional steps needed to complete the project are as provided below: 1. Focused Outreach and Meetings. Debrief after receiving City Council direction and obtain input from interested parties and impacted Departments. 2. Create Initial Draft Language. Hold meetings to obtain internal input and create draft regulation language. 3. Community Outreach. Broad public outreach to review and discuss proposed language using the City of San Luis Obispo’s Public Engagement and Noticing Manual. 4. Draft Final Language. Create draft regulations for review at Council Hearing. 5. City Council Review. City Council review of draft regulations. Public Engagement and Noticing Manual (PEN Manual) The City’s PEN Manual is designed to improve communication efforts and increase public participation on topics that affect them; providing steps to take for broadening public outreach. Packet Pg 245 10 The subject project is identified as a “consult” project in the PEN Manual’s Action Plan Matrix (see Attachment F) which provides the level of complexity and communication objective depending on the project type. A consult project includes a number of outreach tools with strategies to implement said tools. Outreach tools for consult include, but are not limited to, official legal notification (e.g. newspaper), electronic notification and website posting, public survey, focus groups/public input meetings, working with key contacts/liaisons, and study session(s). See Attachment F for all “expectation” and “additional” outreach tools provided in the consult category). FOCUS 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 (Focus) Restrict the use/sale of single-use plastic water bottles 1. At City facilities only (e.g. City offices, City Council meetings) 2. On all City owned property (e.g. facilities, parks, structures on city owned land) a. Include streets and sidewalks in definition of City property 3. At events held on City property a. Only events held by the City b. Only events that require a permit from the City (Filling Stations) Modify the current practice for installation of water bottle filling stations 1. Increase the number available within City facilities 2. Increase the number available within City parks 3. Modify requirements for filling stations in private developments with public spaces 4. Include water bottle filling stations as feasible in appropriate Capital Improvement Projects (Phasing) Establish a phased approach to implementing regulations (e.g 3-months for City departments to phase out bottled water purchases, 6- months for outreach to businesses/events, 6-months enforcement without fines) (Exemptions) Establish waivers and exclusions to allow flexibility (e.g. locations with limited access to water, undue hardship, emergencies) (Fines) Establish fine schedule for compliance (e.g. follow typical administrative fine schedule) The staff presentation at the Study Session will include a similar decision matrix to help focus Council direction. Packet Pg 246 10 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Upon City Council direction staff will review the project’s consistency with the California Environmental Quality Act and provide an environmental determination for City Council review. For reference, San Francisco determined their Ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act per section 15060(c)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines which indicates that “a project is not subject to CEQA if the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. FISCAL IMPACT The work to prepare regulations using the traditional outreach and public engagement approach can be absorbed through existing resources. If the City Council decides to increase the number of water bottle filling stations beyond the current practice, there would be an additional cost. The typical park water bottle filling station with attached drinking fountain (similar to that installed at Santa Rosa Park) has an installed cost ranging from $4,000 to $5,000. The higher number includes an estimated variable cost increase if the drinking fountain does not have an existing water line or sanitary sewer line for the drinking fountain (some of the older drinking fountains used a “sump style” draining system which is no longer compliant with modern Health and Safety Codes). Modifying an indoor wall mounted drinking fountain to include a water bottle filling station (similar to that installed in the Police Station) has an approximate installed cost of $2,500. Costs for implementation, on-going enforcement, and installation, and replacement are dependent on City Council direction and the scope of regulations and may require additional budget and resources. It should be noted that through careful outreach and thoughtful and deliberate roll out, the City has been able to achieve good compliance with the City’s Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) Ordinance through use of existing resources. ALTERNATIVES 1.Continue the study session if more information is necessary in order to provide direction to staff on preparing an ordinance. 2.Direct Staff to return with an ordinance to the City Council as soon as possible and limit public outreach efforts. This is not recommended as the City’s public outreach efforts bring valuable input to the Ordinance preparation process and have become an integral and expected component of any such effort and will help with eventual roll out of an ordinance. Packet Pg 247 10 Attachments: a - City Council Meeting Minutes (see Council Reading File) b - San Francisco Ordinance No 28-14 (see Council Reading File) c - Regulations from Other Agencies (see Council Reading File) d - Table of Communities with Plastic Bottle Regulations (see Council Reading File) e - Survey_City of San Luis Obispo Local Business Perspective (provided below) f - PEN Manual Action Plan Matrix (see Council Reading File) g - American Journal of Public Health Study - University of Vermont (see Council Reading File) Packet Pg 248 10 $%& ' (% )' %(' &(% )' " *% * * # + " , - " , . /,*# 0 # 0 . # 1234 5 65* " .7 % 8 9 %: # #% # % ; 0 # " %%% %<*# # 0 . %%% $%& ' (% )' %(' &(% )' " 9 ! "#! $ ATTACHMENT E Packet Pg 249 10 %' %' )%&' %' % ' %' $%' &8" =*,# " *# $ $ 8 9 $ ) + - > " %' %')%&' %' %'$%' " 9 ! ! ! ! ! !%& ' ! ( Packet Pg 250 10 )%)' % '( )%)' % $' 2 *# 0 * *+ . # -? 8 @ /A )%)' % ' )%)' % $' " 9 ) * +, !! Packet Pg 251 10 $%$' % '( %&' %()' $/,* 0 3 * 0 " 0 7 , " *? 8 @ /A B /A 0 $%$' % ' %&'%()' " 9 ) * +, -! +, Packet Pg 252 10 &%(' )%)' &%(' % ' )2 " ,*# " ,# 0 . # ? 8 @ " /A &%(' )%)' &%(' " 9 ) * +, !! Packet Pg 253 10 %)' %&' % '( (: *" 0 , " # " , # " * 0 * *+ . # -?! C % 8 @ /A %)'%&' % ' " 9 ) * +, ! . Packet Pg 254 10 &%' $%(' %( '. : *# 0 # # 0 " *? 8 @ /A &%' $%(' %( ' " 9 ) * +, !! Packet Pg 255 10 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg 256 10 Meeting Date: 10/24/2017 FROM: Derek Johnson, City Manager Prepared By: Marcus Carloni, Sustainability Coordinator SUBJECT: CLIMATE ACTION TASK FORCE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND ASSIGNMENT OF COUNCILMEMBER LIAISON TO THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the Memorandum of Understanding (Attachment A) between the City of San Luis Obispo and the Climate Action Task Force (Task Force) establishing the Task Force as the “Community Climate Action Coalition” that would help achieve the Climate Action objectives of the Climate Action Major City Goal work program; and 2. Designate a Councilmember to serve as the liaison between the City and the Task Force DISCUSSION Background In January of this year, the City Council made Climate Action a Major City Goal for the next two years in the 2017-19 Financial Plan. As a part of the Major City Goal process, a work program was established and approved by the City Council on June 20, 2017 (see Attachment A, Exhibit 1). One of the primary objectives of the work program is to “Support the establishment of a ‘Community Climate Action Coalition” by engaging other jurisdictions, professionals, elected officials, and residents to enhance community education, participation, and advocacy in all City and regional climate action adaptation and GHG emission reduction efforts.” Throughout the major city goal work program review process with the City Council, Mr. Eric Veium, a local resident, has expressed interest in involvement with the Community Climate Action Coalition. Mr. Veium has prior climate action experience and is currently Cal Poly’s Energy and Sustainability Analyst as well as being a founding member of SLO Clean Energy – a local unincorporated association of individuals who have come together around education/outreach for Community Choice Energy. Staff has been working with Mr. Veium on this topic for about six months and mutually decided to develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to formally establish the Task Force as the City’s Community Climate Action Coalition. The Task Force will be a subgroup of SLO Clean Energy, which is a wholly independent group of interested individuals and is not considered a “legislative body” within the meaning of the Brown Act. The Task Force is created through the network already established by SLO Clean Energy and the City will have no appointment or voting powers. The intent of the MOU is to ensure clarity of intent, roles, scope, and objectives as the City and the Task Force work toward achieving the City’s Climate Action goals which are of mutual interest to both groups. Packet Pg 257 11 Memorandum of Understanding The MOU (Attachment A) establishes a relationship with the Task Force and City and provides general requirements and responsibilities for each group. Key features include the following: 1. The Task Force will function as an independent group working with the City to support and encourage major city goal work program objectives by assisting with research, evaluation, public engagement, design, and implementation of objectives. 2. The Task Force will establish a lead role (e.g. chair) and determine their own membership (e.g. eight-person board). Member selection is expected to be a process open to individuals interested in supporting the City’s climate action objectives. Meetings will be open to individuals to attend who are interested in being involved in climate action efforts. 3. The Task Force will create a Charter/Annual Work Plan which will include their mission and anticipated scope of activities for the year. The task force is required to operate within the scope of the climate action major city goal objectives identified in the work program. 4. The Task Force will help achieve the objectives/timelines outlined in the Major City Goal work program with particular focus on helping to 1) update the Climate Act ion Plan, 2) develop an enhanced incentives program, and 3) research and assess the requirements to achieve a net zero city target including pursuit of Community Choice Energy. 5. The Task Force will work to be a primary voice in the community to engage the public and promote the City’s climate action efforts and organize community education materials such as an informational pamphlet to inform residents and businesses about greenhouse gas reducing opportunities. The Task Force will also help to organize/sup port community outreach around events such as Net Zero Energy Day. 6. The Task Force will submit an annual report on their annual work plan that describes the actions taken during the previous calendar year and actions to be taken in the upcoming calendar year. Sustainability Coordinator and Councilmember Representative As discussed with Council during development of the Climate Action Major City Goal work program, the City’s Sustainability Coordinator and a Councilmember will be assigned to provide support to the Task Force, as well as be an attendee of Task Force meetings. This is identified in the MOU as Term 2(c). The role of the designated Councilmember will be to express the position of the Council and provide input as a Council representative, keep council abreast of Task Force progress, and to maintain familiarity with the membership, work program, and efforts of the Task Force. Staff is looking to the City Council to designate a Councilmember representative for the Climate Action Task Force. Packet Pg 258 11 CONCURRENCES The Memorandum of Understanding has been reviewed and discussed with the Climate Action Steering Committee and City Green Team as well as the City Attorney’s office; all concur with the recommendation. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The act of approving this MOU is not subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a project as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 (Definitions – Project). FISCAL IMPACT The City Council has already established funding of $5,000 per year to provide support to the Task Force. As identified in Term No. 6 of the MOU, these funds are to be associated with objectives/tasks outlined in this agreement and use of funds must be approved by the City. There is otherwise no direct fiscal impact associated with the recommended action. ALTERNATIVES 1. Modify the MOU. The City Council should provide specific direction on what parts of the MOU should be modified. 2. Do not approve the MOU. This is not recommended as no other groups are currently interested in being in the role of supporting the City’s climate action efforts. Attachments: a - Task Force Memorandum of Understanding Packet Pg 259 11 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE COMMUNITY CLIMATE ACTION TASK FORCE This Memorandum of Understanding (“Agreement”) is entered into this ___ day of ______ 2017 (the “Effective Date”), by and between the City of San Luis Obispo, a municipal corporation and charter city (herein referred to as “City”) and the Community Climate Action Task Force, a subgroup of SLO Clean Energy, an unincorporated association (herein referred to as “the Task Force”). City and the Task Force are sometimes referred to herein as “the Parties.” WITNESSETH WHEREAS, in January 2017 the City made Climate Action a Major City Goal in the 2017/2019 Financial Plan with an overall goal of reducing citywide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; and WHEREAS, the Major City Goal work program includes fourteen objectives (provided in Exhibit 1), which include to update/implement the Climate Action Plan, assess requirements/achieve a net-zero city target, develop energy efficiency incentives, improve energy efficiency in City facilities, and to identify/assign resources to perform the work needed to achieve the objectives; and WHEREAS, The Major City Goal work program indicates that the City will support the establishment of a community climate action coalition by engaging other jurisdictions, professionals, elected officials, and residents to enhance communit y education, participation, and advocacy in all City and regional climate action adaptation and GHG emission reduction efforts; and WHEREAS, the city’s intent in supporting a coalition is to work with community members/leverage experience in climate adaptation as well as involve, and keep informed, the community’s residents and businesses in the city’s climate action efforts; and WHEREAS, the Climate Action Task Force, a group of citizens, has proposed to become said coalition – to function as an independent group working with the City to accomplish major city goal work program objectives by assisting with research, evaluation, public engagement, design, and implementation of objectives; and WHEREAS, City recognizes that the members of the Task Force will have complimentary experience in climate adaptation and will be able to support the City’s GHG reduction and community outreach goals, and through this MOU, the Parties wish to work together toward the attainment of mutual goals; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions, promises, and agreements herein set forth, City and the Task Force hereby agree as follows: Packet Pg 260 11 Memorandum of Understanding City of San Luis Obispo / Climate Action Task Force 2 TERMS 1. Recognition of Mutual Benefit. It is in the interest of the City to explore opportunities for partnership in achieving the goals of the climate action major city goal – reducing communitywide greenhouse gas emissions. The City and the Task Force have aligned goals in this regard and this agreement may serve as a first step for future agreements and a broader scope relative to future climate action objectives. 2. Task Force Charter/Annual Work Plan. Within two months after this agreement is signed the Task Force will provide the City with a Task Force Charter/Annual Work Plan. The charter/annual work plan will include the mission of the Task Force and include the anticipated scope of activities for the year. a. The Task Force will determine their own membership which will be structured with a core group of members (e.g. 8-person board). Task Force member selection is expected to be a process open to individuals interested in supporting the City’s climate action work program objectives as provided in section 3 and Exhibit 1 herein. b. The Task Force will select a lead role (e.g. task force chair)/primary point of contact between the Task Force and the City’s Sustainability Coordinator. c. Meetings of the Task Force are expected to be open to individuals who are interested in being involved in climate action efforts and meetings will be as inclusive as possible to those who want to contribute. d. The City’s Sustainability Coordinator and a Councilmember will be designated to provide support to the Task Force on an ongoing basis. 3. Scope and Objectives. The Task Force will operate within the scope of the major city goal work program (attached hereto as Exhibit 1) with particular attention given to the high impact objectives noted in bold in the action plan and will work to enhance community education, participation, and advocacy in all City and regional climate action adaptation and GHG emission reduction efforts; and a. By January 31 of each year: The Task Force will submit an annual report on the annual work plan to the City Manager or their designee that describes the actions the Task Force undertook during the previous calendar year and actions the Task Force plans to take in the upcoming calendar year. b. The Task Force will work to be a primary voice in the community to engage the public and promote the City’s climate action efforts and organize community education materials, forums and events to inform residents and businesses about greenhouse gas reducing opportunities. Packet Pg 261 11 Memorandum of Understanding City of San Luis Obispo / Climate Action Task Force 3 i. The Task Force will work to develop outreach materials, such as an informational pamphlet, to inform residents and businesses about greenhouse gas reducing opportunities consistent with the intent of the City’s climate action goals. The pamphlet and/or other outreach materials will be delivered to the community on a quarterly basis. ii. The Task Force will coordinate a booth/informational stand or other form of outreach presence at regular community events (e.g. Farmer’s Market, Good Morning SLO) on a quarterly basis. iii. The Task Force will take the lead on organizing/supporting community outreach around city-initiated community events such as Net Zero Energy Day, and assisting/supporting other similar events that are not necessarily initiated by the city (e.g. drive electric week). iv. The Task Force will designate a member(s) to be involved in local and regional climate action groups such as Central Coast Clean Cities Coalition and the Central Coast Climate Collaborative. c. The Task Force will work to help achieve the objectives/timelines outlined in the climate action major city goal work program (Exhibit 1) in particular; i. The Task Force will help with the Climate Action Plan update by researching best practices in other jurisdictions and recommending new/updated GHG reduction measures. ii. The Task Force will help to develop an enhanced incentives program to encourage energy efficiency and reduction of GHG emissions in the community. The incentives program will include incentives for retrofits to existing structures as well as incentives for new development projects to reduce GHG emissions and provide efficient structures (e.g. LEED certified buildings). iii. The Task Force will help to research and assess the requirement to achieve a net zero city target including helping to identify opportunity sites in the City to create net zero district(s). iv. The Task Force will assist with research and implementation of a Community Choice Energy program including providing technical resources and other support to evaluate, design, and implement the program. v. The Task Force will help to research, design, and implement electric vehicle charging infrastructure and help to support electric vehicle adoption in the community. 5. Facilities. The City will allow the Task Force to use City facilities, pending availability, and waive rental fees associated with the use of City facilities such as the Ludwick Center. Packet Pg 262 11 Memorandum of Understanding City of San Luis Obispo / Climate Action Task Force 4 6. Funding. The Climate Action Major City Goal work program identified limited funding to be available from the City to support a Community Climate Action Coalition. These funds are to be associated with objectives/tasks outlined in this agreement. Written proposals for use of funds will include cost, purpose, and expected outcomes for use of funds and will be provided to the City two weeks in advance of when funds will be needed. 7. Termination of Agreement by City. Either party may terminate this MOU for any reason whatsoever upon written 90-day notification of such termination. 8. Relationship of Parties. The Task Force shall be considered an independent organization and not an agent, officer or employee of the City. Task Force officers, members, affiliates, volunteers, employees and independent contractors shall not be considered agents, officers or employees of the City. 9. Compliance with Laws. The Task Force shall comply with all applicable statutes, ordinances, or regulations now or hereafter adopted by any federal, state or county governmental entity, and with all ordinances, regulations, policies and guidelines now or hereafter adopted by the City. Upon request by City, the Task Force agrees to have its members execute waivers and releases of liability for any activities which in City’s opinion warrants such waivers and releases to be executed prior to participation in such activity. 10. Amendments. The City Manager or designee will consider any proposed amendments to this MOU. Proposed amendments that do not significantly affect scope, objectives, outcomes or deliverables that are considered minor in nature may be approved by the City Manager or designee. Other material amendments shall be reviewed for approval by the City Council. 11. Counterparts. This MOU may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which, taken together, shall constitute one and the same instrument, binding on each signatory thereto. ATTEST CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Carrie Gallagher City Clerk Date Heidi Harmon Mayor Date APPROVED AS TO FORM: COMMUNITY CLIMATE ACTION TASK FORCE J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney Date [Name: ] President Date Packet Pg 263 11 MAJOR CITY GOALS 5 CLIMATE ACTION WORK PROGRAM Exhibit 1 GOAL STATEMENT Implement Climate Action Plan, assess requirements to achieve a “net -zero carbon City” target, and implement cost-effective measures, including implementation of a Sustainability Coordinator and formation of a Green Team. OUTCOME – FINAL WORK PRODUCT The Climate Action Major City Goal will further the community’s effort to achieve environmental goals that address climate change adaptation and the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. DISCUSSION The Climate Action Plan (CAP) was adopted by Resolution in 2012 and serves as the City’s policy document that sets forth objectives and strategies that the City and community can in turn use as a road map to achieve the City’s GHG reduction goals. The CAP is a dynamic strategic document that requires continual updates to address changes in State policies, technologies and the natural environment. One of the overarching reasons is that if the City is not meeting GHG reduction goals as measured and reported, then the City should adjust strategies and polic ies as necessary. In August 2016 two assessments, the 2016 Climate Action Plan Progress Report (Progress Report) and the City of San Luis Obispo Energy Baseline Report (Energy Baseline Report), were prepared to: 1. assess the progress of the near-term CAP implementation strategies to reduce GHG emissions, and, 2. assess the City’s energy use and cost for City-owned facilities between June 2013 and May 2016. Both assessments concluded that although the City was making progress towards achieving the objectives identified in the CAP, there were several action items that could be pursued in the near -term. The identified actions would position the City for continued success at achieving the 2020 GHG emissions reduction targets, and position the City to be a leader in the development, implementation and export of renewable energy and emissions reduction programs. These activities would create local economic opportunities, enhance community well -being and resilience, and inspire and enable our regional partners to participate in reducing carbon emissions and stabilizing the climate. Building upon the recommendations from the Progress Report and the Energy Baseline Report a cohesive climate change strategy, that includes existing and future work efforts, will be develo ped and implemented over the next two fiscal years. Proposed Scope of Work The proposed work program includes the following key actions: ▪ Reprioritizing and assigning Sustainability Coordinator responsibilities to the Special Projects Manager to oversee the implementation of the City’s strategies to address climate change adaptation and the reduction of GHG emissions. ▪ Create a City “Green Team” to assist the Sustainability Coordinator with the implementation of the City’s CAP strategies. The Green Team will be comprised of representatives from each department with expertise in environmental policy, transportation/mobility, energy efficiency, water conservation, recycled water, consumption and solid waste reduction, food and agriculture, open space conservation/wildland protection, flood control and hazard mitigation, urban forestry, housing, land uses planning and building construction, government operations, climate change adaptation and resiliency, advocacy and public outreach/education. Packet Pg 264 11 MAJOR CITY GOALS 6 CLIMATE ACTION WORK PROGRAM ▪ Assess and report the requirements to achieve the “net-zero carbon City” target. Including feasibility analysis and implementation of Community Choice Energy program. ▪ Re-evaluate the feasibility or relevance of the GHG emissions reduction implementation measures in the CAP, and identify implementation funding sources. ▪ Support the establishment of a “Community Climate Action Coalition” by engaging other jurisdictions, professionals, elected officials, and residents to enhance community education, participation, and advocacy in all City and regional climate action adaptation and GHG emission reduction efforts. ▪ Update the City’s GHG emissions inventory. ▪ Update the Climate Action Plan to reflect changes in State and Regional legislative policies, technologies and resilience due to changes in the natural environment. ▪ Ensure accountability and monitoring of the effectiveness and progress for all CAP implementation strategies and measures. ▪ Develop enhanced incentive programs to encourage energy efficiency and reduction of GHG emissions in the community. ▪ Perform energy assessments/audits on all City-owned facilities. ▪ Implement energy and cost saving measures and projects identified in the energy assessments. ▪ Monitor and measure City-owned facility and infrastructure performance on a biennial basis. ▪ Prepare an Energy Baseline Report and Rate Analysis for City-owned facilities and infrastructure on an annual basis. ▪ Report on the effectiveness of individual climate action adaptation and GHG emission reduction strategies and measures to provide City Council with an indication of the overall achievement towards the defined objectives and targets annually. Work Underway or Ongoing The following is a list of work efforts being conducted by the City that are currently underway or are ongoing in nature. All the activities have some bearing on the City’s ability to achieve its climate action goals. With the Major City Goal of Climate Action, the Sustainability Coordinator and the Green Team will evaluate these work efforts to ensure consistency with the Climate Action Plan, and identify and recommend adjustments or modifications on a prioritized basis. Work Efforts Underway (Responsible Department) ▪ Subdivision Regulations Update (Community Development) ▪ Zoning Regulations Update (Community Development) ▪ Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance Update (Community Development) ▪ Conversion of City Fleet to Electric/Alternative Fuel Vehicles (Public Works) ▪ Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) project (Utilities) ▪ Toilet Retrofit (Utilities) ▪ Green Waste Composting Facility (Utilities) ▪ Plastic Bottle Reduction (Administration) ▪ Community Choice Energy Assessment (Administration) Ongoing Work Efforts (Responsible Department) ▪ Green and Energy Conservation Building and Construction Code Updates (Community Development) ▪ Construction and Demolition Recycling Plan (Community Development) ▪ Housing Element Update and Implementation (Community Development) ▪ Land Use Element Update and Implementation (Community Development) ▪ Near-Term GHG Emission Reduction Implementation Measures (All Departments) ▪ Circulation Element Update and Implementation (Public Works) ▪ Short Range Transportation Plan Implementation (Public Works) ▪ Bicycle Transportation Plan Implementation (Public Works) Packet Pg 265 11 MAJOR CITY GOALS 7 CLIMATE ACTION WORK PROGRAM ▪ Bicycle Path Maintenance Program (Public Works) ▪ Sustainable Solutions Turnkey (SST) project (Public Works) ▪ Building Maintenance and Improvement Program Implementation (Public Works) ▪ Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan (Utilities) ▪ Water and Wastewater Element Update and Implementation (Utilities) ▪ Wastewater Collection Infrastructure Renewal Strategy (Utilities) ▪ Water Efficient Landscaping Standards (Utilities) ▪ Recycled Water Master Plan (Utilities) ▪ Historic Resource Protection, Preservation and Reuse of City Owned Facilities (Parks & Recreation) ▪ Open Space and Trails (Natural Resources and Parks and Recreation Ranger Service) ▪ Trees and Urban Forestry (Public Works) ▪ Creek and Flood Control Program Implementation (Public Works and Natural Resources) ▪ Wildlands Fire Protection (Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation Ranger Service and Fire) ▪ Vegetation Management Program Implementation (Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation Ranger Service, and Fire) ▪ Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Implementation (Fire) ▪ Natural Resource Protection Program Implementation (Natural Resources & Parks and Recreation Ranger Service) ▪ Greenbelt Protection Program Implementation (Natural Resources) ▪ SLO Stewards Program Implementation (Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation Ranger Service and non-profit partners) ▪ Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan Implementation (Natural Resources and Public Works) ▪ Environmental Restoration and Invasive Species Management (Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation Ranger Service, and non-profit partners) ▪ Trip Reduction Incentive Program (TRIP) for City Employees (Human Resources) ▪ Economic Development Strategic Plan Implementation (Administration) ▪ Support of Empower and other financing programs designed to specifically retrofit existing commercial and residential buildings. WORK PROGRAM CONSTRAINTS AND LIMITATIONS Greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to the warming of the atmosphere which is resulting in drastic changes to our climate. The current trajectory of global warming is alarming and requires significant and critical actions to prevent further escalation of the GHG emissions that have already caused changes in the climate, resulting in noticeable and significant impacts. The associated consequences of increased temperatures are extreme weather events, acceleration of polar ice melt, rising sea levels, increasing ocean acidity, accelerated species loss, increased risk of high intensity wildfires, and increasing numbers of “excessive heat days” (above 95 degrees Fahrenheit). Actions to address climate change require significant financial and resource investment. However, there are grants, state and federal funding, and public/private partnership opportunities available to help offset the cost associated with some climate action adaptation and GHG emission reduction implementation strategies and measures. When the CAP was adopted the estimated cost was $1.3 million dollars over a ten -year time frame to implement all the identified CAP strategies. The estimate to implement the proposed work plan over the 2017 -2019 Financial Plan period is $307,500, this includes $105,000 in Capital Improvement Plan projects. Provided below is a line item break down of the estimated expenses: Packet Pg 266 11 MAJOR CITY GOALS 8 CLIMATE ACTION WORK PROGRAM Implementation FY 17-18 (one-time/ongoing) FY 18-19 (one-time/ongoing) 1.0 FTE – Sustainability Coordinator $112,217 (one-time) $118,754 (one-time) Offset by Department Budget: 1.0 FTE Special Projects Manager -$112,217 (one-time) -$118,754 (one-time) .25 FTE – Green Team Coordination Efforts $28,054 (one-time) $29,688 (one-time) Offset by Department Budget: 0.25 FTE Deputy Director CDD – Long Range Planning -$28,054 (one-time) -$29,688 (one-time) Consultant Services: GHG Inventory Update $15,000 (one-time) $0 Training $10,000 (one-time) $5,000 (one-time) Offset by Department Budget: Training -$10,000 (one-time) -$5,000 (one-time) Consultant Services: Energy Assessments/Audits of City-Owned Facilities and Infrastructure $15,000 (one-time) $10,000 (one-time) Potentially Offset by Matching Grant Funds: Energy Assessments/Audits of City-Owned Facilities and Infrastructure -$7,500 (one-time) -$5,000 (one-time) City facilities and infrastructures energy efficiency and cost saving projects $55,000 (one-time) $40,000 (one-time) Potentially Offset by Matching Grant Funds: City facilities and infrastructures energy efficiency and cost saving projects -$27,500 (one-time) -$20,000 (one-time) Green Fleet Charging Stations (CIP) $30,000 (one-time) $75,000 (one-time) Enhanced Incentive Programs to encourage energy efficiency and GHG emissions reduction $0 $50,000 (one-time) CAP Update $35,000 (one-time) $0 Potentially Offset by Matching Grant Funds: CAP Update -$17,500 (one-time) $0 Assessment of Net-Zero Carbon City $10,000 (one-time) $0 Community Choice Energy -Engage in JPA Formation $25,000 $0 Community Choice Energy Initial Operations $0 $TBD Community Climate Action Coalition Support $5,000 (one-time) $5,000 (one-time) Public Education and Outreach $5,000 (one-time) $5,000 (one-time) Monitoring and Reporting of Progress $3,000 (one-time) $2,000 (one-time) Subtotal $348,271 $340,442 Offsets -$232,771 -$253,442 Total $115,500 $87,000 Packet Pg 267 11 MAJOR CITY GOALS 9 CLIMATE ACTION WORK PROGRAM There are several other constraints that might limit program implementation and success, beyond cost. Climate action adaptation requires commitment from residents, business owners, developers, other local jurisdictions, energy providers, etc. Collaboration and consolidation of resources will be necessary to achieve success on a large scale. Provided below are a list of some of the specific obstacles that can reasonably be expe cted during implementation of this goal. 1. Ongoing compliance with State and Federal regulations may require periodic amendment and or update of our climate action adaptation and GHG emission reduction policies and implementation strategies. 2. The availability of grant funding may be limited, uncertain, or highly competitive to secure. 3. Competing staff priorities which may delay implementation of the work program over a longer period than originally anticipated. 4. Significant public involvement or coordination with business, community or neighborhood groups will be required since more than 2/3 of the GHG emissions produced in the city come from the community. Therefore, it will require voluntary behavioral changes throughout the community to make significant progress toward achieving the GHG emission reductions targets. 5. Willingness to implement regulations that require shared costs between the public and private sectors to achieve GHG reduction goals. 6. Ongoing reliance on support from jurisdictional partners (e.g. County of San Luis Obispo Energy Watch and Energy Wise programs) By utilizing local and regional resources and collaborating with jurisdictional partners to consolidate scarce resources and efforts, the challenges listed above may be overcome. For example, the County of San Luis Obispo Energy Watch and Energy Wise programs have resources (funding and staffing) to assist with the technical preparation of the energy assessments/audits, GHG emissions inventory update, CAP update, grant writing, the development of annual monitoring and reporting tools and best practices. STAKEHOLDERS Due to the broad nature of this goal, stakeholder involvement will need to be equally broad. City residents remain the primary stakeholders. Generally, outreach will also be targeted to other government agencies associated with projects and programs, in addition to interested parties, advocacy groups and neighborhoods near the vicinity of projects will be consulted. Other stakeholders include the County of San Luis Obispo, Air Pollution Control District (APCD), San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG), Caltrans, Cal Poly University, Cuesta College, California Men’s Colony, SLO Regional Transit Authority (RTA), Chamber of Commerce, Home Builders Association, City sponsored advisory bodies (i.e. PC, ARC, BAC and MTC), bike advocacy groups, citizen groups, neighborhood groups, and environmental and business associations. The involvement of each stakeholder will vary by implementation measure. Packet Pg 268 11 MAJOR CITY GOALS 10 CLIMATE ACTION WORK PROGRAM ACTION PLAN (High Impact Objectives shown in bold) Task Lead Department Target Date 1. Identify Resources a. Introduce Sustainability Coordinator to the City. b. Creation of a City “Green Team” and establishment of roles and responsibilities. c. Support for the establishment of a “Community Climate Action Coalition”. 2. Net Zero Carbon City a. Assessment of the requirements to achieve a “net-zero carbon City” target. b. Identify opportunity sites to create “net zero carbon district(s)” c. Feasibility analysis and implementation of a Community Choice Energy Program. 3. Updating the Climate Action Plan. 4. Re-evaluation of the feasibility or relevance of some of the identified GHG emissions reduction implementation measures that are identified in the CAP, and identification of potential implementation funding sources. 5. Updating the City’s GHG emissions inventory. 6. Biennial reporting on the effectiveness of individual climate action adaptation and GHG emission reduction strategies. 7. Ongoing accountability and monitoring of the effectiveness and progress for all CAP implementation strategies and measures. 8. Development of enhanced incentive programs. ADMIN ADMIN ADMIN ADMIN CDD CDD CDD CDD CDD ADMIN July 2017 September 2017 November 2017 June 2018 December 2018 March 2018 June 2018 May 2019 June 2019 June 2019 Packet Pg 269 11 MAJOR CITY GOALS 11 CLIMATE ACTION WORK PROGRAM 9. Performance of energy assessments/audits on all City-owned facilities. 10. Implementation of energy and cost saving measures and projects that were identified in the energy assessments/audits on all City- owned facilities. 11. Monitoring and measuring of City-owned facility and infrastructure performance. 12. Preparation of an Energy Baseline Report and Rate Analysis for City-owned facilities and infrastructure. 13. Implement Plastic Straw Regulations 14. Implement Plastic Bottle Regulations PW/UTILITIES PW/UTILITIES PW/UTILITIES PW/UTILITIES ADMIN ADMIN March 2018 July 2018 August 2018 March 2019 October 2017 April 2018 KEY WORK PROGRAM ASSUMPTIONS 1. The City will commit the necessary staff and financial resources to implement this work program. 2. The City cannot solve Climate Action Adaptation and GHG emission reductions on its own or in a financial plan or two. Achieving the targets set forth in the CAP will require ongoing commitments and involvement/coordination with residents, local businesses, community/neighborhood groups, and local/regional government agencies. 3. The City will receive significant technical assistance from the County of San Luis Obispo Energy Watch and Energy Wise programs and staff. 4. The City will be awarded grant funding to offset the cost associated with the energy assessments/audits for City-owned facilities and infrastructure, GHG emissions inventory update, CAP update, grant submittals, and the development of monitoring and reporting tools and best practices. 5. Discontinuation of the availability of assistance from the County of San Luis Obispo or grant funding will result in significant changes to the operational budget. RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENTS The Administration Department will be the lead department responsible for coordination and implementation of the Climate Action Major City Goal. All City Departments will provide implementation support as needed for specific tasks. Each assigned City Department will be accountable for completing the identified action plan tasks by the target date. The primary role of the Sustainability Coordinator will be to coordinate all the existing and proposed work efforts that have bearing on the City’s ability to address climate change adaptation and reduction of GHG emissions by the 2020 target. Specifically, the Sustainability Coordinator will be direc tly responsible for securing grant funding; coordinating the efforts of the Green Team; providing assistance and support to community “Climate Action Coalition” group(s); overseeing the update and maintenance of the Climate Action Plan web page and resourc es; overseeing the update of the City’s GHG emissions inventory and CAP; development and monitoring of incentives programs; and supporting energy efficiency programs such as PACE and Community Choice Energy. Community Packet Pg 270 11 MAJOR CITY GOALS 12 CLIMATE ACTION WORK PROGRAM Development will provide ongoing support and assistance to the Sustainability Coordinator. Community Development will be directly responsible for updating the City’s GHG emissions inventory and CAP documents, monitoring and reporting on implementation progress, and assessing the effectiveness of individual climate action adaptation and GHG emission reduction strategies. Public Works and Utilities will provide support work efforts associated with energy efficiency and cost saving improvements to City-owned facilities and infrastructure. All departments will designate at least one staff member to serve as the Green Team representative for their department/division. FINANCIAL AND STAFF RESOURCES REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL Accomplishing this goal will require leadership commitment and ensuring appropriate staff and financial resources are available to work on and fund these efforts. The Administration Department does not have the capacity or expertise to take on the efforts outlined in the work program without adding 1.25 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) staff in additional resources. This additional staff resource will consist of 1.25 total FTE (1.0 Sustainability Coordinator and 0.25 Green Team coordination efforts). The Sustainability Coordinator role will be provided by re -allocating the entire 1.0 FTE Special Projects Manager position, and Green Team coordination efforts will be offset by 0.25 FTE of the Deputy Director CDD - Long Range Planning position to achieve the identified work efforts during the 2017-19 Financial Plan. The Green Team will consist of approximately 0.25 FTE in the form of various positions from each City department with expertise to assist the Sustainability Coordinator. All City Departments will contribute a portion of their departmental training budget to offset any necessary training that is requested for the Sustainability Coordinator and/or the Green Team representatives. It is anticipated that there will be a series of Minor Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) requests related to the work program because of the energy efficiency and cost saving projects that are identified via energy assessments and audits. One-time funds in the amount of $55,000 in FY 17-18 and $40,000 in FY 18-19 have been budgeted, using one-time savings in the Community Development Department’s FY 2016-17 budget, for anticipated energy efficiency projects. In addition, a new Capital Improvement Project is proposed to install electric City vehicle charging stations in the 919 Parking Structure. The stations will support the City’s Fleet of five plug -in hybrid vehicles and proposed five additional plug-in hybrids over the next two years and allow the City to consider full electric vehicle options for the City’s fleet. The cost of the charging stations is estimated to be $30,000 for design in in FY 2017-18 and $75,000 for construction in 2018-19. FISCAL IMPACT This program will be funded by the General Fund and Enterprise Funds (CIP); however, there are opportunities for grant funding, which the Sustainability Coordinator will pursue to offset anticipated costs. Another long-term cost will be the enhanced incentive programs and the implementation of energy and cost saving measures and projects. These enhanced incentive programs may lead to additional expenses associated with services for implementation and program management. Climate action adaptation is a long-term goal that will require future requests for funding associated with maintaining the GHG emissions inventory and the CAP implementation strategies. Packet Pg 271 11 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg 272 Meeting Date: 10/24/2017 FROM: Derek Johnson, City Manager Prepared By: Greg Hermann, Acting Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: CONSIDER ACTIONS RELATED TO THE ANIMAL SERVICES SHELTER AGREEMENT RECOMMENDATION Receive a report on the regional effort to build an animal services shelter and consider actions related to the potential withdrawal of other participating cities from the joint agreement to finance and construct a replacement animal services shelter. DISCUSSION Under state law, incorporated cities must provide their own animal services or contract for those services. Currently, all seven incorporated cities in San Luis Obispo County contract with the County for these services. The County Animal Services Division (“Division”) provides animal field services, care, and shelter services throughout the unincorporated regions of the county, as well as within each of the seven incorporated communities. Each city contracting with the Division is assessed an annual service fee based upon their proportionate use of both field services and animal sheltering together with the operational costs associated with each of those functions. The current shelter, built in 1975, no longer meets current industry standards and in 2015 the Board of Supervisors determined that a new facility was necessary. At the Council Meeting held on February 7th, 2017, staff presented a report with the recommendation to authorize an agreement with the County of San Luis Obispo and the other incorporated cities in the county to jointly finance and construct a replacement animal services shelter. This agreement was approved and signed, but subsequently the cities of Paso Robles and Atascadero have indicated interest in considering alternatives to a county-wide shelter. The agreement would apportion 12.09% of the estimated total maximum cost of $14.5 million to the City (approximately $100,000-$130,000 / year over the next 25 years with the first year estimated at $146,000 for the finance and construction of the facility) in addition to the City’s proportional share of $176,033 for field services. Should other cities withdraw, the proportionate use attributed to the City would increase along with the project costs. In addition, the deadline to withdraw from the agreement is prior to October 31, 2017. Both Paso Robles and Atascadero have scheduled special meetings on the afternoon of October 30, 2017 to consider an alternative proposal to provide both field services and to build, construct and operate an animal services shelter. The analysis of that proposal will be completed on October 25 and the staff reports for both cities will not be released until October 27. Should Packet Pg 273 12 these cities withdraw, the estimated annual cost increase for the City of San Luis Obispo for the construction of the facility could increase approximately by $50,000-$60,000 per year. Staff is currently analyzing alternative approaches to providing these services. This information will be distributed as correspondence in advance of the October 24, 2017 City Council meeting. Staff will be prepared to make a recommendation at that meeting in response to the analysis of alternative service options compared to the projected cost increases should Paso Robles and Atascadero withdraw from the project. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This action is not subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a project as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 (Definitions – Project). FISCAL IMPACT The City has currently budgeted for both the ongoing costs as well as the costs of construction and financing of a new shelter. Staff is currently analyzing the additional costs that would be incurred should Atascadero and/or Paso Robles withdraw from the agreement. Should they withdraw, it is estimated that annual capital service costs would increase by $50,000-$60,000 per year. Staff is also analyzing the costs of alternative approaches to providing these services. This information will be used to form a recommendation on the most cost-effective approach for the City while also considering service levels to the public. ALTERNATIVES 1.Provide alternative direction. The City Council should provide clear direction about alternative approaches to the issue. Packet Pg 274 12