HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-20-2018 agenda packetTuesday, March 20, 2018
4:00 PM REGULAR MEETING Council Chamber
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo Page 1
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Heidi Harmon
ROLL CALL: Council Members Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Dan Rivoire, Vice
Mayor Carlyn Christianson and Mayor Heidi Harmon
PRESENTATION
1.ADVISORY BODY RECOGNITION EVENT (MAYOR / COUNCIL – 120 MINUTES)
The Mayor and City Council will recognize Advisory Body members for their service
followed by a reception in the Council Hearing Room.
ADJOURNED TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 20, 2018 TO BEGIN AT
6:00 PM IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER
Packet Page 1
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda March 20, 2018 Page 2
6:00 PM REGULAR MEETING Council Chamber
990 Palm Street
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Heidi Harmon
ROLL CALL: Council Members Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Dan Rivoire, Vice
Mayor Carlyn Christianson and Mayor Heidi Harmon
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Dan Rivoire
INTRODUCTIONS
2.CHRIS READ - SUSTAINABILITY MANAGER (HERMANN / HILL – 5 MINUTES)
APPOINTMENTS
3.2018 APPOINTMENTS TO CITY ADVISORY BODIES (HERMANN /
PURRINGTON / GOODWIN – 5 MINUTES)
Recommendation
In accordance with the recommendations of the Council Liaison Subcommittees:
1.Make appointments to the City's Advisory Bodies effective April 1, 2018 as set forth
below and direct the City Clerk to continue to recruit for any unfilled vacant positions;
and
2.Waive Council Policy and Procedures Section 6.7.2.5 and reappoint Ken Kienow to the
Active Transportation Committee to a term expiring March 31, 2022.
Packet Page 2
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda March 20, 2018 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 the
Council to discuss or take action on issues not on the agenda, except that members of the
Council or staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons
exercising their public testimony rights (Gov. Code sec. 54954.2). Staff may be asked to
follow up on such items
CONSENT AGENDA
Matters appearing on the Consent Calendar are expected to be non-controversial and will be
acted upon at one time. A member of the public may request the Council to pull an item for
discussion. Pulled items shall be heard at the close of the Consent Agenda unless a majority of
the Council chooses another time. The public may comment on any and all items on the
Consent Agenda within the three minute time limit.
4. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
(PURRINGTON)
Recommendation:
Waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.
5. MINUTES OF MARCH 6, 2018 (PURRINGTON)
Recommendation:
Approve the Minutes of the City Council meeting of March 6, 2018.
6. REQUEST FOR ALTERNATIVE INCENTIVES TO PROVIDE FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT INCLUDES A DENSITY BONUS OF 28
PERCENT AND A REDUCTION IN SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A
STREET YARD SETBACK OF 1.5 FEET, WHERE 15 FEET IS NORMALLY
REQUIRED, FOR 207 HIGUERA STREET (CITY FILE NO. AFFH -1335-2018)
(CODRON / BELL)
Recommendation:
Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, approving the alternative incentives to provide for affordable housing
that includes a density bonus of 28 percent and a reduction in site development st andards for
a street yard setback of 1.5 feet, where 15 feet is normally required, as represented in the
City Council agenda report and attachments dated March 20, 2018. The project is
categorical exempt from environmental review. (207 Higuera AFFH-1335-2018)”
Packet Page 3
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda March 20, 2018 Page 4
7.SOLE SOURCE AUTHORIZATION FOR CERTAIN WATER RESOURCE
RECOVERY FACILITY (WRRF) PROJECT EQUIPMENT (MATTINGLY / HIX)
Recommendation:
Authorize the inclusion of the sole-sourced equipment as identified in this report in the
construction and bidding documents for the Water Resource Recovery Facility Project.
8.AUTHORIZE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR PARKING SECURITY GUARD
SERVICES, SPECIFICATION NO 91625 (GRIGSBY / LEE)
Recommendation:
1.Authorize the issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Parking Security Guard
Services, Specification No. 91625; and
2.Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with the successful bidder within the
approved budget of $48,000, and
3.Authorize the City Attorney to approve modifications to the form of the cont ract with
the successful bidder.
9.REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR CANNABIS BUSINESS REGULATION
SUPPORT SERVICES (SPECIFICATION NO. 91660) (JOHNSON / CODRON)
Recommendation:
Authorize the City Manager to issue a Request for Proposals for Cannabis Business
Regulation and Education Support Services and award a contract to the consultant with the
top proposal, provided the contract amount does not exceed $35,000. Costs shall be
recovered through cannabis business operator application fees.
10.SURPLUS DESIGNATION OF FLEET ASSET BY SALE, AUCTION OR TRADE-IN
(OLSON / BLATTLER)
Recommendation:
Authorize the surplus designation of the Fire Department’s Fleet Asset No. 9709, a 1997
Pierce Lance Pumper, by sale, auction, trade-in or other method in accordance with the
City’s policies and procedures as prescribed in the Financial Management Manual Section
405-L and 480.
Packet Page 4
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda March 20, 2018 Page 5
11. ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS REGIONAL GRANT (OLSON / BLATTLER)
Recommendation:
1. Authorize the Fire Department to participate in a regional grant to the Federal Assistance
to Firefighters Grant (AFG) Program for the amount of $308,985 to acquire replacement
portable radios and associated accessories.
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the grant documents and approve the budget
changes necessary to appropriate the grant amount upon notification that the grant has
been awarded.
3. Authorize City Staff to release a Request for Proposal (RFP) for portable radios and
associated accessories, upon grant award.
4. Authorize the City Manager to award the contract resulting from the RFP, upon grant
award.
12. ADOPT A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW OF A NEW TWO STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND A CREEK
SETBACK EXCEPTION, AND DIRECTING STAFF TO RETURN TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION AND A
RECOMMENDATION REGARDING A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT FOR THE
PROPERTY AT 1460 CALLE JOAQUIN (CODRON / OETZELL)
Recommendation:
Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, denying an application for Architectural Review of a new two-story
commercial building and a creek setback exception, and directing staff to return to the
Planning Commission for additional discussion and recommendations regarding a zoning
map amendment and associated mitigated negative declaration for the property at 1460 Calle
Joaquin (ARCH-3413-2016, EID-0016-2017; RZ-0015-2017).”
Continue to next page
Packet Page 5
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda March 20, 2018 Page 6
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS AND BUSINESS ITEMS
13. PUBLIC HEARING - REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY THE APPLICANT,
BCR DEVELOPMENTS) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO
APPROVE A NEW ESCAPE ROOM BUSINESS, A COMMERCIAL RECREATION
FACILITY-INDOOR USE, WITH A CONDITION LIMITING HOURS OF
OPERATION TO 8:00 P.M. SUNDAY THROUGH THURSDAY, AND 10:00 P.M.
FRIDAY AND SATURDAY (CODRON / VAN LEEUWEN – 45 MINUTES)
Recommendation:
Adopt a Resolution entitle “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, denying an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve a
Use Permit for an escape room business, classified as a Commercial Recreation Facility –
Indoor, with a condition limiting hours of operation, in the Downtown Commercial Zone
with a Mixed Use Overlay, as represented in the staff report and attachments dated March
20, 2018 (583 March Street APPL-1324-2018),” with a categorical exemption from
environmental review.
14. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF LABOR RELATIONS OBJECTIVES (IRONS /
SUTTER – 20 MINUTES)
Recommendation:
Review and approve draft updated Labor Relations Objectives (LRO) that will guide labor
negotiations with employee groups.
15. DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT CLOSURE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT UPDATE AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH CONDUCTING AN
ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS / FINANCIAL IMPACT ANALYSIS (JOHNSON
– 15 MINUTES)
Recommendation:
1. Receive an update on the status of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant closure settlement;
and
2. Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, authorizing the City Manager to contribute $90,000 of the estimated
costs associated with an Economic / Financial Impact Analysis and Regional Economic
Strategy regarding the closure of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant.”
Packet Page 6
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda March 20, 2018 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 Special Meeting to be held on Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 11:00 a.m., 3:00
p.m., and 4:00 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of conducting closed sessions to evaluate appointed
officials.
The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 3, 2018 at 4:00 p.m. and
6:00 p.m., respectively, in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, 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 Page 7
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Page 8
Meeting Date: 3/20/2018
FROM: Greg Hermann, Interim Deputy City Manager
Teresa Purrington, Acting City Clerk
Prepared by: Heather Goodwin, Deputy City Clerk
SUBJECT: 2018 APPOINTMENTS TO CITY ADVISORY BODIES
RECOMMENDATION
In accordance with the recommendations of the Council Liaison Subcommittees:
1.Make appointments to the City's Advisory Bodies effective April 1, 2018 as set forth below
and direct the City Clerk to continue to recruit for any unfilled vacant positions; and
2.Waive Council Policy and Procedures Section 6.7.2.5 and reappoint Ken Kienow to the
Active Transportation Committee to a term expiring March 31, 2022.
DISCUSSION
San Luis Obispo has a long history of involving its residents in the business of City government.
Holding a position on an advisory committee and/or commission provides an opportunity for
interested residents to participate in the governing of their community under guidelines and
procedures established by Council. The City holds an Annual Advisory Body Recruitment to fill
those positions which commence on April 1st of each year.
This year the City recruited to fill 29 scheduled and unscheduled Advisory Body positions. The
recruitment was conducted between November 15, 2017 and January 26, 2018. A total of 91
applications were received. Council Liaison Subcommittees conducted interviews during the
months of February and March. The following recommendations will fill 25 of these vacancies.
No vacancies currently exist on the Citizens’ Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission,
Citizens’ Transportation Advisory Committee, Housing Authority, Tourism Business
Improvement District Board, and Zone 9 Advisory Committee and therefore no recruitment was
held.
Council Policies and Procedures Section 6.7.2.5 states that as a general policy, an applicant shall
not be appointed to serve on more than one advisory body, except that a member may also serve
on one technical or special purpose committee. Ken Kienow has served on the Active
Transportation Committee (formerly the Bicycle Advisory Committee) since July 2016 and has
been recommended for a second term to expire in March 2022. It is noteworthy to mention that
Mr. Kienow is currently serving on the Citizens’ Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission
(REOC) and has since December 2014. The Council Liaisons request that Council consider
waiving its policy related to concurrent terms on Advisory Bodies. Mr. Kienow has expressed a
willingness and desire to serve on both advisory bodies.
Packet Page 9
3
Council Liaison Subcommittee Recommendations
Administrative Review Board
1. Appoint Sarah Pazdan to a one-year term expiring March 31, 2019.
2. Appoint Earl Conaway to a two-year term expiring March 31, 2020.
3. Reappoint Alex Karlin to a two-year term expiring March 31, 2020.
Architectural Review Commission
1. Reappoint Allen Root to a four-year term expiring March 31, 2022.
2. Reappoint Micah Smith to a four-year term expiring March 31, 2022.
3. Appoint Christie Withers to a four-year term expiring March 31, 2022.
Active Transportation Committee
1. Reappoint Ken Kienow to a four-year term expiring March 31, 2022.
2. Appoint Briana Martenies to a four-year term expiring March 31, 2022.
Central Coast Commission for Senior Citizens, Area Agency on Aging (Regional Board)
1. Appoint Louise Matheny to a two-year term expiring June 30, 2020.
Construction Board of Appeals
1. Appoint Amando Garza to a two-year term expiring March 31, 2020.
2. Continue to recruit for two unfilled vacancies for representatives with disabilities with a term
expiration of March 31, 2022.
Cultural Heritage Committee
1. Reappoint Shannon Larrabee to a four-year term expiring March 31, 2022.
Human Relations Commission
1. Appoint Emily Rosten, to a four-year term expiring March 31, 2022.
2. Appoint Michael Hopkins, to a four-year term expiring March 31, 2022.
Investment Oversight Committee (City Committee)
1. Appoint Shay Stewart, as the public member, to a four-year term expiring March 31, 2022.
Jack House Committee
1. Continue to recruit for one unfilled vacancy for a County Historical Society representative.
Mass Transportation Committee
1. Reappoint David Figueroa, as the alternate representative member, to a four-year term
expiring March 31, 2022.
2. Appoint Robin Kisinger, as the senior representative member, to a four-year term expiring
March 31, 2022.
3. Continue to recruit for one alternate representative member with a term expiring March 31,
2022.
Packet Page 10
3
Parks and Recreation Commission
1. Reappoint Rodney Thurman, to a four-year term expiring March 31, 2022.
2. Appoint Shay Stewart, to a four-year term expiring March 31, 2022.
Personnel Board
1. Reappoint Louise Justice, to a four-year term expiring March 31, 2022.
Planning Commission
1. Reappoint Hemalata Dandekar, to a four-year term expiring March 31, 2022.
2. Appoint Robert Jorgenson, to a four-year term expiring March 31, 2022.
3. Appoint John McKenzie, to a two-year term expiring March 31, 2020.
Promotional Coordinating Committee
1. Appoint Melissa Godsey to a four-year term expiring March 31, 2022.
2. Appoint Dana Matteson to a four-year term expiring March 31, 2022.
Tree Committee
1. Appoint Elizabeth Lucas to a four-year term expiring March 31, 2022.
Applications of those who were unsuccessful in this process will be kept on file for the next year
and will be notified of any subsequent vacancies.
RECRUITMENT
The following Advisory Bodies have vacancies and interested individuals are encouraged to
apply:
1. Construction Board of Appeals, for a representative with disability (2)
2. Mass Transit Committee, for an alternate representative (1)
3. Jack House Committee, County Historical Society representative (1)
The City Clerk’s Office will continue to recruit for these vacancies.
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.
Packet Page 11
3
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no additional impact for the addition of the above Advisory Body members with the
exception of Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and Planning Commission (PC). The
City Council has approved a stipend of $60 per meeting (not to exceed $240 monthly) for each
member of the ARC and PC (Resolution No. 10516 (2014 Series) and is in the adopted budget
for the Community Development Department.
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE
All applications are available in the City Council reading file and for public review in the Office
of the City Clerk.
Packet Page 12
3
San Luis Obispo Page 1
Tuesday, March 6, 2018
Regular Meeting of the City Council
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, March
6, 2018 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, by Mayor Harmon.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Dan Rivoire, Vice Mayor Carlyn
Christianson, and Mayor Heidi Harmon.
Council Members
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Derek Johnson, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; and Carrie
Gallagher, City Clerk; were present at Roll Call. Other staff members presented
reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
None.
---End of Public Comment---
Packet Page 13
5
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of March 6, 2018 Page 2
CLOSED SESSION
A. CONFERENCE REGARDING PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS
Pursuant to Government Code §54956.8
Property: APN 001-052-004
Agency Negotiators: Derek Johnson, Christine Dietrick, Daryl Grigsby,
Greg Hermann, Jon Ansolabehere, Matt Horn,
Bryan Wheeler, Jake Hudson
Negotiating Parties: State of California
Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment
Property: APN 001-131-008
Agency Negotiators: Derek Johnson, Christine Dietrick, Daryl Grigsby,
Greg Hermann, Jon Ansolabehere, Matt Horn,
Bryan Wheeler, Jake Hudson
Negotiating Parties: Thomas A. McLaughlin
Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment
B. CONFERENCE REGARDING PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS
Pursuant to Government Code §54956.8
Property: APN 052-162-024
Agency Negotiators: Derek Johnson, Christine Dietrick, Daryl Grigsby,
Greg Hermann, Jon Ansolabehere, Matt Horn,
Adam Fukushima, Jake Hudson
Negotiating Parties: Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus
Christ
of Latter-Day Saints, a Utah Corporation Sole
Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment
Property: APN 052-162-025
Agency Negotiators: Derek Johnson, Christine Dietrick, Daryl Grigsby,
Greg Hermann, Jon Ansolabehere, Matt Horn, Adam
Fukushima, Jake Hudson
Negotiating Parties: Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-Day Saints, a Utah Corporation Sole
Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment
RECESSED AT 5:48 P.M. TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 6, 2018 TO
BEGIN AT 6:00 P.M.
Packet Page 14
5
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of March 6, 2018 Page 3
CALL TO ORDER
A regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, March
6, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, by Mayor Harmon.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Dan Rivoire, Vice Mayor Carlyn
Christianson, and Mayor Heidi Harmon.
Council Members
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Derek Johnson, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Greg Hermann,
Interim Deputy City Manager, and Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk; were present at
Roll Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as
indicated in the minutes.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council Member Gomez led the Pledge of Allegiance.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Dietrick stated that negotiating direction was provided for Closed Session Items A
and B however there was no reportable action.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Stephen (no last name provided)
Alex McClure
---End of Public Comment---
CONSENT AGENDA
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER GOMEZ, CARRIED 5-0 to approve Consent Calendar Items 1 thru 8.
1. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
CARRIED 5-0, to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.
2. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 20, 2018
CARRIED 5-0, to approve the Minutes of the City Council meeting of February 20, 2018. Packet Page 15
5
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of March 6, 2018 Page 4
3. REFUNDING OF THE NACIMIENTO WATER PROJECT REVENUE BONDS
CARRIED 5-0, to adopt Resolution No. 10869 (2018 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the
City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, in connection with the refunding of
the Nacimiento Water Project Revenue Bonds, approving certain disclosure regarding the
City and authorizing certain actions in connection with such refunding” by the San Luis
Obispo County Financing Authority.
4. CONCRETE STREETS AND ACCESSIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT,
SPECIFICATION NO. 91455
CARRIED 5-0, to:
1. Approve plans and specifications for the Concrete Streets and Accessibility
Improvements Project, Specification Number. 91455; 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
$660,000.
5. FY 2018-19 GRANT APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE CONTROL
CARRIED 5-0, to:
1. Authorize the Police Department to submit a grant application to the Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control for FY 2018-19 not to exceed $30,000; and
2. Adopt Resolution No. 10870 (2018 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the Council of the
City of San Luis Obispo, California, authorizing grant applications for funding provided
through the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to increase education and
enforcement programs focusing on regulating retail alcohol outlets” and authorizing the
City Manager to enter into a contract with the State if funding is awarded; and
3. If the grant is awarded, authorize the Chief of Police to execute all grant related documents
and authorize the Finance Director to make the necessary budget adjustments upon the
award of the grant.
6. EXTEND CONTRACT FOR WATER METER READING TWO ADDITIONAL
YEARS
CARRIED 5-0, to approve a two-year contract extension with Alexander’s Contract
Services, Inc. for water meter reading services in an amount not to exceed $180,000
annually.
7. STREETS MAINTENANCE MEDIUM DUTY TRUCK WITH HOOK LIFT BED,
SPECIFICATION NO. 91600
CARRIED 5-0, to:
1. Authorize the Finance Director to execute a purchase order to Perry Ford of San Luis
Obispo in the amount of $101,780.65 for the purchase of one 2018 Ford F -550 outfitted
with a custom hook lift bed system; and
Packet Page 16
5
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of March 6, 2018 Page 5
2. Authorize the surplus designation of Fleet Asset No. 0234 by sale, auction, trade-in or
other method in accordance with the City’s policies and procedures as prescribed in the
Financial Management Manual Section 405-L and 480.
8. PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE CALTRANS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
CARRIED 5-0, to approve a Cooperative Agreement with CalTrans for the Project Approval
& Environmental Document (PA&ED) phase of the Prado Road Interchange project and
authorize the Public Works Director to execute the agreement.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS AND BUSINESS ITEMS
9. PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO THE CITY’S ZONING MAP TO
DESIGNATE PROPERTY AT 1460 CALLE JOAQUIN TO BE WITHIN A
TOURIST COMMERCIAL (C-T) ZONE; CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO-
STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING; AND AN EXCEPTION TO THE CREEK
SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR SIX (6) UNENCLOSED PARKING SPACES
Community Development Director Codron and Assistant Planner Oetzell provided an in-
depth staff report and responded to Council questions.
Public Comments:
Appellant, George Garcia of Garcia Architecture + Design noted that his firm has carefully
considered the location and size of the proposed site adding that the intent to build at this
location has been longer than 2 years.
---End of Public Comment---
RECESS
Council recessed at 7:15 p.m. and reconvened at 7:20 p.m., with all Council Members present.
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER PEASE, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR
CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 3-2 (GOMEZ NO, RIVOIRE NO): with respect to the project
proposal and staff recommendations to:
1. Direct staff to prepare a resolution for its consideration on March 20, 2018, denying the
application for Architectural Review and the proposed creek setback exception, and
taking no action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project; and
2. Direct staff to return to the Planning Commission for additional discussion and a
recommendation regarding special considerations that apply to the project site relative to
limits on building height and adherence to creek setback requirements.
10. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF 2018 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS
Community Development Director Codron and Planning Technician Vereschagin provided
an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions. Packet Page 17
5
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of March 6, 2018 Page 6
Public Comments:
None
---End of Public Comment---
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, SECOND BY VICE
MAYOR CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to adopt Resolution No. 10872 (2018 Series)
entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California,
approving the 2018 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program” to approve
funding allocations for $444,380 of CDBG funds for the 2018 Program Year.
11. 2018 LEGISLATIVE ACTION PLATFORM
City Attorney Dietrick provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions.
Public Comments:
None
---End of Public Comment---
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, SECOND BY VICE
MAYOR CHRSITIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to
1. Adopt Resolution No. 10873 (2018 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of
the City of San Luis Obispo, California, establishing the City Legislative Action Platform
for 2018 and appointing the Council Member and staff person to act as liaison between
the City of San Luis Obispo and the League of California Cities” establishing a
Legislative Action Platform for 2018; and
2. Provided direction to staff on the scope and application of the legislative platform related
to advocacy for non-legislative items as follows;
• Item #11 of Exhibit A to reflect City Attorney edits provided in agenda correspondence
to read as follows:
Promoting additional state funding to implement AB 32 (The California Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006) and SB 375 (The Sustainable Communities and Climate
Protection Act of 2008) through local general plan updates that implement the regional
sustainable communities plan and alternative planning strategy, if needed.
• Item #24 to include education efforts
In addition to adding the following to the Platform;
• add support for net neutrality
• add support for legislation regarding the safe transport and storage of nuclear waste
• add support for education funding and treatment efforts of the opioid crisis
Packet Page 18
5
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of March 6, 2018 Page 7
• add support to limit the opening of National Parks to fossil fuel extractions; and
3. Appoint the Mayor, City Attorney and City Manager to act as the primary legisl ative
liaisons between the League of California Cities and the City of San Luis Obispo.
12. URGENCY ORDINANCE REAUTHORIZING THE FEE TO SUPPORT THE
CITY’S PUBLIC, EDUCATIONAL, AND GOVERNMENTAL (PEG) ACCESS
CHANNEL FACILITIES AND DECLARING SAME TO BE AN URGENCY
MEASURE TO TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY
City Attorney Dietrick provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions.
Public Comments:
None
---End of Public Comment---
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE MAYOR CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY
COUNCIL MEMBER PEASE, CARRIED 5-0 to adopt Urgency Ordinance No. 1645 (2018
Series) entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo,
California, reauthorizing the fee to support the City’s Public, Educational, and
Governmental (PEG) access channel facilities and declaring same to be an urgency measure
to take effect immediately” reauthorizing the fee to support the City’s public, educational,
and governmental (PEG) access channel facilities and declaring the same to be an urgency
measure to take effect immediately.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND LIAISON REPORTS
Council Member Christianson reported having applied for the PG&E Engagement Panel which
will deal with land use issues, she noted that her extensive background and County Planning
experience makes her a good candidate.
Mayor Harmon noted having attended the San Luis Obispo Responsive event held at the PAC to
raise money for residents of Puerto Rico and Thomas Fire victims, she participated in the Stand
Strong Fundraising Event at the Madonna Inn Fashion Show, she noted having traveled to
Mexico City for a C40 Event to discuss climate change and added that the trip was not funded by
the City.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 pm. The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for
Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., respectively, in the Council Chamber, 990
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo, California.
Packet Page 19
5
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of March 6, 2018 Page 8
__________________________
Carrie Gallagher, CMC
City Clerk
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2018
Packet Page 20
5
Meeting Date: 3/20/2018
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR ALTERNATIVE INCENTIVES TO PROVIDE FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT INCLUDES A DENSITY BONUS OF 28
PERCENT AND A REDUCTION IN SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
FOR A STREET YARD SETBACK OF 1.5 FEET, WHERE 15 FEET IS
NORMALLY REQUIRED, FOR 207 HIGUERA STREET (CITY FILE NO.
AFFH-1335-2018).
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) approving the alternative incentives to provide for affordable
housing that include a density bonus of 28 percent and a reduction in the site development
standards for a street yard setback of 1.5 feet, where 15 feet is normally required in the C-S zone.
SITE DATA
Applicant 207 Higuera, LLC
Representative Ten Over Studio
Complete Date February 6, 2018
Zoning C-S-MU (Commercial Service
with a Mixed-Use Overlay
General Plan Service Commercial
Site Area ~0.23 acres
Environmental
Status
Categorically exempt from
environmental review under
CEQA Guidelines section
15332 (In-Fill Development
Projects)
DISCUSSION
The applicant, 207 Higuera, LLC, is proposing to construct a new mixed-use project with
commercial/retail at the ground level (1,097 sq. ft.) with two upper level one-bedroom affordable
units for moderate income households (Figure 1). The project also includes six townhomes to be
subdivided for individual sale under a Minor Subdivision application (SBDV-1237-2017). The
project site is located in the Commercial Services (C-S-MU) zone within a Mixed-Use Overlay
as part of the Mid Higuera Street Enhancement Plan area.
Packet Page 21
6
The applicant is requesting an alternative incentive for a reduction in site development standards
for a street yard setback of 1.5 feet, where 15 feet is normally required in the C-S zone, to
provide for affordable housing associated with the 28% density bonus.
Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.90 Affordable Housing Incentives states that when an applicant
is requesting an alternative incentive for affordable housing, the incentives shall be reviewed by
the City Council. In order to deny the requests, State law (Government Code Section 65915)
requires specific findings based on substantial evidence of any of the following:
• The incentive is not required in order to provide for affordable housing costs;
• The incentive would have specific adverse impact1 upon health, safety, or the physical
environment on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical
Resources;
• The incentive would be contrary to state of federal law.
Figure 1: Floor plan identifying units designated for affordable housing (two one-bedroom units for
moderate-income households above the commercial space, left).
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION
On March 5, 2018, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) held a hearing to review the
design of the proposed project which evaluated the mass and scale of the proposed building as it
relates to the neighborhood and the Mid Higuera Enhancement Plan (MHEP). The ARC
unanimously voted to approve the project based on the finding that the project will not be
detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the
vicinity (Attachment B & C, ARC Staff Report & Draft Resolution).
1 Gov. Code Section 65589.5 defines a “specific adverse impact” as a “specific, adverse impact” means a
significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or
safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.
Packet Page 22
6
PROJECT ANALYSIS
The City of San Luis Obispo has recognized housing as an important issue within the City. The
City’s 2015-17 Financial Plan identifies affordable housing as a Major City Goal. The City’s
Housing Element includes numerous policies and programs that support incentives, such as
density bonuses, to provide housing for moderate, low, very low and extremely low-income
households.
Affordable Housing Alternative Incentives
Consistent with State law requirements, City Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.90.060(B) states
that three incentives or concessions shall be granted for housing developments that include at
least 30 percent for moderate income households. The proposed project provides 33 percent of
the units to be dedicated to moderate income households. Chapter 17.90 of the Zoning
Regulations (Affordable Housing Incentives) outlines various incentives for affordable housing
projects that developers can request. Some of the alternative incentive examples called out in the
Chapter includes granting of a density bonus in excess of State allowances or allowing a
reduction in site development standards.
Alternative Incentive Request: Reduction to Site Development Standards
The applicant is requesting an alternative incentive to reduce site development standards to allow
for a street yard setback of 1.5 feet, where 15 feet is normally required in the C-S zone. The
objective of the MHEP design guidelines is to create a “main street” architectural character along
Higuera Street which reflects some aspects of Downtown San Luis Obispo but does not duplicate
it. Downtown elements such as pedestrian-oriented building scale & location, various storefronts
and displays, street trees and other amenities to create a pedestrian-friendly environment are
encouraged. The proposed setback reduction and associated mass and scale of the project will
not negatively alter the overall character of the neighborhood or the streets appearance because
the MHEP design guidelines encourage parking areas along Higuera Street to be located to the
rear or between buildings to be accessible from common driveways with buildings sited close to,
and oriented toward the street with pedestrian linkages to provide safe vehicle and pedestrian
circulation within the project site to adjacent neighborhoods.
The proposed street yard reduction is appropriate and consistent with the Mixed Use (MU)
Overlay Regulations which recognizes constraints imposed by property development standards,
in order to accommodate the residential component of a mixed-use project2. Full compliance
with the street yard setback in the C-S zone may constrain the ability to provide residential units,
where required by the MU Overlay. The proposed street yard reduction is consistent with
existing development within the immediate vicinity, no useful purpose would be realized by
requiring full setbacks because the reduced setback is consistent with the neighborhood pattern
and no property will be deprived of reasonable solar access (Attachment D, Project Plans).
2 Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.55.030; Property Development Standards: Property development standards shall
be those of the underlying zone, except that the application of the MU overlay to properties may include
establishing a higher height limit than the underlying zone, to more effectively accommodate the residential
component of a mixed-use project.
Packet Page 23
6
General Plan Policies and Programs: The 2015 Housing Element (HE) provides policies and
programs that speak specifically to supporting affordable housing projects through infill
development and incentives for reductions in property development standards where appropriate.
Housing Element Policy 4.2. Include both market-rate and affordable units in apartment and
residential condominium projects and intermix the types of units. Affordable units should be
comparable in size, appearance and basic quality to market-rate units.
Housing Element Program 5.5. Review new developments for compliance with City regulations
and revise projects or establish conditions of approval as needed to implement the housing
variety and tenure policies.
Housing Element Program 6.10: To help meet the Quantified Objectives, the City will support
residential infill development and promote higher residential density where appropriate.
Housing Element Program 6.19: Continue to incentivize affordable housing development with
density bonuses, parking reductions and other development incentives, including City financial
assistance.
Granting a density bonus and allowing a reduction in site development standards for the street
yard setback are consistent with the 2015 Housing Element programs and policies to provide
additional affordable housing for moderate income households.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is both statutorily exempt under Section 15195, Residential Infill Exemption, and
categorically exempt under Class 32, In-Fill Development Projects, Section 15332 of the CEQA
Guidelines, because the project is consistent with General Plan policies for the land use
designation, within one-half a mile of a transit stop and is consistent with the applicable zoning
designation and regulations. The project site occurs on a property of no more than five acres
substantially surrounded by urban uses that has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or
threatened species as the site is located on an existing developed property and is served by
required utilities and public services
FISCAL IMPACT
When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which
found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed
density bonus request is consistent with the General Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Deny the request for a 28 percent density bonus and reduction to site development
standards, based on findings that the request is inconsistent with alternative or additional
incentive regulations within the municipal code. This is not recommended because the
request for incentives is consistent with State and City housing regulations and the design
exception is consistent with the MHEP.
Packet Page 24
6
2. Continue the project and provide direction to the applicant to revise the project for
consistency with the Mid Higuera Enhancement Plan, or applicable City regulations.
Attachments:
a - Draft Resolution
b - ARC Staff Report 3.5.18
c - ARC Draft Resolution 3.5.18
d - Reduced Project Plans
Packet Page 25
6
RESOLUTION NO. _______ (2018 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ALTERNATIVE
INCENTIVES TO PROVIDE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT
INCLUDES A DENSITY BONUS OF 28 PERCENT AND A REDUCTION
IN SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A STREET YARD
SETBACK OF 1.5 FEET, WHERE 15 FEET IS NORMALLY REQUIRED,
AS REPRESENTED IN THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT AND
ATTACHMENTS DATED MARCH 20, 2018. THE PROJECT IS
CATEGORICAL EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. (207
HIGUERA AFFH-1335-2018)
WHEREAS, the applicant, on January 9, 2018, submitted an application to request
alternative incentives for affordable housing that include a twenty-eight (28) percent density
bonus and a reduction in site development standards for a street yard setback of 1.5 feet, where
15 feet is normally required in the C-S zone, 207 Higuera, LLC, applicant; and
WHEREAS, on March 5, 2018, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San
Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of approving the design of a mixed-use project
consisting of eight residential units and approximately 1,097 square feet of commercial space
(ARCH-1233-2017), 207 Higuera, LLC, applicant; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on March
20, 2018, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under AFFH-1335-2018, 207 Higuera, LLC,
applicant; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at
said hearing, and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the
following findings:
1. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of those working or
residing in the vicinity since the proposed project is consistent with the site’s zoning
designation and will be subject to conformance with all applicable building, fire, and
safety codes.
Packet Page 26
6
Resolution No. _______________ (2018 Series) Page 2
R ______
2. The proposed project will provide quality affordable housing consistent with the intent of
Chapter 17.90 of the Municipal Code, and the requested density bonus and reduction to
site development standards are necessary to facilitate the production of affordable
housing units.
3. The requests for a density bonus and reduction to site development standards for the
street yard setback are consistent with the intent of Housing Element programs 5.5, 6.10,
and 6.19, and the alternative affordable housing incentives outlined in Section 17.90.060
of the City’s Zoning Regulations.
4. The proposed setback reduction and associated mass and scale of the project will not
negatively alter the overall character of the neighborhood or the streets appearance
because the Mid Higuera Enhancement Plan design guidelines encourage parking areas
along Higuera Street to be located to the rear or between buildings to be accessible from
common driveways with buildings sited close to, and oriented toward the street with
pedestrian linkages to provide safe vehicle and pedestrian circulation within the project
site to adjacent neighborhoods.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is both statutorily exempt under
Section 15195, Residential Infill Exemption, and categorically exempt under Class 32, In-Fill
Development Projects, Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project is consistent
with General Plan policies for the land use designation, within one-half a mile of a transit stop
and is consistent with the applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project site occurs
on a property of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses that has no value
as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species as the site is located on an existing
developed property and is served by required utilities and public services
SECTION 3. Action. The City Council does hereby grant final approval of the project
including the request for alternative incentives to provide for affordable housing that includes a
density bonus of 28 percent and a reduction in the site development standards for the street yard
setback of 1.5 feet, where 15 feet is normally required in the C-S zone (AFFH-1335-2018),
subject to the following conditions:
Planning Department
1. Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the
project plans approved by the ARC and the City Council. A separate full-size sheet shall
be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that list all conditions,
and code requirements of project approval as Sheet No. 2 (ARCH-1233-2017 & AFFH-
1335-2016). Reference should be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans
requirements are addressed.
Packet Page 27
6
Resolution No. _______________ (2018 Series) Page 3
R ______
2. Prior to the issuance of construction permits, the City and the project owners shall enter
into an Affordable Housing Agreement in a form subject to the approval of the City
Attorney, to be recorded in the office of the county recorder. The agreement shall specify
mechanisms or procedures to assure the continued affordability and availability of a
minimum of two dwelling units to moderate income households consisting of a
comparable variety and tenure of the market-rate units within the project, to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director. The agreement shall also set forth
those items required by Section 17.90.030(B) or any alternative incentives granted
pursuant to Section 17.90.060. The agreement shall run with the land and shall be binding
upon all heirs, successors or assigns of the project or property owner.
Indemnification
3. The Owner/Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City or its agents or
officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its
agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void, or annul, in whole or in part, the
City's approval of this project. In the event that the City fails to promptly notify the
Owner / Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, or that the City fails to
cooperate fully in the defense of said claim, this condition shall thereafter be of no further
force or effect.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 20th day of March 2018.
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
Packet Page 28
6
Resolution No. _______________ (2018 Series) Page 4
R ______
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
______________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Page 29
6
Meeting Date: March 5, 2018
Item Number: #2
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of a three-story mixed-use project consisting of three buildings including 1,097
square feet of commercial space and eight residential units. The project includes a 28 percent
density bonus with a request for an incentive to reduce the street yard setback to 1.5 feet, where 15
feet is normally required, including a categorical exemption from environmental review.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 207 Higuera Street BY: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
Phone Number: 781-7524
E-mail: kbell@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: ARCH-1233-2017 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) which approves the project,
based on findings and subject to conditions.
SITE DATA
Applicant 207 Higuera, LLC
Representative Ten Over Studio
Complete Date February 6, 2018
Zoning C-S-MU (Commercial Service
with a Mixed-Use Overlay)
General Plan Service Commercial
Site Area ~0.23 acres
Environmental
Status
Categorically exempt from
environmental review under
CEQA Guidelines section
15332 (In-Fill Development
Projects)
SUMMARY
The applicant, 207 Higuera, LLC, is proposing to construct a mixed-use project with
commercial/retail at the ground level (1,097 sq. ft.) and two upper level apartments, as well as six
townhomes to be subdivided for individual sale under a separate application (SBDV-1237-2017).
The project site is located in the Commercial Services (C-S-MU) zone within a Mixed-Use Overlay
near the corner of Higuera & South Streets as part of the Mid Higuera Street Enhancement Plan
(MHEP). The project has been designed to be consistent with the MHEP and the Community
Design Guidelines (CDG), no exceptions have been requested as part of this application.
The applicant has applied for a 28% density bonus through the Affordable Housing Incentive
program (§17.90.040) including a request for reduction in site development standards for the front
yard setback in the C-S zone, subject to review by the City Council under a separate application
(AFFH-1335-2018).
Packet Page 30
6
ARCH-1233-2017
207 Higuera Street
Page 2
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The ARC’s role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the CDG, MHEP and
applicable City policies and standards. As noted above, the reduction to the site development
standards for the front yard setback in the C-S zone and the 28% density bonus will be reviewed by
the City Council at a subsequent hearing under a separate application (AFFH-1335-2018).
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
Site Information/Setting:
Site Size 10,019 square feet
Present Use & Development The Pond Place (Building and Landscape Materials Sales – Outdoor)
Land Use Designation Commercial Services (C-S-MU) Mixed Use Overlay zone
Topography Flat
Access Higuera Street
Surrounding Use/Zoning North: C-S-MU (Vehicle Service – Repair and maintenance)
South: C-S-MU (Building Materials Sales - Indoor)
East: C-S-MU (Furniture Store)
West: C-R-MU (Dry Cleaning & Restaurant)
Project Description: Project includes the following details (Attachment 3, Project Plans):
1. Site Plan: New mixed-use project consisting of three buildings
• Demolish existing one-story structure
• Site improvements, landscaping & tree replacements
• Two-story mixed-use building with ground floor retail facing Higuera Street (524 &
567 sf.) with two residential units on the upper floor.
• Two three-story residential structures encompassing a total of six residential units
with garage parking on the ground floor through a shared driveway.
2. Design: Contemporary Industrial architectural style consisting of;
• Two new commercial entrances oriented toward Higuera Street
• Design features; upper level balconies, vertical and horizontal offsets, recessed
windows and wall planes, awnings, wood fencing, wood facia, and shed roofs
• Materials; Corrugated metal, horizontal lap siding, stucco, black vinyl windows, and
aluminum clad storefront systems
Project Statistics
Item Proposed 1 Ordinance Standard 2
Street Yard setback 0 feet 3 15 feet
Side Yard Setbacks 0 feet 0 feet
Max. Height of Structure(s) 31 feet 35 feet
Coverage (buildings & paving) 60% 75%
Density 6.98 DU (28% Bonus) 3 5.52 DU
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.1 1.5
Parking Spaces 17 17
Notes: 1. Applicant’s project plans
2. City Zoning Regulations
3. Separate application (AFFH-1335-2018)
Packet Page 31
6
ARCH-1233-2017
207 Higuera Street
Page 3
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
The proposed improvements must conform to the standards and limitations of the Zoning
Regulations and Engineering Standards and be consistent with the MHEP and applicable CDG.
Staff has evaluated the project against relevant standards and guidelines and found it to be in
substantial compliance, as discussed in this analysis.
Consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and Mid Higuera Enhancement Plan
The CDG establish the intent of the development objectives for commercial projects that consider
San Luis Obispo’s small-town scale and demonstrate sensitivity to the design context of the
surrounding area. The CDG also establish the intent of the development standards for infill
development projects to be compatible in scale, siting, detailing, and overall character with adjacent
buildings and those in the immediate neighborhood.
Site Plan: The objective of the MHEP design guidelines is to create a “main street” architectural
character along Higuera Street which reflects some aspects of Downtown San Luis Obispo but does
not duplicate it. Downtown elements such as pedestrian-oriented building scale & location, various
storefronts and displays, street trees and other amenities to create a pedestrian-friendly environment
are encouraged. The MHEP includes regulations that address site planning, architectural treatments,
pedestrian and auto access, parking areas, signs, lighting, and landscaping (MHEP Design
Guidelines I). The MHEP encourages parking areas along Higuera Street to be located to the rear or
between buildings to be accessible from adjacent streets or common driveways. Buildings should be
sited close to, and oriented toward the street with pedestrian linkages to provide safe vehicle and
pedestrian circulation within the project site to adjacent neighborhoods.
The project orients the commercial uses along Higuera Street and provides residential units on the
upper levels. The applicant has proposed to provide majority of the residential parking within the
individual garages and parking for the commercial uses on the ground level, accessed from Higuera
Street. The project’s parking area is not a dominant visual element of the site and is screened by a
structure that is oriented toward the major street frontage.
Building Design: A building’s design should provide a sense of human scale and proportion.
Horizontal and vertical wall articulation should be expressed through the use of wall offsets,
recessed windows and entries, awnings, full roofs with overhangs, second floor setbacks, or covered
arcades (CDG 3.2). The MHEP is designed to promote the existing eclectic mix of building styles
which does not require any particular architectural style but encourages well designed forms and
treatments of building walls, windows, doors, architectural details, colors and materials. New
development should emphasize historic architectural forms and materials, not corporate
architectural styles (MHEP Design Guidelines I.B).
The applicant has designed the project close to the street to provide as many parking spaces in terior
to the property as possible. The MHEP Design Guidelines state that buildings along Higuera Street
should generally not exceed two-stories at the street and be designed so that upper floors are
“stepped” or otherwise designed to preserve views of Cerro San Luis and maintain pedestrian scale
at the street. Views toward Cerro San Luis are preserved from the project site as the building is
located on the East side of Higuera Street designed with a shed style roofs that range between one
and two stories below the maximum height allowed, which also provide a visual transition of views
from adjacent properties toward Cerro San Luis.
Packet Page 32
6
ARCH-1233-2017
207 Higuera Street
Page 4
The project demonstrates consistent use of colors, materials, and detailing throughout all elevations
of the building. The design utilizes vertical wall articulation, offsets, and recessed windows to
relieve the form and mass of the building. The project includes pedestrian-scale features including
storefront windows, planter boxes, light fixtures, and balconies. All elevations are visually
interesting and receive interesting architectural treatments that enhance views of the structures from
all views on and off site.
Consistency with the Zoning Regulations
The Zoning Regulations Table 9 (Uses allowed per zone) requires a Planning Commission Use
Permit for a mixed-use project within the C-S zone. The MHEP authorized the rezoning of the
property from C-S to C-S-MU; the Mixed-Use Overlay was included through the Mid Higuera
corridor to encourage compatible and appropriate mixed-uses, including dwellings within
commercial areas. The MU overlay zone requires new development to include a mix of residential
and nonresidential uses on the same site where ground floor street frontages are occupied by retail
or commercial uses with residential uses above or to the rear of a site (Zoning Regulations Chapter
17.55). This designation allows the Director to waive the use permit requirement for projects that
are consistent with the MHEP (MHEP: Implementing the Plan).
The Zoning Regulations 17.08.72 Mixed-Use Projects state that the design of mixed use projects
shall consider potential impacts on adjacent properties and designed compatible with the adjacent
and surrounding residential neighborhood. The building heights of the project are consistent with
MU Overlay regulations1, in order to accommodate the residential component of a mixed-use
project and are below the maximum height allowed within the C-S zone.
The project design complies with side yard setbacks, lot coverage, building height, and parking
requirements for the Commercial Service (C-S) zone (see Section 2.0 Project Statistics). However,
the property development standards for the C-S zone require a street yard setback of 15 feet for
buildings greater than 20 feet in height2. The applicant has requested a density bonus incentive for a
street yard setback of 1.5 feet where 15 feet is normally required. This setback reduction request
will be reviewed by the City Council under a separate application as an affordable housing incentive
(AFFH-1335-2018).
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is categorically exempt under Class 32, In -Fill Development Projects; Section 15332 of
the CEQA Guidelines, because the project is consistent with General Plan policies for the land use
designation and is consistent with the applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project
site occurs on a property of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses that has
no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species as the site is located on an existing
developed property.
1 Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.55.030; Property Development Standards: Property development standards shall be
those of the underlying zone, except that the application of the MU overlay to properties may include establishing a
higher height limit than the underlying zone, to more effectively accommodate the residential component of a
mixed-use project.
2 Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.46.020; Property Development Standards: Minimum street yards shall be: for
buildings 20 feet and less in height, 10 feet; and for buildings more than 20 feet in height, 15 feet.
Packet Page 33
6
ARCH-1233-2017
207 Higuera Street
Page 5
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.1 Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
5.2 Deny the project. An action denying the application should include findings that cite the
basis for denial and should reference inconsistency with the General Plan, MHEP, CDG,
Zoning Regulations or other policy documents.
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Reduced Project Plans
Available at ARC Hearing: Colors and Materials Board
Website Link to MHEP: http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4300
Packet Page 34
6
RESOLUTION NO. ARC-XXXX-18
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW COMMISSION APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A
MIXED-USE PROJECT THAT INCLUDES EIGHT RESIDENTIAL
UNITS AND APPROXIMATELY 1,097 SQUARE FEET OF
COMMERCIAL SPACE. THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICAL EXEMPT
FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. AS REPRESENTED IN THE
STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED MARCH 5, 2018 (207
HIGUERA STREET, ARCH-1233-2017)
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, on March 5, 2018, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-1233-
2016, 207 Higuera, LLC, applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has
duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and
evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing.
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Architectural Review Commission
of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final
approval to the project (ARCH-1233-2017), based on the following findings:
1. As conditioned, the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of
persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the project will be compatible
with site constraints and the scale and character of the neighborhood.
2. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan for this location since the project
proposes to construct a mixed-use building that includes commercial, and residential uses
that can be utilized for such uses envisioned by the Services and Manufacturing District
within the Mixed Use Overlay zone.
3. The proposed project is consistent with Land Use Element policies 2.3.6 (Housing &
Businesses) and 3.8.5 (Mixed Uses), because the project provides residential dwellings
within a commercial district that are appropriate and compatible with the existing
neighborhood.
4. The project is consistent with the Conservation and Open Space Element policy 4.4.3
because the project promotes higher-density, compact housing to achieve more efficient use DRAFTPacket Page 35
6
of public facilities and services and to improve the City’s jobs/housing balance.
5. As conditioned, the project is consistent with the Zoning Regulations for Mixed-Use
Projects (Section 17.08.072), since the proposed building design complies with design and
performance standards for mixed-use development and is consistent with property
development standards including height, coverage, and parking for the Commercial
Services (C-S) zone.
6. As conditioned, the project design is consistent with the Community Design Guidelines by
providing a variety of architectural treatments that add visual interest and articulation to the
building design that complements the design and scale of the existing structures in the
surrounding neighborhood (CDG, Chapter 5.4).
7. The design of the project is consistent with the Mid Higuera Enhancement Plan design
guidelines since the building incorporates articulation, massing, and a mix of color/finish
materials that are compatible with the neighborhood and complementary to other
development within the immediate vicinity.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt under Class
32, In-Fill Development Projects; Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project is
consistent with General Plan policies for the land use designation and is consistent with the
applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project site occurs on a property of no more
than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses that has no value as habitat for
endangered, rare or threatened species as the site is located on an existing developed property.
SECTION 3. Action. The project conditions of approval do not include mandatory code
requirements. Code compliance will be verified during the plan check process, which may
include additional requirements applicable to the project. The Architectural Review Commission
(ARC) hereby grants final approval to the project with incorporation of the following conditions:
Planning Division
1. Final project design and construction drawings submitted for a building permit shall be in
substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the ARC (ARCH-1233-2017). A
separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building
permit that lists all conditions and code requirements of project approval listed as sheet
number 2. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans
requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping,
or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural Review
Commission, as deemed appropriate.
2. The Architectural Review Commission’s determination regarding the project is contingent
upon the approval of the City Council in regards to the 28% density bonus that includes a
request for an incentive to reduce the street yard setback to 1.5 feet, where 15 feet is
normally required, subject to review by the City Council under a separate application DRAFTPacket Page 36
6
(AFFH-1335-2018).
3. Demolition of the existing building shall not commence until a permit has been issued by
the building official. The applicant shall comply with Municipal Code Chapter 15.04
Construction and Fire Prevention Regulations, Appendix Chapter A2 Demolition and
Moving of Buildings, including but not limited to, the following: for structures older than
50 years, the applicant shall provide evidence that for a period of not less than 90 days from
date of permit application, the building was advertised in a local newspaper on at least 3
separate occasions not less than 15 days apart, as available to any interested person to be
moved, and submit historic documentation for the structure.
4. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials of all proposed
building surfaces and other improvements. Colors and materials shall be consistent with the
color and material board submitted with Architectural Review application.
5. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include window details and all other details
including but not limited to awnings, and railings. Plans shall indicate the type of materials
for the window frames and mullions, their dimensions, and colors. Plans shall include the
materials and dimensions of all lintels, sills, surrounds recesses and other related window
features. Plans shall demonstrate the use of high quality materials for all design features that
reflect the architectural style of the project and are compatible with the neighborhood
character, to the approval of the Community Development Director.
6. Final plans shall clearly depict the location of all required short and long-term bicycle
parking required for commercial uses, plans submitted for construction permits shall include
bicycle lockers or interior space within each residential unit or parking area for the storage
of at least two bicycles per unit. Sufficient detail shall be provided about the placement and
design of bike racks and lockers to demonstrate compliance with relevant Engineering
Standards and Community Design Guidelines, to the satisfaction of the Public Works and
Community Development Directors.
7. Noise reduction – Interior noise levels: Plans submitted for construction permits to complete
the project will clearly indicate and describe the noise reduction measures, techniques, and
materials used to reduce noise levels for the portion of the project along Higuera Street that
is exposed to elevated noise levels, as indicated in Figures 4 and 5 of the Noise Element of
the General Plan, to acceptable levels, as described in Figure 1 of the Noise Element.
Measures, techniques, and materials used to reduce noise levels shall be as described in the
Standard Noise Package for achieving a noise level reduction of 25 dB, from the City’s
Noise Guidebook, or equivalent alternative measures, techniques, and materials.
8. The trash enclosure located shall be design with high quality materials to match the
architecture of the project and screened with large shrubs and/or trees, subject to the
approval of the Community Development Director. The applicant shall incorporate a trellis
over the trash enclosure in order to screen from overlook; design of the trellis is subject to DRAFTPacket Page 37
6
the Community Design Guidelines and to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director.
9. The storage area for trash and recycling cans shall be screened from the public right -of-way.
The subject property shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner at all times; free of
excessive leaves, branches, and other landscape material. The applicant shall be responsible
for the clean-up of any landscape material in the public right-of-way.
10. The locations of all lighting, including bollard style landscaping or path lighting, shall be
included in plans submitted for a building permit. All wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall
be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. All wall-
mounted lighting shall complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the
building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut-
sheets on the submitted building plans. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to ensure
that light is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the City’s Night Sky
Preservation standards contained in Chapter 17.23 of the Zoning Regulations.
11. Mechanical and electrical equipment shall be located internally to the building. With
submittal of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of the building,
which clearly show the sizes of any proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment.
If any condensers or other mechanical equipment is to be placed on the roof, plans
submitted for a building permit shall confirm that parapets and other roof features will
provide adequate screening. A line-of-sight diagram shall be included to confirm that
proposed screening will be adequate. This condition applies to both initial project
construction and later building modifications and improvements.
12. A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department along with working drawings. The legend for the
landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees
with corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific locations on
plans.
13. The location of any required backflow preventer and double-check assembly shall be shown
on all site plans submitted for a building permit, including the landscaping plan.
Construction plans shall also include a scaled diagram of the equipment proposed. Where
possible, as determined by the Utilities Director, equipment shall be located inside the
building within 20 feet of the front property line. Where this is not possible, as determined
by the Utilities Director, the back flow preventer and double-check assembly shall be
located in the street yard and screened using a combination of paint color, landscaping and,
if deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director, a low wall. The size and
configuration of such equipment shall be subject to review and approval by the Utilities and
Community Development Directors.
14. Any proposed signs are subject to review and approval of the Community Development
Department and subject to a sign permit. The Community Development Director shall refer DRAFTPacket Page 38
6
signage to the ARC if signs need an exception or appear to be excessive in size or out of
character with the project.
Housing Division – Community Development Department
15. To satisfy the City’s Inclusionary Housing Requirements and qualify for the Affordable
Housing Incentives associated with the project the applicant shall dedicate affordable
housing unit(s) consistent with Table 2A of the General Plan Housing Element, subject to
approval by the City Council through the application AFFH-1335-2018.
Public Works – Engineering Division
16. The building plan submittal shall show compliance with the Parking and Driveway
Standards. Standard size vehicles shall be able to access all parking spaces in one motion
and exit to the adjoining street in a forward motion in not more than two maneuvers. The
final plans may require that all garage doors be widened to 18’ to improve maneuverability.
17. The building plan submittal shall show a widened driveway approach to the maximum
extent practical to better align with the on-site driveway width and to improvement
maneuverability into and out of the site. A centerline stripe, decorative paving delineation,
or other method shall be provided on-site to help with the alignment of vehicles entering and
exiting the site to help minimize vehicle queuing within Higuera Street.
18. The building plans shall show full compliance with the City’s Floodplain Management
Regulations. All buildings and building service equipment shall be protected or elevated to
a minimum of 1’ above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE). Additional freeboard to 2’ above
the BFE is recommended to better protect the building and to provide for reductions in
Flood Insurance premiums. This project is located in a FEMA identified Repetitive Loss
area.
19. The building plan submittal shall include a final drainage report showing and noting
compliance with the Floodplain Management Regulations, Drainage Design Manual, Mid-
Higuera Plan, and the Post Construction Stormwater Regulations. The Mid -Higuera flood
impact anal ysis strategy has been endorsed. The final Drainage Design Manual compliance
strategy and analysis for re-development shall include a comparative analysis of displaced
flood volumes between this project and the previously entitled project. The analysis shall
also include the pre. vs. post City HEC-RAS model outputs for the existing developed site
and proposed development to show compliance with the elevation and velocity limits of the
Drainage Design Manual.
20. The building plans shall show all required flood-resistant construction and venting for the
residential “wet floodproofed” garages. Prescriptive cross-ventilation for equalizing
pressure from floodwater may not be possible because of property line locations and
Building Code limitations. Therefore, depending upon the depth of the BFE and structural
design, a custom analysis and proposal for venting within the garage doors may be required. DRAFTPacket Page 39
6
21. The Post Construction Stormwater Regulation compliance documentation shall include an
Operation and Maintenance Manual and the recordation of a Private Stormwater
Conveyance Agreement.
Transportation Division - Public Works Department
22. The final landscape plan for the building front/driveway entry planters and street trees shall
consider a line-of-site analysis for vehicles exiting the driveway. The plantings at the entry
shall have a mature height of less than 30” above grade. The final street tree species, size,
planting location, and approval of the specific nursery stock shall be approved to the
satisfaction of the City Arborist and Transportation Division.
Utilities Department
23. The project’s commercial and residential uses shall be metered separately. All residential
units are to be individually metered. Privately owned sub-meters may be provided for
residential apartments upon approval of the Utilities Director. The CCR’s for the
property/homeowner association shall require that the sub-meters be read by the association
(or P/HOA contracted service) and each apartment billed according to water use.
24. The proposed utility infrastructure shall comply with the latest engineering design standards
in effect during the time a building permit is obtained, and shall have reasonable alignments
and clearances needed for maintenance.
25. Any sewer lateral that crosses one proposed parcel for the benefit of another shall provide
evidence that a private utility easement appropriate for those facilities has been recorded
prior to final Building Permit.
26. A new HDPE sewer lateral shall be installed per the engine ering design standards, and
connect into the existing 18” sewer main.
27. All water service(s) zoned for manufacturing shall provide a reduced pressure backflow
preventer downstream of the meter.
28. Trash enclosure(s) shall conform the requirements by the San Luis Garbage Company and
refuse bins shall be sized to provide a reasonable level of service. Separate refuse bins shall
be accommodated within the site for waste, recycling, and organics.
29. Driveways and access routes to all refuse receptacles shall be designed to accommodate the
size and weight of the garbage trucks; a written confirmation from the San Luis Garbage
Company shall be included in the building permit plans for the proposed project.
30. If the proposed use includes food preparation, or any type of process discharge, a pre-
treatment design shall be provided with the site plan, and a pre-treatment application shall DRAFTPacket Page 40
6
be completed. The pre-treatment application will need to be coordinated with the building
department, and the City’s Industrial Waste Program Manager.
Fire Department
31. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include the location of the fire riser room within
the building footprint, that provides access from Higuera Street to the satisfaction of the Fire
Marshal and the Community Development Director. Backflow device shall be located no
more than 20 feet from property line, FDC shall face the Fire Access Roadway (Higuera
Street).
32. Buildings over 30 feet in height shall be provided with Ladder Truck Access as specified in
Appendix ‘d’ of the Fire Code. The 14 feet between buildings ‘B’ and ‘C’ is insufficient to
operate the City’s Ladder Truck to achieve roof access. An increase in fire sprinkler density
to a minimum 0.1 gpm/sf and attic coverage will be acceptable in lieu of full access , to the
satisfaction of the Fire Marshal.
Indemnification
33. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers
and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents,
officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this
project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review
(“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified
Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and the City shall fully cooperate
in the defense against an Indemnified Claim.
On motion by Commissioner ___________, seconded by Commissioner _____________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 5th day of March, 2018.
_____________________________
Doug Davidson, Secretary
Architectural Review Commission DRAFTPacket Page 41
6
805.541.1010539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CAinfo@tenoverstudio.comtenoverstudio.comSET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONAll dimensions to be verified on site207 HIGUERA MIXED-USE207 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 01/18/2018CLIENT207 HIGUERA, LLC 207 HIGUERA ST., SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401CONTACT: SCOTT STOKESscott@abovegradeengineering.com207 HIGUERA MIXED-USEARCHITECT TEN OVER STUDIO539 MARSH ST., SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401805.541.1010CONTACT: JOEL SNYDER joels@tenoverstudio.comCIVIL ENGINEER ABOVE GRADE ENGINEERING, INC.1304 BROAD ST., SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 805.540.5115CONTACT: SCOTT STOKESscott@abovegradeengineering.comAttachment 2Packet Page 426
805.541.1010539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CAinfo@tenoverstudio.comtenoverstudio.comSET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONAll dimensions to be verified on site207 HIGUERA MIXED-USE207 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 01/08/2018ENERGY CONSERVATION207 Higuera Mixed Use consists of walk-up townhomes and apartments accessed by exterior egress balcony in order to capitalize on passive energy. This arrangement reduces the demand of heating and cooling loads by eliminating interior egress hallways, and maximizes the light and air quality to the units. All the units have the ability to have cross-breeze for natural cooling. BUILDING INFOBUILDING CONSTRUCTION: TYPE VB, SPRINKLERED. BUILDING A: NFPA 13 SYSTEM BUILDING B & C: NFPA 13D SYSTEM, WITH .1 DENSITY1 HR FIRE SEPARATION REQUIRED BTW. COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL USES. 1/2 HR FIRE SEPARATION REQUIRED BTW. RESIDENTIAL UNITS.BUILDING A: FIRST FLOOR BUILDING AREA*: 1202 SF COMMERCIAL B 1097 SF TRASH S 69 SF RISER/ELEC U 42 SFSECOND FLOOR BUILDING AREA*: 1528 SF RESIDENTIAL R-2 1528 SFBUILDING A TOTAL AREA: 2730 SFCOVERED DECK AT 2ND FLOOR 417 SFBUILDING B (BUILDING C IS SAME):FIRST FLOOR BUILDING AREA*: 1359 SF GARAGE U 1359 SFSECOND FLOOR BUILDING AREA*: 1479 SF RESIDENTIAL R-2 1479 SFTHIRD FLOOR BUILDING AREA*: 1350 SF RESIDENTIAL R-2 1350 SFBUILDING B TOTAL AREA: 4170 SFUNCOVERED DECK AT 2ND FLOOR 396 SFTOTAL BUILDING AREA (A,B & C): 11,070 SFCOVERED DECK 417 SFUNCOVERED DECK 837 SFBREAKDOWN BY TYPE:3-STORY, 2-BD TOWNHOME: LIVING AREA: 943 SF UNCOV’D DECK 132 SF GARAGE: 453 SF3-STORY 1-BD TOWNHOME: LIVING AREA: 943 SF UNCOV’D ROOF DECK: 132 SF GARAGE: 453 SF1-STORY 1-BD APARTMENT: LIVING AREA: UNIT 07/ 08 675 / 737 SF COV’D DECK: UNIT 07/ 08 163 / 251 SF PARKING w/ AFFORDABLE INCENTIVE:(2) 1-BD APARTMENTS = 2 STALLS(6) SFR = 12 STALLS 1/300 SF RETAIL = 1000*/300 = 3 STALLSTOTAL PARKING REQ’D : 17 STALLSPARKING PROPOSED = 17 STALLS*ASSUMING SF AFTER RESTROOMS/ STORAGEBICYCLE: 1 SHORT TERM @ EXTERIOR, 1 LONG TERM LOCATED IN BUILDINGMOTORCYCLE: 1 PROVIDED INDEXPROJECT INFO 1CONTEXTUAL SITE PLAN 2PRELIMINARY GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN C-1.1 (3) PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN C-2.1 (4)TENTATIVE TRACT MAP C-3.1 (5)CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN 6PLANT SCHEDULE & IMAGES 7ARCH’L DEMO PLAN 8SITE PLAN 9SITE SECTIONS 10SITE ELEVATIONS 11FLOOR PLANS 12 - 14ROOF PLAN 15ELEVATIONS 16 - 19MATERIALS 20 - 21MODEL IMAGES 22 - 27VICINITY MAPSITEADDRESS: 207 HIGUERA STREET APN: 003-721-039 LOT SIZE: 10,019 SF / .23 ACRES CURRENT TOTAL LOT COVERAGE: 1,087 SF PROPOSED TOTAL LOT COVERAGE: 6,012 SF ALLOWED COVERAGE: 75% ALLOWED F.A.R. 1.5 ZONING: C-S, MUAVERAGE SLOPE: 0% DENSITY: 24/ACRE HEIGHT LIMIT: 35’ OCCUPANCY USE: B, (RETAIL/OFF.) & R-2 (RESIDENTIAL APT) SFR (6 RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN REAR)PROJECT DESCRIPTION207 Higuera Mixed-Use proposes a new 11,070 SF 3-buliding development with a 2,730 SF 2-story mixed-use building fronting Higuera St. The ground floor has 1097 SF of proposed commercial use divided into two suites flanking a central drive aisle access. Two new affordable residential apartments bridge over the drive aisle at the second floor. Directly behind the new mixed-use building, is surface parking, creating a seperation of 27’ minimum to the 3-story Townhomes behind. A parcel map subdivision is in concurrent review to subdivide the lot into 7 airspace lots that will separate each townhome into an individual SFR occupancies. The design provides for an average of 157 SF of private deck per unit. Project requests density bonus, parking reductions, and height increase at front setback through afforable incentives. PROJECT LOCATIONCALIFORNIA CODE REFERENCEPAGE 1DENSITYTOTAL DENSITY ALLOWED: 24/.23 = 5.52BASE DENSITY (BASED ON 6 DOORS): (4) 2 BD = 4 DU & (2) 1BD = 1.32 DUDENSITY BONUS: 2 OF 6 DOORS AS AFFORDABLE MODERATE 33% AFFORDABLE MODERATE = 28% DENSITY BONUSTOTAL DENSITY= 5.52 + (5.52 X.28) = 7.06 ALLOWEDPROPOSED DENSITY: (5) 2BD = 5 DU & (3) 1BD = 1.98 DU 6.98 DU PROPOSED Attachment 2Packet Page 436
805.541.1010539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CAinfo@tenoverstudio.comtenoverstudio.comSET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONAll dimensions to be verified on site207 HIGUERA MIXED-USE207 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 01/08/2018CONTEXTUAL SITE PLANSCALE: NTSNPAGE 21. THE POND PLACE - EXISTING RETAIL BUILDING TO BE REMOVED.2. BAY AUTO & TIRE- REPAIR SHOP3. DUNN EDWARDS PAINTS - RETAIL STORE4. PAUL’S DRY CLEANERS- RETAIL STOREAttachment 2Packet Page 446
Attachment 2Packet Page 456
Attachment 2Packet Page 466
Attachment 2Packet Page 476
805.541.1010539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CAinfo@tenoverstudio.comtenoverstudio.comSET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONAll dimensions to be verified on site207 HIGUERA MIXED-USE207 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 01/08/2018CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLANSCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”PAGE 6NAttachment 2Packet Page 486
805.541.1010539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CAinfo@tenoverstudio.comtenoverstudio.comSET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONAll dimensions to be verified on site207 HIGUERA MIXED-USE207 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 01/08/2018PLANT SCHEDULE AND IMAGESMIXICAN SYCAMORECALIFORNIA FUCHSIAKINNIKINNICKSISKIYOU BLUE FESCUE DEER GRASSPAGE 7Attachment 2Packet Page 496
805.541.1010539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CAinfo@tenoverstudio.comtenoverstudio.comSET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONAll dimensions to be verified on site207 HIGUERA MIXED-USE207 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 01/08/2018DEMO PLANSCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”1. (E) PAVERS TO BE REMOVED2. (E) STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED3. (E) 6” DIA. CRAPE MYRTLE TO BE REMOVED4. (E) CURB AND WALL TO BE REMOVED5. (E) CONCRETE TO BE REMOVED6. (E) WELL TO BE REMOVED7. (E) PLANTERS TO BE REMOVED8. (E) DECOMPOSED GRANITE9. (E) PERIMETER FENCE TO BE REMOVED10. (E) ROCK FORMATION TO BE REMOVEDKEYNOTESPAGE 8ADJACENT BUILDINGADJACENT BUILDINGADJACENTBUILDING111975244339681011NAttachment 2Packet Page 506
805.541.1010539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CAinfo@tenoverstudio.comtenoverstudio.comSET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONAll dimensions to be verified on site207 HIGUERA MIXED-USE207 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 01/08/2018SITE PLANSCALE: 1/16” = 1’N36'-11"1'-6"27'-934"79'-6"6'-012"HIGUERA ST.U121'-0"24'-0"21'-0"1237135412864'-0"1'-6"31'-914"79'-6"5'-0"20'-0"4'-0"P.L. 151.77'P.L. 151.09'28'-1112"P.L.66.25'P.L. 65.85'PARKING1PARKING2PARKING3ADAPARKING4PARKING52-CAR GARAGE 2-CAR GARAGE 2-CAR GARAGE2-CAR GARAGE2-CAR GARAGE2-CAR GARAGE1 BLDG A(N) MIXED-USE3152 SFBLDG B(N) TOWNHOMES4188 SFBLDG C(N) TOWNHOMES4188 SF2 691091011ADJACENT BUILDINGADJACENT BUILDINGADJACENTBUILDING6MC9'-714"8'-714"9'-714"8'-0"9'-0"8'-714"18'-6"18'-6"61'-0"8. VEHICLE WHEELSTOP OVERHANG OVERHANG (2.5’)9. SIX FOOT TALL WOOD FENCE10. CURB WHEELSTOP11. LANDSCAPING. SEE LANDSCAPE SHEETS.12. PERMEABLE PAVERS. SEE CIVIL13. ELECTRICAL METERS1. (N) STREET TREE. SEE LANDSCAPING PLAN.2. (E) DRIVEWAY CURBCUT3. (N) CURB AT LANDSCAPING4. (N) CONCRETE DRIVE AISLE5. ELEC/ RISER ROOM w/ 4” BACKFLOW DEVICE AND FDC.6. BUILDING ABOVE7. TRASH ROOMS:1 TRASH/ 1 RECYCLE @ 32 GA. EA. PER APARTMENT1 TRASH/ 1 RECYCLE @ 96 GA. EA. PER COMM. SUITE1 TRASH/ 1 RECYCLE @ 96 GA. EA. PER TOWNHOME**IN GARAGESKEYNOTESPAGE 9Attachment 2Packet Page 516
805.541.1010539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CAinfo@tenoverstudio.comtenoverstudio.comSET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONAll dimensions to be verified on site207 HIGUERA MIXED-USE207 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 01/08/2018SITE SECTION - WESTSCALE: 3/32” = 1’-0”P.L.P.L.P.L.P.L.2ND F.F.9'-6"3RD F.F.18'-6"T.O.R.31'-3"1ST F.F.O'-0"2ND F.F.9'-6"3RD F.F.18'-6"T.O.R.31'-3"1ST F.F.O'-0"2ND F.F.16'-0"T.O.R.27'-7"1ST F.F.0'-0"MAX BLDGHEIGHT35'MAX BLDGHEIGHT35'MAX BLDGHEIGHT35'MAX BLDGHEIGHT35'CLEAR13'-6"PAGE 10SITE SECTION - SOUTHSCALE: 3/32” = 1’-0”Attachment 2Packet Page 526
805.541.1010539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CAinfo@tenoverstudio.comtenoverstudio.comSET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONAll dimensions to be verified on site207 HIGUERA MIXED-USE207 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 01/08/2018P.L.P.L.P.L.P.L.31'-3" TOP OF ROOF35'-0" BUILDING HEIGHT LIMIT35'-0" BUILDING HEIGHT LIMIT27'-7" TOP OF ROOF27'-7" TOP OF ROOFSITE ELEVATION WESTSCALE: 3/32” = 1’-0”PAGE 11SITE ELEVATION SOUTHSCALE: 3/32” = 1’-0”Attachment 2Packet Page 536
805.541.1010539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CAinfo@tenoverstudio.comtenoverstudio.comSET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONAll dimensions to be verified on site207 HIGUERA MIXED-USE207 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 01/08/2018FIRST FLOOR PLANSCALE: 3/32” - 1’PAGE 12N1. METAL AWNING ABOVE2. BUILDING ABOVEKEYNOTESAttachment 2Packet Page 546
805.541.1010539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CAinfo@tenoverstudio.comtenoverstudio.comSET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONAll dimensions to be verified on site207 HIGUERA MIXED-USE207 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 01/08/2018SECOND FLOOR PLANSCALE: 3/32” - 1’PAGE 13NAttachment 2Packet Page 556
805.541.1010539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CAinfo@tenoverstudio.comtenoverstudio.comSET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONAll dimensions to be verified on site207 HIGUERA MIXED-USE207 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 01/08/201814BLDG A: ROOF , BLDG B & C: THIRD FLOOR PLANSCALE: 3/32” - 1’PAGEN1. DECK BELOW2. BUILDING BELOW3. GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUTSKEYNOTESAttachment 2Packet Page 566
805.541.1010539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CAinfo@tenoverstudio.comtenoverstudio.comSET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONAll dimensions to be verified on site207 HIGUERA MIXED-USE207 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 01/08/2018BLDG. B & C: ROOF PLANSCALE: 3/32” - 1’PAGE 15N
6/23(
6/23(
BLDG A%(/2:BLDG BBLDG C1. BALCONY BELOW2. BUILDING BELOW3. GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUTSKEYNOTESAttachment 2Packet Page 576
805.541.1010539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CAinfo@tenoverstudio.comtenoverstudio.comSET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONAll dimensions to be verified on site207 HIGUERA MIXED-USE207 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 01/08/2018P.L.16'-0" 2ND FLOOR11'-7"27'-7" TOP OF ROOF35'-0" BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITP.L.P.L.16'-0" 2ND FLOOR11'-7"27'-7" TOP OF ROOF35'-0" BUILDING HEIGHT LIMIT112234561089121113511121341513'-6" CLEARANCEMIXED USE ELEVATION - SOUTHSCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”1. HARDIE PLANK - SMOOTH 2. CORRUGATED METAL SIDING3. HARDIE BOARD - SMOOTH 4. 2X WOOD FASCIA PAINTED - PAINTED BLACK5. BLACK VINYL WINDOW WITH TRANSPARENT GLASS 6. BLACK VINYL DOOR WITH TRANSPARENT GLASS7. NOT USED8. ALUMINUM CLAD STOREFRONT WINDOW WITH TRANSPARENT GLASS AND TRANSPARENT CLERESTORY ABOVE9. ALUMINUM STOREFRONT DOOR WITH TRANSPARENT GLASS PANEL 10. METAL AWNING11. CABLE RAILING - STAINLESS STEEL12. 4X PAINTED POSTS13. MOUNTED WALL SCONCE14. METAL FIRE RATED DOOR15. WOOD FENCE - 6FT TALL16. NOT USED17. WOOD SOFFIT18. STUCCO - SMOOTH19. WOOD AND CABLE RAIL BALCONY PAINTED - BLACK20. GARAGE DOOR WITH TRANSPARENT PANELS21. TPO ROOF22. METAL DOORKEYNOTESPAGE 16MIXED USE ELEVATION - WESTSCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”Attachment 2Packet Page 586
805.541.1010539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CAinfo@tenoverstudio.comtenoverstudio.comSET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONAll dimensions to be verified on site207 HIGUERA MIXED-USE207 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 01/08/20183/3/3/
1')/225
7232)522)
%8,/',1*+(,*+7/,0,7
1')/225
7232)522)
%8,/',1*+(,*+7/,0,767))MIXED USE ELEVATION - NORTHSCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”PAGE 17MIXED USE ELEVATION - EASTSCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”1. HARDIE PLANK - SMOOTH 2. CORRUGATED METAL SIDING3. HARDIE BOARD - SMOOTH4. 2X WOOD FASCIA PAINTED - PAINTED BLACK5. BLACK VINYL WINDOW WITH TRANSPARENT GLASS 6. BLACK VINYL DOOR WITH TRANSPARENT GLASS7. NOT USED8. ALUMINUM CLAD STOREFRONT WINDOW WITH TRANSPARENT GLASS AND TRANSPARENT CLERESTORY ABOVE9. ALUMINUM STOREFRONT DOOR WITH TRANSPARENT GLASS PANEL 10. METAL AWNING11. CABLE RAILING - STAINLESS STEEL12. 4X PAINTED POSTS13. MOUNTED WALL SCONCE14. METAL FIRE RATED DOOR15. WOOD FENCE - 6FT TALL16. NOT USED17. WOOD SOFFIT18. STUCCO - SMOOTH19. WOOD AND CABLE RAIL BALCONY PAINTED - BLACK20. GARAGE DOOR WITH TRANSPARENT PANELS21. TPO ROOF22. METAL DOORKEYNOTESAttachment 2Packet Page 596
805.541.1010539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CAinfo@tenoverstudio.comtenoverstudio.comSET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONAll dimensions to be verified on site207 HIGUERA MIXED-USE207 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 01/08/20183/
67)/225
1')/225
5')/225
7232)522)
%8,/',1*+(,*+7/,0,73/ TOWNHOMES ELEVATIONS - WESTSCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”PAGE 18TOWNHOMES ELEVATIONS - SOUTH (NORTH SIMILAR)SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”3/
67)/225
1')/225
5')/225
3/ 1. HARDIE PLANK - SMOOTH 2. CORRUGATED METAL SIDING3. HARDIE BOARD - SMOOTH 4. 2X WOOD FASCIA PAINTED - PAINTED BLACK5. BLACK VINYL WINDOW WITH TRANSPARENT GLASS 6. BLACK VINYL DOOR WITH TRANSPARENT GLASS7. NOT USED8. ALUMINUM CLAD STOREFRONT WINDOW WITH TRANSPARENT GLASS AND TRANSPARENT CLERESTORY ABOVE9. ALUMINUM STOREFRONT DOOR WITH TRANSPARENT GLASS PANEL 10. METAL AWNING11. CABLE RAILING - STAINLESS STEEL12. 4X PAINTED POSTS13. MOUNTED WALL SCONCE14. METAL FIRE RATED DOOR15. WOOD FENCE - 6FT TALL16. NOT USED17. WOOD SOFFIT18. STUCCO - SMOOTH19. WOOD AND CABLE RAIL BALCONY PAINTED - BLACK20. GARAGE DOOR WITH TRANSPARENT PANELS21. TPO ROOF22. METAL DOORKEYNOTESAttachment 2Packet Page 606
805.541.1010539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CAinfo@tenoverstudio.comtenoverstudio.comSET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONAll dimensions to be verified on site207 HIGUERA MIXED-USE207 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 01/08/2018
67)/225
1')/225
5')/225
7232)522)
%8,/',1*+(,*+7/,0,73/TOWNHOMES ELEVATION - SOUTH@ DRIVE AISLE (NORTH SIMILAR)TOWNHOMES ELEVATION - EASTSCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”PAGE 19SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”3/
67)/225
1')/225
5')/225
7232)522)
%8,/',1*+(,*+7/,0,73/ 1. HARDIE PLANK - SMOOTH 2. CORRUGATED METAL SIDING3. HARDIE BOARD - SMOOTH 4. 2X WOOD FASCIA PAINTED BLACK5. BLACK VINYL WINDOW WITH TRANSPARENT GLASS 6. BLACK VINYL DOOR WITH TRANSPARENT GLASS7. NOT USED8. ALUMINUM CLAD STOREFRONT WINDOW WITH TRANSPARENT GLASS AND TRANSPARENT CLERESTORY ABOVE9. ALUMINUM STOREFRONT DOOR WITH TRANSPARENT GLASS PANEL 10. METAL AWNING11. CABLE RAILING - STAINLESS STEEL12. 4X PAINTED POSTS13. MOUNTED WALL SCONCE14. METAL FIRE RATED DOOR15. WOOD FENCE - 6FT TALL16. NOT USED17. WOOD SOFFIT18. STUCCO - SMOOTH19. WOOD AND CABLE RAIL BALCONY PAINTED - BLACK20. GARAGE DOOR WITH TRANSPARENT PANELS21. TPO ROOF22. METAL DOORKEYNOTESAttachment 2Packet Page 616
805.541.1010539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CAinfo@tenoverstudio.comtenoverstudio.comSET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONAll dimensions to be verified on site207 HIGUERA MIXED-USE207 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 01/08/2018MATERIALS - MIXED USE BUILDINGSIDING AND TRIM PANELSHARDIE PANEL SMOOTHSW 7069 IRON OREMETAL SIDING4” BOX RIB METAL PANEL SILVER METALLICLAP SIDINGHARDIE PANELSW 7739 HERBAL WASHSTOREFRONTKAWNEER, ANODIZED ALUM. BLACK NO.29WALL SCONCEBARNLIGHT G-32SOFFITSWOODTONE TRAD. PANELSTEXAS HONEY BROWNPAGE 20Attachment 2Packet Page 626
805.541.1010539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CAinfo@tenoverstudio.comtenoverstudio.comSET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONAll dimensions to be verified on site207 HIGUERA MIXED-USE207 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 01/08/2018MAIN BODY - STUCCOLA HABRA - SILVER GRAYWALL SCONCEBARNLIGHT - ATOMIC INDUSTRIAL SOFFITSWOODTONE TRAD. PANELSTEXAS HONEY BROWNMATERIALS - TOWNHOMESPAGE 21SIDING AND TRIM PANELSHARDIE PANEL SMOOTHSW 7069 IRON OREMETAL SIDING4” BOX RIB METAL PANEL SILVER METALLICLAP SIDINGHARDIE PANELSW 7739 HERBAL WASHAttachment 2Packet Page 636
805.541.1010539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CAinfo@tenoverstudio.comtenoverstudio.comSET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONAll dimensions to be verified on site207 HIGUERA MIXED-USE207 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 01/08/2018HIGUERA STREET ELEVATIONPAGE 22Attachment 2Packet Page 646
805.541.1010539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CAinfo@tenoverstudio.comtenoverstudio.comSET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONAll dimensions to be verified on site207 HIGUERA MIXED-USE207 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 01/08/2018HIGUERA STREET ELEVATIONPAGE 23Attachment 2Packet Page 656
805.541.1010539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CAinfo@tenoverstudio.comtenoverstudio.comSET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONAll dimensions to be verified on site207 HIGUERA MIXED-USE207 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 01/08/2018TOWNHOME - WEST ELEVATIONPAGE 24Attachment 2Packet Page 666
805.541.1010539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CAinfo@tenoverstudio.comtenoverstudio.comSET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONAll dimensions to be verified on site207 HIGUERA MIXED-USE207 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 01/08/2018MIXED USE BUILDING - EAST ELEVATIONPAGE 25Attachment 2Packet Page 676
805.541.1010539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CAinfo@tenoverstudio.comtenoverstudio.comSET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONAll dimensions to be verified on site207 HIGUERA MIXED-USE207 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 01/08/2018AXONOMETRIC VIEW LOOKING NORTH-WESTPAGE 26Attachment 2Packet Page 686
805.541.1010539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CAinfo@tenoverstudio.comtenoverstudio.comSET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONAll dimensions to be verified on site207 HIGUERA MIXED-USE207 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE: 01/08/2018AXONOMETRIC VIEW LOOKING NORTH-EASTPAGE 27Attachment 2Packet Page 696
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Page 70
6
Meeting Date: 3/20/2018
FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Director of Utilities
Prepared By: David Hix, Deputy Director Utilities – Wastewater
SUBJECT: SOLE SOURCE AUTHORIZATION FOR CERTAIN WRRF PROJECT
EQUIPMENT
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the inclusion of the sole-sourced equipment as identified in this report in the
construction and bidding documents for the Water Resource Recovery Facility Project.
DISCUSSION
The Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) Project is in final design. The project includes
improvements for regulatory compliance, aged infrastructure replacement, future treatment
capacity, maximized recycled water production, and community engagement.
During the design process, certain equipment has been identified that, for various reasons,
requires the City meet its needs by using its sole source purchasing authority.
1. Polymer Blending System
2. Screw Thickener
3. Screw Press
4. Programmable Logic Controller
5. Odor Control
6. Primary Effluent Fine Screen
7. Electric Valve Actuators
In conformance with the City’s purchasing policies, the detailed sole-source justification for each
piece of equipment was submitted to the Purchasing Analyst for critical review (Attachment A).
It has been determined the sole source requests conform with City policies.
Sole source authorization is necessary at this time, so these specific pieces of equipment may be
incorporated in the final bidding and construction documents that are currently being prepared. If
an unanticipated design change should occur between now and completion of the documents that
would allow for competitive bidding on any applicable equipment, that equipment will be
removed from the sole source list and competitively bid.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to the recommended action in this
report, because the action does not constitute a “Project” under CEQA Guidelines sec. 15278.
Packet Page 71
7
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action at this time. This request is to authorize staff
to incorporate this specific equipment and manufacturer to be placed in the bidding and
construction documents for the WRRF Project. This equipment will be purchased by the
contractor during construction and included in the construction cost of the project.
ALTERNATIVE
Elect not to authorize the equipment be placed in the bidding and construction documents.
The City Council may elect not to authorize this equipment be placed in the building and
construction documents. Staff does not recommend this alternative for the reasons outlined on
the sole source justification forms.
Attachments:
a - Approved Sole-Source Justifications
Packet Page 72
7
City of San Luis Obispo Sole Source Justification Form
[Ovivo Brackett-Green Fine Screen]
It is the policy of the City of San Luis Obispo to solicit quotations or bids for purchases of commodities or
services for specified dollar amounts and to select vendors on a competitive basis (See City of San Luis
Obispo Financial Management Manual, Section 201, Exhibit 201-B).
Pursuant to San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 3.24.060, certain acquisitions in which the products
or services may only be obtained from a single source may be purchased without engaging in bidding
procedures. Such Sole Source acquisitions must be justified in sufficient detail to explain the basis for
suspending the usual competitive procurement process and approved by the approving authority before
such a purchase is made.
1. What product or service is being requested? Why is it necessary?
Primary Effluent Fine Screens by Ovivo
Fine screens are required to minimize the introduction of materials that might be detrimental to the
longevity of the downstream membranes.
2. Is this “brand” of product or services offered the only one that meets the City’s requirements? If
yes, what is unique about the product/services?
Yes. The hydraulic profile limits the available headloss through the primary effluent fine screens to 6‐
inches at 50 percent blinding. The selected manufacturer is the only drum screen that meets this
requirement as other manufacturers require a minimum headloss of 12 inches.
3. Is the product or service proprietary or is it available from various dealers? Have you verified this?
The product is proprietary.
4. Have other products/vendors been considered? If yes, which products/vendors have been
considered and how did they fail to meet the City’s requirements?
Other fine screens such as Band Screens and other manufacturers of Drum Screens were considered,
but no other known horizontal drum screen device in the market can meet the specification required
for this application.
5. Is the purchase an upgrade or addition to an existing system or brand of products adopted citywide?
If so, will purchase of this product avoid other costs as opposed to purchasing another product or
service (e.g., additional training required; data conversion; implementation of a new system; etc.)?
No, this product is not being sole sourced for standardization, but for its fit for this specific application.
6. Is this a request for services by a contractor with necessary, unique and critical knowledge of
established City systems or programs? If so, will using the contractor’s services avoid other costs
(e.g.: significant staff time in compiling information, data transfers, etc.)?
Packet Page 73
7
City of San Luis Obispo Sole Source Justification Form
No
7. What is the quoted price for the product or services and is it reasonable (based on other products
or services in the same field or based on historical pricing for the City for similar products or
services)?
$660,661/each, two in total. The price is reasonable and based on the research conducted by the
WRRF Project Team (CH2M, City, WSC, HDR) the pricing was found to be comparable to other fine
screen options available in the market.
Approved:
______________________________________ __02/13/18___________________
Kristin Eriksson Date
Purchasing Analyst
Packet Page 74
7
City of San Luis Obispo Sole Source Justification Form
[Allen Bradley]
It is the policy of the City of San Luis Obispo to solicit quotations or bids for purchases of commodities or
services for specified dollar amounts and to select vendors on a competitive basis (See City of San Luis
Obispo Financial Management Manual, Section 201, Exhibit 201-B).
Pursuant to San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 3.24.060, certain acquisitions in which the products
or services may only be obtained from a single source may be purchased without engaging in bidding
procedures. Such Sole Source acquisitions must be justified in sufficient detail to explain the basis for
suspending the usual competitive procurement process and approved by the approving authority before
such a purchase is made.
1. What product or service is being requested? Why is it necessary?
Programmable Logic Controllers by Allen Bradley. Specifically, the components include:
• Large systems – Allen Bradley ControlLogix
• Smaller System – Allen Bradley CompactLogix
• OIT/Touchpanels – Allen Bradley PanelViewPlus Standard 7 Series
• Network Switches – Mox (non-Device Level Ring) and Allen Bradley Stratix (Device Level Ring)
These are required for automation of equipment and communication between equipment and the central
SCADA control system.
2. Is this “brand” of product or services offered the only one that meets the City’s requirements? If
yes, what is unique about the product/services?
No, other similar services are available, but each PLC manufacturer maintains a unique protocol for
communication between PLCs and SCADA. Having multiple PLC systems will require additional cost
and complicated effort towards integration software, hardware and consultant fee. The WRRF has
standardized on Allen Bradley PLC for other equipment PLC.
3. Is the product or service proprietary or is it available from various dealers? Have you verified this?
Other similar products are available through various dealers, but the specified product is only
available through Allen Bradley.
4. Have other products/vendors been considered? If yes, which products/vendors have been
considered and how did they fail to meet the City’s requirements?
No. The WRRF has standardized on Allen Bradley PLC as mentioned above.
5. Is the purchase an upgrade or addition to an existing system or brand of products adopted citywide?
If so, will purchase of this product avoid other costs as opposed to purchasing another product or
service (e.g., additional training required; data conversion; implementation of a new system; etc.)?
Packet Page 75
7
City of San Luis Obispo Sole Source Justification Form
The purchase will be an addition to the existing system. The product will avoid other costs, including
cost of software and hardware integration, cost of programming and implementation of the new
system, and additional operational and maintenance training requirement for the WRRF staff. The IT
steering committee has previously approved and recommended the purchase of Allen-Bradley PLCs
for projects.
6. Is this a request for services by a contractor with necessary, unique and critical knowledge of
established City systems or programs? If so, will using the contractor’s services avoid other costs
(e.g.: significant staff time in compiling information, data transfers, etc.)?
No
7. What is the quoted price for the product or services and is it reasonable (based on other products
or services in the same field or based on historical pricing for the City for similar products or
services)?
$500,000 combined for the systems specified. The price is reasonable and based on the research
conducted by the WRRF Project Team (CH2M, City, WSC, HDR) the pricing was found to be comparable
to other PLCs in the market.
Approved:
______________________________________ ___02/13/18__________________
Kristin Eriksson Date
Purchasing Analyst
Packet Page 76
7
City of San Luis Obispo Sole Source Justification Form
[Auma Actuators]
It is the policy of the City of San Luis Obispo to solicit quotations or bids for purchases of commodities or
services for specified dollar amounts and to select vendors on a competitive basis (See City of San Luis
Obispo Financial Management Manual, Section 201, Exhibit 201-B).
Pursuant to San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 3.24.060, certain acquisitions in which the products
or services may only be obtained from a single source may be purchased without engaging in bidding
procedures. Such Sole Source acquisitions must be justified in sufficient detail to explain the basis for
suspending the usual competitive procurement process and approved by the approving authority before
such a purchase is made.
1. What product or service is being requested? Why is it necessary?
Electric valve actuators by Auma. This is required to provide ease of operation on large valves that
may require considerable effort to open and close.
2. Is this “brand” of product or services offered the only one that meets the City’s requirements? If
yes, what is unique about the product/services?
Other actuators meet the technical requirements, but the WRRF has standardized on Auma Actuators
based upon greater reliability and lower maintenance requirements. The department recently
procured them as part of the 2015 WRRF Energy Efficiency Project.
3. Is the product or service proprietary or is it available from various dealers? Have you verified this?
Other similar equipment are available.
4. Have other products/vendors been considered? If yes, which products/vendors have been
considered and how did they fail to meet the City’s requirements?
Other actuator manufacturers were not considered since the WRRF has standardized on Auma
actuators.
5. Is the purchase an upgrade or addition to an existing system or brand of products adopted citywide?
If so, will purchase of this product avoid other costs as opposed to purchasing another product or
service (e.g., additional training required; data conversion; implementation of a new system; etc.)?
The standardization effort will avoid costs associated with training for the operation and maintenance
of multiple actuators.
6. Is this a request for services by a contractor with necessary, unique and critical knowledge of
established City systems or programs? If so, will using the contractor’s services avoid other costs
(e.g.: significant staff time in compiling information, data transfers, etc.)?
No
Packet Page 77
7
City of San Luis Obispo Sole Source Justification Form
7. What is the quoted price for the product or services and is it reasonable (based on other products
or services in the same field or based on historical pricing for the City for similar products or
services)?
Valve actuators cost between $500 to $10,000 based on the valve size. Total number of actuators will
be decided by final design. Based on the cost estimates received during the WRRF Energy Efficiency
Project, the WRRF staff found the costs to be comparable.
Approved:
______________________________________ ___02/13/18__________________
Kristin Eriksson Date
Purchasing Analyst
Packet Page 78
7
City of San Luis Obispo Sole Source Justification Form
[FKC Screw Press]
It is the policy of the City of San Luis Obispo to solicit quotations or bids for purchases of commodities or
services for specified dollar amounts and to select vendors on a competitive basis (See City of San Luis
Obispo Financial Management Manual, Section 201, Exhibit 201-B).
Pursuant to San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 3.24.060, certain acquisitions in which the products
or services may only be obtained from a single source may be purchased without engaging in bidding
procedures. Such Sole Source acquisitions must be justified in sufficient detail to explain the basis for
suspending the usual competitive procurement process and approved by the approving authority before
such a purchase is made.
1. What product or service is being requested? Why is it necessary?
A new screw press manufactured by FKC for dewatering of anaerobically digested biosolids. The
existing belt filter press is approaching the end of useful life and it’s confirmed that a new screw press
is required to provide reliable redundancy.
2. Is this “brand” of product or services offered the only one that meets the City’s requirements? If
yes, what is unique about the product/services?
No, this is not the only one that meets the City’s requirements. However, City desires the
standardization of the dewatering equipment and has requested that the new screw press be by FKC
to match the existing FKC equipment. FKC was originally selected because it offered the best
dewatering characteristics, low maintenance requirements, ease of operation and was comparably
priced to other screw presses. The existing FKC press was purchased during the WRRF’s design/build
energy project.
3. Is the product or service proprietary or is it available from various dealers? Have you verified this?
Different screw presses are available from other manufacturers, but the City desires to standardize
on FKC screw press for dewatering due to familiarity and past performance/
4. Have other products/vendors been considered? If yes, which products/vendors have been
considered and how did they fail to meet the City’s requirements?
No, other vendors were not considered due to the desire for standardization.
5. Is the purchase an upgrade or addition to an existing system or brand of products adopted citywide?
If so, will purchase of this product avoid other costs as opposed to purchasing another product or
service (e.g., additional training required; data conversion; implementation of a new system; etc.)?
The purchase is an addition to an existing system containing a FKC screw press. The purchase of the
product will avoid other costs, including additional training required for operation and maintenance
for the WRRF staff and implementation of a new system.
Packet Page 79
7
City of San Luis Obispo Sole Source Justification Form
6.Is this a request for services by a contractor with necessary, unique and critical knowledge of
established City systems or programs? If so, will using the contractor’s services avoid other costs
(e.g.: significant staff time in compiling information, data transfers, etc.)?
No
7.What is the quoted price for the product or services and is it reasonable (based on other products
or services in the same field or based on historical pricing for the City for similar products or
services)?
$498,355/each, one in total The WRRF project team (CH2M, City, WSC, HDR) has researched this
equipment and found the cost to be comparable to screw presses comparable to other manufacturers
of like equipment
Approved:
______________________________________ _____________________
Kristin Eriksson Date
Purchasing Analyst
02/13/18
Packet Page 80
7
City of San Luis Obispo Sole Source Justification Form
[Huber Screw Thickener]
It is the policy of the City of San Luis Obispo to solicit quotations or bids for purchases of commodities or
services for specified dollar amounts and to select vendors on a competitive basis (See City of San Luis
Obispo Financial Management Manual, Section 201, Exhibit 201-B).
Pursuant to San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 3.24.060, certain acquisitions in which the products
or services may only be obtained from a single source may be purchased without engaging in bidding
procedures. Such Sole Source acquisitions must be justified in sufficient detail to explain the basis for
suspending the usual competitive procurement process and approved by the approving authority before
such a purchase is made.
1. What product or service is being requested? Why is it necessary?
Huber Screw Thickeners for thickening of primary and waste sludge to minimize the footprint of the
new thickening process.
2. Is this “brand” of product or services offered the only one that meets the City’s requirements? If
yes, what is unique about the product/services?
Yes. While other thickeners are available on the market, Huber Screw Thickener offers the lowest
height profile when compared to other Thickeners. The new screw thickeners will be incorporated
due to the low profile canopy structure that is desired given the adjacency to the Bob Jones Trail. The
intent is to limit the visual impact of this facility on the plant site.
3. Is the product or service proprietary or is it available from various dealers? Have you verified this?
Other similar products are available from other vendors, but no other manufacturer offers the low
height profile.
4. Have other products/vendors been considered? If yes, which products/vendors have been
considered and how did they fail to meet the City’s requirements?
Yes, Rotary Drum Thickeners were also considered but Huber Screw Thickeners were chosen as it
offers the lower height profile.
5. Is the purchase an upgrade or addition to an existing system or brand of products adopted citywide?
If so, will purchase of this product avoid other costs as opposed to purchasing another product or
service (e.g., additional training required; data conversion; implementation of a new system; etc.)?
No, the intent of selecting Huber Screw Thickeners not standardization but to meet specific design
criteria for the thickening process.
6. Is this a request for services by a contractor with necessary, unique and critical knowledge of
established City systems or programs? If so, will using the contractor’s services avoid other costs
(e.g.: significant staff time in compiling information, data transfers, etc.)?
Packet Page 81
7
City of San Luis Obispo Sole Source Justification Form
No
7.What is the quoted price for the product or services and is it reasonable (based on other products
or services in the same field or based on historical pricing for the City for similar products or
services)?
$405,976/each, two in total The price is reasonable and based on the research conducted by the
WRRF Project Team (CH2M, City, WSC, HDR) the pricing was found to be comparable to other screw
presses available in the market.
Approved:
______________________________________ _____________________
Kristin Eriksson Date
Purchasing Analyst
02/13/18
Packet Page 82
7
City of San Luis Obispo Sole Source Justification Form
[JDV LEVEL LODOR]
It is the policy of the City of San Luis Obispo to solicit quotations or bids for purchases of commodities or
services for specified dollar amounts and to select vendors on a competitive basis (See City of San Luis
Obispo Financial Management Manual, Section 201, Exhibit 201-B).
Pursuant to San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 3.24.060, certain acquisitions in which the products
or services may only be obtained from a single source may be purchased without engaging in bidding
procedures. Such Sole Source acquisitions must be justified in sufficient detail to explain the basis for
suspending the usual competitive procurement process and approved by the approving authority before
such a purchase is made.
1. What product or service is being requested? Why is it necessary?
Self-leveling, odor controlled, roll-off bin cover by JDV LEVEL LODOR. This product is required to
minimize odor control form the biosolids roll-off bins at the biosolids dewatering area.
2. Is this “brand” of product or services offered the only one that meets the City’s requirements? If
yes, what is unique about the product/services?
Different odor control systems are available but this type of odor control was the most cost efficient
available for the dewatering area since it did not require the addition of large odor control systems
and enclosing the equipment in a building. The product is a special lid that would be placed on top of
the bins containing biosolids and scrubbing the odors coming directly from the bins. The alternative
would be to enclose the entire dewatering building and significantly upsize the odor control system
to accommodate the entire volume of the building.
3. Is the product or service proprietary or is it available from various dealers? Have you verified this?
Yes, this product is proprietary.
4. Have other products/vendors been considered? If yes, which products/vendors have been
considered and how did they fail to meet the City’s requirements?
Yes, other odor control systems were eliminated due to the reasons specified above.
5. Is the purchase an upgrade or addition to an existing system or brand of products adopted citywide?
If so, will purchase of this product avoid other costs as opposed to purchasing another product or
service (e.g., additional training required; data conversion; implementation of a new system; etc.)?
No, this product is not purchased for standardization, but to provide a cost-effective solution that
does not require enclosure of the dewatering building to an odor problem near the Bob Jones Trail.
6. Is this a request for services by a contractor with necessary, unique and critical knowledge of
established City systems or programs? If so, will using the contractor’s services avoid other costs
(e.g.: significant staff time in compiling information, data transfers, etc.)?
Packet Page 83
7
City of San Luis Obispo Sole Source Justification Form
No
7.What is the quoted price for the product or services and is it reasonable (based on other products
or services in the same field or based on historical pricing for the City for similar products or
services)?
$192,000 each. Three total units. Based on research conducted by the WRRF Project Team (City,
CH2M, WSC, HDR) the pricing was seen to be reasonable. The cost of the Level Lodor system is
significantly less than the cost of enclosing the dewatering building and installing an odor control
system that is large enough to treat all of the air within the building compared to solely the air coming
directly from the bins that receive the dewatered solids.
Approved:
______________________________________ _____________________
Kristin Eriksson Date
Purchasing Analyst
02/13/18
Packet Page 84
7
City of San Luis Obispo Sole Source Justification Form
[UGSI Polyblend]
It is the policy of the City of San Luis Obispo to solicit quotations or bids for purchases of commodities or
services for specified dollar amounts and to select vendors on a competitive basis (See City of San Luis
Obispo Financial Management Manual, Section 201, Exhibit 201-B).
Pursuant to San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 3.24.060, certain acquisitions in which the products
or services may only be obtained from a single source may be purchased without engaging in bidding
procedures. Such Sole Source acquisitions must be justified in sufficient detail to explain the basis for
suspending the usual competitive procurement process and approved by the approving authority before
such a purchase is made.
1. What product or service is being requested? Why is it necessary?
Polymer blending system by UGSI. This is required to feed polymers to the thickeners and dewatering
presses for improved performance.
2. Is this “brand” of product or services offered the only one that meets the City’s requirements? If
yes, what is unique about the product/services?
Other polymer blending units meet the technical requirements, but the WRRF currently uses a UGSI
Polyblend unit for the dewatering process and would like to standardize the system for the additional
screw press that will be incorporated as part of this project.
3. Is the product or service proprietary or is it available from various dealers? Have you verified this?
Other similar equipment are available.
4. Have other products/vendors been considered? If yes, which products/vendors have been
considered and how did they fail to meet the City’s requirements?
Other polymer blending systems were considered, but eliminated in order to standardize on UGSI’s
equipment.
5. Is the purchase an upgrade or addition to an existing system or brand of products adopted citywide?
If so, will purchase of this product avoid other costs as opposed to purchasing another product or
service (e.g., additional training required; data conversion; implementation of a new system; etc.)?
The standardization effort will avoid costs associated with training for the operation and maintenance
of multiple polymer blending units and reduce the cost of implementation of different systems and
associated processes.
6. Is this a request for services by a contractor with necessary, unique and critical knowledge of
established City systems or programs? If so, will using the contractor’s services avoid other costs
(e.g.: significant staff time in compiling information, data transfers, etc.)?
Packet Page 85
7
City of San Luis Obispo Sole Source Justification Form
No
7. What is the quoted price for the product or services and is it reasonable (based on other products
or services in the same field or based on historical pricing for the City for similar products or
services)?
$40,000 each. Three total units. The price is comparable to other similar equipment.
Approved:
______________________________________ __02/06/2018___________________
Kristin Eriksson Date
Purchasing Analyst
Packet Page 86
7
Meeting Date: 3/20/2018
FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Scott Lee, Parking Services Manager
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR PARKING SECURITY
GUARD SERVICES, SPECIFICATION NO 91625
RECOMMENDATION
1. Authorize the issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Parking Security Guard Services,
Specification No. 91625; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with the successful bidder within the
approved budget of $48,000, and
3. Authorize the City Attorney to approve modifications to the form of the contract with the
successful bidder.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this proposal is to continue to contract with a vendor to furnish security guard
services at each of the three existing parking structures. Parking Services has utilized outside
contracted security services since 2010. This approach is part of an ongoing crime prevention
strategy for the parking structures and provides benefit to both the parking customers and the
staff who work there during the evening and weekend shifts.
The current contract with In House Security expired on October 31, 2017 and is operating on a
month-to-month extension basis. The new contract shall be for a period of four (4) years, with
two (2) additional two-year extensions available to the City at their sole discretion.
CONCURRENCES
The police department concurs with this service as a strategy to reduce calls for service for the
parking structures and as an overall crime deterrent measure.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to the recommended action in this
report, because the action does not constitute a “Project” under CEQA Guidelines sec. 15278.
NEXT STEPS
Solicitation for proposals will be done by publicizing the RFP on the BidSync.com website
utilized by the City, in addition to local notification required by the City’s Municipal and Public
Resource Codes.
The RFP is scheduled to be released to the public upon approval by Council. After proposals are
received and accepted by the City in April 2018, a team of City staff will review each proposal
Packet Page 87
8
for conformity and “best value”. The top ranked firm(s) will be interviewed to highlight their
capabilities and services and to make recommendations to staff to ensure the vendor selected
meets the city’s needs now and in the future. Negotiations will then begin with the top ranked
firm. The new contract will become effective shortly after approval and award.
FISCAL IMPACT
As part of the approved 2017-19 Financial Plan, the Parking Division’s FY17-18 operating
budget includes $48,000 for these services. The project will be fully funded by the Parking Fund.
The contracted hours may be amended once the new Parking Access and Revenue Control
System (PARCS) is installed as the City’s needs may change with the new equipment.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council may choose to not approve the RFP for the Security Guard Services and
instruct Staff to discontinue the services and seek other alternatives. Staff does not recommend
this alternative because it may pose public safety issues at the three parking garages and increase
the calls for service to the Police Department.
Attachments:
a - Security Guard Services RFP (91625)
Packet Page 88
8
Page 1 Parking Security Guard Services RFP – specification no. 91625
990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Notice Requesting Proposals for
PARKING SECURITY GUARD SERVICES
Specification No. 91625
The City of San Luis Obispo is soliciting proposals from qualified vendors to furnish Parking
Security Guard Services pursuant to Specification No. 91625. All proposers must register with
BidSync at www.BidSync.com, where proposers can obtain RFP packages and submit questions
regarding the RFP.
The City will accept both electronic proposals submitted on BidSync and paper proposals
submitted to the Finance Department office at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401. To
guard against premature opening, paper proposals must be submitted to the Finance
Department in a sealed envelope plainly marked with the proposer’s name, specification
number, proposal title and due date of proposal opening.
All proposals must be submitted no later than 3:30pm Pacific Daylight Time, April 9, 2018. The
proposals will be publicly opened at that time in the Council Hearing Room (Main Floor) at City
Hall: 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401.
Proposals received after said date and time will not be considered. Proposals shall be submitted
along with the required forms provided in the specification package and following instructions
contained herein. Proposals submitted in forms other than that described above will not be
accepted.
Please contact Purchasing Analyst Kristin Eriksson at KEriksso@slocity.org with any questions.
For Public Records requests see Section 1.13
Packet Page 89
8
Page 2 Parking Security Guard Services RFP – specification no. 91625
Specification No. 91625
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. NOTICE TO PROPOSERS – PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS .................................................. 5
1.1. Summary and Requirement to Meet All Provisions ......................................................................... 5
1.2. Contract Term and Optional Extensions .......................................................................................... 5
1.3. Important Dates ............................................................................................................................... 5
1.4. Proposal Submittal and Format ....................................................................................................... 5
1.5. Insurance Certificate ........................................................................................................................ 5
1.6. Submittal of References ................................................................................................................... 6
1.7. Statement of Contract Disqualifications .......................................................................................... 6
1.8. Withdrawal or Revision of Proposals ............................................................................................... 6
1.9. Multiple Proposals ........................................................................................................................... 6
1.10. Procuring Agency/Personnel ............................................................................................................ 6
1.11. Inquiries and Clarifications ............................................................................................................... 7
1.12. Addenda ........................................................................................................................................... 7
1.13. Public Records .................................................................................................................................. 7
2. CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION ................................................................................... 7
2.1. Proposal Retention and Award ........................................................................................................ 7
2.2. Competency and Responsibility of Proposer ................................................................................... 7
2.3. Form of Agreement .......................................................................................................................... 7
2.4. Insurance .......................................................................................................................................... 8
2.5. Business License and Tax .................................................................................................................. 8
2.6. Failure to Accept Contract ................................................................................................................ 8
2.7. Oral Presentations / Site Visits / Meetings ....................................................................................... 8
2.8. Proposer’s Responsibility ................................................................................................................. 8
3. CONTRACT PERFORMANCE...................................................................................................... 8
3.1. Ability to Perform ............................................................................................................................. 8
3.2. Laws to be Observed ........................................................................................................................ 8
3.3. Payment of Taxes ............................................................................................................................. 8
3.4. Permits and Licenses ........................................................................................................................ 9
Packet Page 90
8
Page 3 Parking Security Guard Services RFP – specification no. 91625
3.5. Safety Provisions .............................................................................................................................. 9
3.6. Public and Employee Safety ............................................................................................................. 9
3.7. Preservation of City Property ........................................................................................................... 9
3.8. Immigration Act of 1986 .................................................................................................................. 9
3.9. Proposer Non-Discrimination .......................................................................................................... 9
3.10. Work Delays ..................................................................................................................................... 9
3.11. Payment Terms .............................................................................................................................. 10
3.12. Inspection ....................................................................................................................................... 10
3.13. Audit ............................................................................................................................................... 10
3.14. Interests of Proposer ...................................................................................................................... 10
3.15. Hold Harmless and Indemnification ............................................................................................... 10
3.16. Contract Assignment ...................................................................................................................... 10
3.17. Termination for Convenience ......................................................................................................... 10
3.18. Termination for Cause .................................................................................................................... 11
4. PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCESS ............................................................. 11
4.1. Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 11
4.2. Calendar of Events ......................................................................................................................... 12
4.3. Background and Objectives ............................................................................................................ 12
4.4. Description / Scope of Work .......................................................................................................... 12
4.5. Selection Process ............................................................................................................................ 13
5. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS AND CONTENT OF PROPOSALS .............................................. 13
Chapter 1: Title Page ...................................................................................................................... 13
Chapter 2: Organizational Summary .............................................................................................. 13
Chapter 3: References ......................................................................................................................... 14
Chapter 4: Sub Proposers ............................................................................................................... 14
Chapter 5: Disclosure of Past Contract Failures and Litigation ...................................................... 14
Chapter 6: Fee Proposal ................................................................................................................. 14
Chapter 7: Additional Required Forms ........................................................................................... 15
Packet Page 91
8
Page 4 Parking Security Guard Services RFP – specification no. 91625
REQUIRED FORMS ................................................................................................ 16
FORM A: SIGNATURE AFFIDAVIT ......................................................................................................... 16
FORM B: VENDOR PROFILE ............................................................................................................ 17
FORM C: REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 18
FORM D: STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS ................................................ 19
FORM E: COST PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORM .............................................................................. 20
APPENDICES ...................................................................................................... 21
APPENDIX A: SAMPLE AGREEMENT ............................................................................................... 21
APPENDIX B: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................... 23
APPENDIX C: DESCRIPTION OF WORK, SCHEDULE AND DUTIES ................................................... 25
Packet Page 92
8
Page 5 Parking Security Guard Services RFP – specification no. 91625
1 NOTICE TO PROPOSERS – PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
1.1 Summary and Requirement to Meet All Provisions
The City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) is soliciting proposals from qualified vendors to furnish
security officers who will perform general guard duties and traffic control duties at the
City’s three parking structures as described in this RFP at the locations and frequencies
listed. Vendors submitting proposals (“Proposers”) are required to read this Request for
Proposals (“RFP”) in its entirety and follow the instructions contained herein and shall meet
all of the terms, and conditions of the RFP specifications package. By virtue of its proposal
submittal, the Proposer acknowledges agreement with and acceptance of all provisions of
the RFP specifications.
1.2 Contract Term and Optional Extensions
This shall be a Contract for Purchase of Services (Appendix A) for the provision of Security
Guard Services related to the RFP Specification No. 91625 for a term of four (4) years with
two (2) additional two-years extensions available to the City at their sole discretion, if the
services are deemed satisfactory, by written notification to the Contractor.
1.3 Important Dates
Deliver proposals no later than the due date and time indicated below. The City will reject
late proposals:
Issue Date: March 26, 2018
Due Date: April 9, 2018, 3:30PM, PDT
1.4 Proposal Submittal and Format
Each proposal must be submitted in one of two ways: 1) electronically on the City’s BidSync
website; or 2) in hard copy form in a sealed envelope, plainly marked with the proposer’s
name, specification number, proposal title and due date of proposal opening. Proposals
must be submitted as provided in the specifications and accompanied by any other required
submittals or supplemental materials.
1.5 Insurance Certificate
If awarded a contract, each proposal will be required to provide a certificate of insurance
showing:
A. The insurance carrier and its A.M. Best rating.
B. Scope of coverage and limits.
C. Deductibles and self-insured retention.
The insurance requirements are detailed in Section 2.4.
1.6 Submittal of References
Each proposer shall submit a minimum of three (3) references on the form provide in the
RFP package as Form C.
1.7 Statement of Contract Disqualifications
Each Proposer shall submit a statement regarding any past government disqualifications on
the form provide in the RFP package as Form D.
Packet Page 93
8
Page 6 Parking Security Guard Services RFP – specification no. 91625
1.8 Withdrawal or Revision of Proposals
Proposers may, without prejudice, withdraw proposals by requesting such withdrawal prior
to the time specified for the proposal opening, by submitting a written request to the Bid
Administrator for its withdrawal, in which event the proposal will be returned to the
Proposer unopened. All proposals will be opened and declared publicly. Proposers may
modify their proposal at any time prior to the due date and time of submission for
proposals.
1.9 Multiple Proposals
Multiple proposals from Proposers are NOT permitted. Any vendor responding to this RFP
shall incorporate their entire bid in one submission regardless of whether the bid is for one
or more components of this RFP. The proposed costs should be broken down into sufficient
detail to allow for the separate evaluation of each component being bid.
1.10 Procuring Agency/ Personnel
The City of San Luis Obispo is the procuring agency:
Scott Lee, Parking Manager
City of San Luis Obispo
(805) 781-7234
slee@SLOCity.org
The City of San Luis Obispo Finance Department administers the procurement function:
Kristin Eriksson (Bid Administrator)
Finance Department
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 781-7435
KEriksso@SLOCity.org
1.11 Inquiries and Clarifications
Proposers are to raise any questions they have about the RFP document on the City’s
BidSync website no later than Friday March 30, 2018 at 2:00pm PDT.
Furthermore, Proposers finding any significant ambiguity, error, conflict, discrepancy,
omission, or other deficiency in this RFP document shall immediately notify the procuring
agency and request clarification.
1.12 Addenda
In the event it is necessary to provide additional clarification or revision to the RFP, the
City will post addenda to the City’s BidSync website. It is Proposer’s sole responsibility to
regularly monitor the websites for any such postings. Failure to retrieve addenda and
include their provisions may result in disqualification.
Packet Page 94
8
Page 7 Parking Security Guard Services RFP – specification no. 91625
1.13 Public Records
Proposers are hereby notified that all information submitted in response to this RFP may
be made available for public inspection according to the Public Records Act of the State of
California and the California Constitution. Information qualifying as a “trade secret” –
defined in California Public Records Act of 2004 – may be held confidential. Proposers shall
seal separately and clearly identify all information they deem to be “trade secrets,” as
defined by the State of California Statutes. Do not duplicate or comingle information,
deemed confidential and sealed, elsewhere in your response.
The City cannot ensure that information will not be subject to release if a request is made
under applicable public records laws. The City cannot consider the following confidential:
a bid in its entirety, price bid information, or the entire contents of any resulting contract.
The City will not provide advanced notice to Proposers prior to release of any requested
record.
To the extent permitted by such laws, it is the intention of the City to withhold the contents
of proposals from public view – until such time as competitive or bargaining reasons no
longer require non-disclosure, in the City’s opinion. At that time, all proposals will be
available for review in accordance with such laws.
2 CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION
2.1 Proposal Retention and Award
The City reserves the right to retain all proposals for a period of 180 days for examination
and comparison. The City also reserves the right to waive non-substantial irregularities in
any proposal, to reject any or all proposals, to reject or delete one part of a proposal and
accept the other, except to the extent that proposals are qualified by speci fic limitations.
2.2 Competency and Responsibility of Proposer
The City reserves full discretion to determine the competence and responsibility,
professionally and/or financial stability, of Proposer. Proposer will provide, in a timely
manner, all information that the City deems necessary to make such a decision.
2.3 Form of Agreement
Proposers are responsible for reviewing this Form of Agreement prior to submission of their
proposal. The Form of Agreement shall serve as the basis for the contract resulting from
this RFP. The terms of this template contract shall become contractual obligations following
award of the RFP. By submitting a proposal, the contract shall become contractual
obligations following award of the RFP. By submitting a proposal, Proposers affirm their
willingness to enter into a contract containing these terms.
2.4 Insurance
Proposers shall provide proof of insurance in the form, coverages and amounts specified in
Appendix B of these specifications within ten (10) calendar days after notice of contract
award as a precondition to contract execution.
Packet Page 95
8
Page 8 Parking Security Guard Services RFP – specification no. 91625
2.5 Business License and Tax
The Proposer must have a valid City of San Luis Obispo business license and tax certificate
before execution of the contract. Additional information regarding the City's business tax
program may be obtained by calling (805) 781-7134.
2.6 Failure to Accept Contract
The following will occur if the Consultant to whom the award is made (Consultant) fails to
enter into the contract: the award will be annulled; any bid security will be forfeited in
accordance with the special terms and conditions if a Consultant's bond or security is
required; and an award may be made to the next highest ranked Consultant with whom a
responsible compensation is negotiated, who shall fulfill every stipulation as if it were the
party to whom the first award was made.
2.7 Oral Presentations / Site Visits / Meetings
Proposers may be asked to attend meetings, make oral presentations, inspect City locations
or make their facilities, or those of existing clients with similar operations, available for site
inspection as part of the RFP process. Such presentations, meetings, or site visits will be at
the Proposer’s expense.
2.8 Proposer’s Responsibility
Proposers shall examine this RFP and shall exercise their judgment as to the nature and
scope of the work required. No plea of ignorance concerning conditions or difficulties that
exist or may hereafter arise in the execution of the work under the resulting contract, as a
consequence of failure to make necessary examinations and investigations, shall be
accepted as an excuse for any failure or omission on the part of the Proposers to fulfill the
requirements of the resulting contract.
3 CONTRACT PERFORMANCE
3.1 Ability to Perform
The Proposer warrants that it possesses, or has arranged through subcontracts, all capital
and other equipment, labor, materials, and licenses necessary to carry out and complete
the work hereunder in compliance with any and all federal, state, county, cit y, and special
district laws, ordinances, and regulations.
3.2 Laws to be Observed
The Proposer shall keep itself fully informed of and shall observe and comply with all
applicable state and federal laws and county and City of San Luis Obispo ordinances,
regulations and adopted codes during its performance of the work.
3.3 Payment of Taxes
The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes that the Proposer is required
to pay.
3.4 Permits and Licenses
The Proposer shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all
notices necessary.
Packet Page 96
8
Page 9 Parking Security Guard Services RFP – specification no. 91625
3.5 Safety Provisions
The Proposer shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to safety established by
OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety.
3.6 Public and Employee Safety
Whenever the Proposer's operations create a condition hazardous to the public or City
employees, it shall, at its expense and without cost to the City, furnish, erect and maintain
such fences, temporary railings, barricades, lights, signs and other devices and take such
other protective measures as are necessary to prevent accidents or damage or injury to the
public and employees.
3.7 Preservation of City Property
The Proposer shall provide and install suitable safeguards, approved by the City, to protect
City property from injury or damage. If City property is injured or damaged resulting from
the Proposer's operations, it shall be replaced or restored at the Proposer's expense. The
facilities shall be replaced or restored to a condition as good as when the Propose r began
work.
3.8 Immigration Act of 1986
The Proposer warrants on behalf of itself and all sub Proposers engaged for the
performance of this work that only persons authorized to work in the United States
pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and other applicable laws shall
be employed in the performance of the work hereunder.
3.9 Proposer Non-Discrimination
In the performance of this work, the Proposer agrees that it will not engage in, nor permit
such sub Proposers as it may employ, to engage in discrimination in employment of persons
because of age, race, color, sex, national origin or ancestry, sexual orientation, or religion
of such persons.
3.10 Work Delays
Should the Proposer be obstructed or delayed in the work required to be done hereunder
by changes in the work or by any default, act, or omission of the City, or by strikes, fire,
earthquake, or any other Act of God, or by the inability to obtain materials, equipment, or
labor due to federal government restrictions arising out of defense or war programs, then
the time of completion may, at the City's sole option, be extended for such periods as may
be agreed upon by the City and the Proposer. In the event that there is insufficient time to
grant such extensions prior to the completion date of the contract, the City may, at the time
of acceptance of the work, waive liquidated damages that may have accrued for failure to
complete on time, due to any of the above, after hearing evidence as to the reasons for
such delay, and making a finding as to the causes of same.
3.11 Payment Terms
Payments will be made consistent with the Agreement. The City's standard payment terms
are 30 days from the receipt of an original invoice and acceptance by the City of the
materials, supplies, equipment or services provided by the Proposer (Net 30).
Packet Page 97
8
Page 10 Parking Security Guard Services RFP – specification no. 91625
3.12 Inspection
The Proposer shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity for City to ascertain that
the services of the Proposer are being performed in accordance with the requirements and
intentions of this contract. All work done and all materials furnished, if any, shall be subject
to the City's inspection and approval. The inspection of such work shall not relieve Proposer
of any of its obligations to fulfill its contract requirements.
3.13 Audit
The City shall have the option of inspecting and/or auditing all records and other written
materials used by Proposer in preparing its invoices to City as a condition precedent to any
payment to Proposer.
3.14 Interests of Proposer
The Proposer covenants that it presently has no inte rest, and shall not acquire any
interest—direct, indirect or otherwise—that would conflict in any manner or degree with
the performance of the work hereunder. The Proposer further covenants that, in the
performance of this work, no sub Proposer or person having such an interest shall be
employed. The Proposer certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest in
performing this work is an officer or employee of the City. It is hereby expressly agreed
that, in the performance of the work hereunder, the Proposer shall at all times be deemed
an independent Proposer and not an agent or employee of the City.
3.15 Hold Harmless and Indemnification
The Proposer 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 Proposer'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 Proposer, 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 Proposer's duty to indemnify and hold harmless
shall not include any claims or liability arising from the established sole negligence or willful
misconduct of the City, its agents, officers or employees.
3.16 Contract Assignment
The Proposer shall not assign, transfer, convey or otherwise dispose of the contract, or its
right, title or interest, or its power to execute such a contract to any individual or business
entity of any kind without the previous written consent of the City.
3.17 Termination for Convenience
The City may terminate all or part of this Agreement for any or no reason at any time by
giving 30 days written notice to Contractor. Should the City terminate this Agreement for
convenience, the City shall be liable as follows: (a) for standard or off-the-shelf products, a
reasonable restocking charge not to exceed ten (10) percent of the total purchase price; or
(b) for custom products, the lesser of a reasonable price for the raw materials, components,
work in progress and any finished units on hand or the price per unit reflected in this
Agreement. For termination of any services pursuant to this Agreement, the City’s liability
will be the lesser of a reasonable price for the services rendered prior to termination, or
the price for the services reflected in this Agreement. Upon termination notice from the
Packet Page 98
8
Page 11 Parking Security Guard Services RFP – specification no. 91625
City, Contractor must, unless otherwise directed, cease work and follow the City’s
directions as to work in progress and finished goods.
3.18 Termination for Cause
If, during the term of the contract, the City determines that the Proposer is not faithfully
abiding by any term or condition contained herein, the City may notify the Proposer in
writing of such defect or failure to perform. This notice must give the Proposer a 10 (ten)
calendar day notice of time thereafter in which to perform said work or cure the deficiency.
If the Proposer has not performed the work or cured the deficiency within the ten days
specified in the notice, such shall constitute a breach of the contract and the City may
terminate the contract immediately by written notice to the Proposer to said effect.
Thereafter, neither party shall have any further duties, obligations, responsibilities, or rights
under the contract except, however, any and all obligations of the Proposer's surety shall
remain in full force and effect, and shall not be extinguished, reduced, or in any manner
waived by the termination thereof.
In said event, the Proposer shall be entitled to the reasonable value of its services
performed from the beginning date in which the breach occurs up to the day it received the
City's Notice of Termination, minus any offset from such payment representing the City's
damages from such breach. "Reasonable value" includes fees or charges for goods or
services as of the last milestone or task satisfactorily delivered or completed by the
Proposer as may be set forth in the Agreement payment schedule; compensation for any
other work, services or goods performed or provided by the Proposer shall be based solely
on the City's assessment of the value of the work-in-progress in completing the overall work
scope.
The City reserves the right to delay any such payment until completion or confirmed
abandonment of the project, as may be determined in the City's sole discretion, so as to
permit a full and complete accounting of costs. In no event, however, shall the Proposer
be entitled to receive any amount in excess of the compensation quoted in its proposal.
4 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCESS
4.1 Overview
The City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) is soliciting proposals from qualified vendors
(“Proposers”) for provision of Security Guard services as specified in this RFP – Specification
No. 91625. City is seeking Proposer’s to contract for the service components of this RFP as
stated in the RFP Appendix C.
The City requires well-managed and professional Proposers with demonstrated skills, and
high levels of customer service and satisfaction, to fulfill the requirements outlined in this
RFP.
4.2 Calendar of Events
Listed below are specific and estimated dates and times of RFP events, all of which are
subject to change. Proposers must complete events by specific dates as indicated unless
Packet Page 99
8
Page 12 Parking Security Guard Services RFP – specification no. 91625
revised by the City. The City may or may not issue a formal notification for changes in
estimated dates and times.
Figure 4-2: Calendar of Events
Date Event
Monday March 26, 2018 Issue date of RFP
Friday March 30, 2018 Questions from Proposers Due
Wednesday April 4, 2018 Answers to Questions posted
Monday April 9, 2018 3:30pm PDT
T
Proposals due
April 2018 Evaluation of proposals
April 2018 Negotiation and award contract
May 2018 Contract Routing to City Manager
May 2018 Contract Award
June 2018
Contract begins
4.3 Background & Objective
The City of San Luis Obispo operates three parking structures in the downtown area. The
City wishes to have Proposers bid on the work defined and with the frequency defined on
Appendix C.
The objective of this RFP is to select a vendor to provide the Security services at the
locations and on the frequency and the level detailed in this RFP .
4.4 Description/Scope of Work
The Contractor shall perform the tasks described in Appendix C at the locations and
frequencies specified. The intent of Specification No. 91625 is to procure a high level of
service that will present a professional and clean appearance at all times. The City’s
representative shall be sole judge of the adequacy of the Contractor’s professionalism,
performance and effectiveness at these sites.
Proposer shall meet all requirements of the specifications contained herein, as well as all
legislated mandates by the State of California, California Vehicle Code, San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code, and the City of San Luis Obispo. For any portion of this proposal that is
performed by Sub-Proposers, see Section 5, Chapter 9 (Required Submittals - Sub
Proposers) of this proposal.
Packet Page 100
8
Page 13 Parking Security Guard Services RFP – specification no. 91625
4.5 Selection Process
The City may shortlist up to four (4) Proposers based on the submitted proposals and invite
them to an interview process. In addition, the City may request that Proposers
demonstrate their service either as part of the interview process or separately from it. The
City, at its discretion, may make site visits to locations where the Proposers currently
provide service.
Contract award will not be based solely on price, but on a combination of the factors
determined to be in the best interest of the City. After evaluating the proposals and
discussing them further with the finalists or the tentatively selected Proposer s, the City
reserves the right to further negotiate the proposed work and/or method and amo unt of
compensation. Once prospective Proposers have been evaluated by the evaluation panel,
negotiations shall begin. If negotiations are unsuccessful, talks with that Proposer will be
abandoned and negotiations will then commence with the next qualified Proposer, and so
on, until a final agreement has been reached and a contract prepared. Staff will present
their findings to the City Council, which, at its discretion, will award a contact.
5. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS AND CONTENT OF PROPOSALS
Proposing Vendors desiring to respond to this Request for Proposal (RFP) shall submit their
proposal in sufficient detail to allow for a thorough evaluation and comparative analysis. The
City shall use the responses as the basis of its evaluation. The proposals should be as brief and
concise as possible without sacrificing clarity. Proposals containing irrelevant material or an
abundance of excessively vague language may be penalized in the screening process.
Arrange proposals to match the following outline. Respond to each and every question and/or
statement. In the context of this section “you” and “your” is the same as “Proposer” and
“Proposer’s”, respectively.
Chapter 1: Title Page
The title page shall contain at a minimum the name of the Proposer, RFP Title, and Due Date.
Chapter 2: Organizational Summary – Description of Organization
Provide a brief summary introducing your firm. Limit your response to one page. At a
minimum, include the information briefly describing your firm’s organization and size and your
experience including the number of years in business.
Chapter 3: References
Provide three references from similar projects and clients. Limit your response to one page.
Chapter 4: Sub Proposers (if any)
Identify any sub-Proposers that would be used. Give a detailed description of their involvement,
scope of work, background, and responsibilities. The price proposed shall include any and all work
to be done by sub-Proposers, and the City will only process claims and payments to the Proposer.
A list of sub-Proposers to be hired shall be submitted as a part of the proposal. Also disclose
whether or not the sub Proposer is a subsidiary or is financially tied to the Proposer in any other
Packet Page 101
8
Page 14 Parking Security Guard Services RFP – specification no. 91625
manner. Use of sub-Proposer does not relieve the Proposer of overall responsibility. City reserves
the right to approve all proposed sub-Proposers.
Chapter 5: Disclosure of Contract Failures and Litigation
Disclose any alleged significant prior or ongoing contract failures, contract breaches, any civil or
criminal litigation or investigation pending which involves your firm or in which your firm has
been judged guilty or liable, or which may affect the performance of the services to be rendered
herein, in which your firm, any of its employees, sub-Proposers, or sub consultants is or has been
involved in within the last three (3) years.
Chapter 6: Fee Proposal
Include detailed pricing information for the services described in this RFP.
Quote fees as all inclusive, not-to-exceed, fixed fees for each relevant aspect of the RFP
proposal. The fee could be a one-time fee, fee per use, fee per year or fee per contract period.
Also, identify all other costs beyond the usage cost such as a fee for system maintenance, etc.
As noted above, prepare the fee proposal as all inclusive, not-to-exceed, fixed fees:
o All Inclusive – Covers all direct and indirect expenses incurred by the Proposer including but
not limited to; travel, telephone, copying and other out-of-pocket expenses.
o Not-To-Exceed – The actual fees shall not exceed the amount specified in fee proposal.
o Fixed Fee – All prices, rates, fees and conditions outlined in the proposal shall remain
fixed and valid for the entire length of the contract and any/all renewals.
Provide exact fees - not a range. Take advantage of the opportunity to ask questions and receive
answers to gain clarification. Furthermore, document any significant assumptions for arriving at
fee estimates. You are responsible for verifying the correctness of calculations in your fee
proposal.
The City reserves the right to make an award without further discussion of the fee proposal
submitted. Therefore, the Proposer should submit the fee proposal on the most favorable terms
they can offer. However, this does not limit the City from negotiating with the selected Proposer.
A finalization of the specifications and scope of services is expected as a part of final contract
negotiation or through a Best and Final Offer (BAFO) process. By the BAFO the Proposer(s)
remaining in the process will have met with the City and or demonstrated their product /service
giving them the opportunity to obtain a complete understanding of all requirements.
Chapter 7: Additional Required Forms and/or Attachments
Include the following required forms and/or attachments to your Proposal. Forms are included
in the RFP.
o Form A – Signature Affidavit – A company representative with authority to bind the
Proposer to the City by contract shall sign the form, attesting the proposal has been
submitted in conformance to stated requirements.
o Form B – Vendor Profile – complete the information about your firm.
o Form C – References
o Form D – Statement of Past Contract Disqualifications
o Form E – Cost Proposal Submittal Form
Packet Page 102
8
Page 15 Parking Security Guard Services RFP – specification no. 91625
FORM A: SIGNATURE AFFIDAVIT
Note: This form must be returned with your response.
In signing proposals, we certify that we have not, either directly or indirectly, entered into any
agreement or participated in any collusion or otherwise taken any action in restraint of free
competition; that no attempt has been made to induce any other person or firm to submit or
not to submit proposals, that proposals have been independently arrived at, without collusion
with any other Proposers, competitor or potential competitor; that proposals have not been
knowingly disclosed prior to the opening of proposals to any other Proposers or competitor;
that the above statement is accurate under penalty of perjury.
The undersigned, submitting this proposal, hereby agrees with all the terms, conditions, and
specifications required by the City in this Request for Proposal, declares that the attached
proposal and pricing are in conformity therewith, and attests to the truthfulness of all
submissions in response to this solicitation.
Proposers shall provide the information requested below. Include the legal name of the
Proposer and signature of the person(s) legally authorized to bind the Proposers to a contract.
SIGNATURE AND DATE OF AUTHORIZE REPRESENTATIVE
PRINT NAME: __________________________________________________
FIRM (PROPOSER) NAME: ________________________________________
Packet Page 103
8
Page 16 Parking Security Guard Services RFP – specification no. 91625
FORM B: VENDOR PROFILE
Company Information
Company Name (Proposer)
FEIN: (If FEIN is not applicable, SSN collected
upon award)
Contact Name Title
Telephone (
)
Fax
(
)
Email
Address City State Zip
Primary Individual Contact Information
Contact Name Title
Telephone
( )
Fax
(
)
Email
Address City State Zip
Secondary Individual Contact Information
Contact Name Title
Telephone
( )
Fax
(
)
Email
Address City State Zip
Packet Page 104
8
Page 17 Parking Security Guard Services RFP – specification no. 91625
FORM C: REFERENCES
Describe fully three contracts performed by your firm that demonstrate your ability to provide
the services included with the scope of the specifications. The City reserves the right to contact
references listed for additional information regarding your firm's qualifications.
Reference No. 1
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Date of Services
Contract Amount
Description of Services
Reference No. 2
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Date of Services
Contract Amount
Description of Services
Reference No. 3
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Date of Services
Contract Amount
Description of Services
Packet Page 105
8
Page 18 Parking Security Guard Services RFP – specification no. 91625
FORM D: STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS
The Proposer shall state whether it or any of its officers or employees who have a proprietary
interest in it, has ever been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from bidding on, or
completing a federal, state, or local government project because of the violation of law, a safety
regulation, or for any other reason, including but not limited to financial difficulties, project
delays, or disputes regarding work or product quality, and if so to explain the circumstances.
Do you have any disqualification as described in the above paragraph to declare?
Yes No
If yes, explain the circumstances.
Executed on at _______________________________________ under
penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct.
___________________________________________
Signature of Authorized Representative of Proposer
___________________________________________
Print name of Authorized Representative of Proposer
Packet Page 106
8
Page 19 Parking Security Guard Services RFP – specification no. 91625
FORM E: COST PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORM
The City is requesting proposals for the provision of Security Guard Services at each of the City
owned parking structures. Incomplete cost proposals will not be accepted, and the submitted
proposal will be deemed incomplete. If there are any additional costs not included in this Cost
Proposal, those costs must be identified on a separate sheet of paper and included in this
Request for Proposal.
The undersigned, who is authorized to represent the proposing firm and has carefully examined
Specification No 91625, proposes to furnish the services described in Appendix C of Specification
No. 91625 for the prices quoted below in full.
842 & 919 PALM
STRUCTURES
(COMBINED
HOURS)
MARSH
STRUCTURE
19 hours weekly 23 hours weekly
Parking Security Guard Services
TOTAL FOR ALL STRUCTURES
$__________________
Fully Burdened Hourly Labor Rate for Additional hour (per hr.) __________________
Signature of Authorized Representative Date:
Print Name of Vendor:
Packet Page 107
8
Page 20 Parking Security Guard Services RFP – specification no. 91625
Appendix A: FORM OF AGREEMENT (SAMPLE)
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on [date],
by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter
referred to as City, and [CONTRACTOR’S NAME IN CAPITAL LETTERS], hereinafter
referred to as Contractor.
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, on [date], City requested proposals for provision of maintenance
services pursuant to Specification No. 91625 – Parking Security Guard Services.
WHEREAS, pursuant to said request, Contractor submitted a proposal which
was accepted by City for said [supplies, equipment, services, project, whatever].
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations,
and covenants hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date this Agreement is made
and entered, as first written above, until acceptance or completion of said [supplies, equipment, services,
project, whatever].
2. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. City Specification No. 91625 and
Contractor's proposal dated [date], are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement.
3. CITY'S OBLIGATIONS. For providing [supplies, equipment, services, project,
whatever] as specified in this Agreement, City will pay and Contractor shall receive therefor
compensation in a total sum not to exceed [$ .00].
4. CONTRACTOR'S OBLIGATIONS. For and in consideration of the payments and
agreements hereinbefore mentioned to be made and performed by City, Contractor agrees with City to
do everything required by this Agreement and the said specification.
5. AMENDMENTS. Any amendment, modification, or variation from the terms of this
Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the Council [or other official]
of the City.
2.
Packet Page 108
8
Page 21 Parking Security Guard Services RFP – specification no. 91625
6. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings specifically
incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties hereto.
No oral agreement, understanding, or representation not reduced to writing and specifically
incorporated herein shall be of any force or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement, understanding,
or representation be binding upon the parties hereto.
7. NOTICE. All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail, postage prepaid
by registered or certified mail addressed as follows:
City City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Contractor [ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
8. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both City and Contractor do covenant that each
individual executing this agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered
to execute Agreements for such party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and
year first above written.
ATTEST: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
____________________________________ By:____________________________________
City Clerk City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONTRACTOR
_____________________________________ By: ___________________________________
City Attorney
Packet Page 109
8
Page 22 Parking Security Guard Services RFP – specification no. 91625
Appendix B: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
The Proposer shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims
for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the
performance of the work hereunder by the Proposer, its agents, representatives, employees or
sub Proposers.
Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 20
10 Prior to 1993 or CG 20 10 07 04 with CG 20 37 10 01 or the exact equivalent as
determined by the City).
2. Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability,
code 1 (any auto).
3. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's
Liability Insurance.
4. Errors and Omissions Liability insurance as appropriate to the consultant's profession.
Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than:
1. General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and
property damage. If Commercial General Liability or other form with a general aggregate
limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this
project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence
limit.
2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
4. Errors and Omissions Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence.
Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be
declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce
or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials,
employees and volunteers; or the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of
losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses.
Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain,
or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
1. The City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as
insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the
Consultant; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned,
occupied or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by
the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of
protection afforded to the City, its officers, official, employees, agents or volunteers.
2. For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance coverage shall be
primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and
volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials,
Packet Page 110
8
Page 23 Parking Security Guard Services RFP – specification no. 91625
employees, agents or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall
not contribute with it.
3. The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is
made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.
4. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage
shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits
except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt
requested, has been given to the City. The Consultant agrees to notify the City in the
event that the policy is suspended, voided or reduced in coverage or limits. A minimum of
30 days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, will be provided.
Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating
of no less than A:VII.
Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish the City with a certificate of insurance showing
maintenance of the required insurance coverage. Original endorsements effecting general
liability and automobile liability coverage required by this clause must also be provided. The
endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its
behalf. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences.
Sub-consultants. Consultant shall include all sub-consultants as insured under its policies
or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each sub-consultant. All
coverages for sub-consultants shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein.
Packet Page 111
8
Page 24 Parking Security Guard Services RFP – specification no. 91625
Appendix C: Description of Work, Schedule and Duties
1. General Description of Work.
The Contractor shall furnish security officers who perform general duties and traffic
control duties at the City’s three parking structures. The intent of this specification is to
procure a high level of security and service for the staff and visitors using these facilities.
The City’s representative shall be sole judge of the adequacy of the Contractor’s provision
of services at each of these sites.
2. Regular Schedule
Location
Day
Starting
Time
Ending
Time
Marsh Street Parking Structure Mon-Wed 1830 2300
842 Palm & 919 Palm Structures Thursday 1700 2300
842 Palm & 919 Palm Structures Friday 1830 2300
842 Palm & 919 Palm Structures Saturday 1300 2300
842 Palm & 919 Palm Structures Sunday 1300 1900
Marsh Street Parking Structure Thursday 1700 2400
Marsh Street Parking Structure Friday 1830 2400
Marsh Street Parking Structure Saturday 1200 2400
Marsh Street Parking Structure Sunday 1300 1900
3. General Contractor Duties
a. Train new security officers to familiarize them with general guard duties and traffic
control duties.
b. Provide log book so officers can log in their time of arrival and record their hourly
rounds.
c. Provide background checks, photos and names of guards who will be working
security at the City’s three facilities prior to their assignments.
d. Provide hand-held radios or other approved communication devices for all parking
attendants and security officers on duty.
e. Weekly inspection of security officers to ensure they present a professional
appearance and manner.
f. Maintain a pager or mobile phone number for immediate response to problems
such as a security officer not reporting at the scheduled time.
4. General Contractor Duties
a. Wear a complete company uniform as approved by the City.
b. Do not carry firearms, clubs, nightsticks, or other unapproved equipment.
c. Report for duty no later than the scheduled starting time.
d. Check in with the parking attendant on duty at the beginning of the shift and at least
twice an hour thereafter.
e. Enter your shift start and end times in the log book located in the attendant’s booth.
Packet Page 112
8
Page 25 Parking Security Guard Services RFP – specification no. 91625
f. Confirm that radios are synced to same channel for guard and attendant and the
radios are working properly.
g. Direct any questions you may have to the parking attendant on duty.
h. Remember the radio call sign for the Marsh Street Parking Structure is “Security 1”.
i. Remember the radio call sign for the Palm Street Parking Structure is “Security 2”.
j. Remember the radio call sign for the 919 Palm St. Parking Structure is “Security 3”.
k. Ask the parking attendant on duty for any special instructions.
l. Patrol all levels of the parking Structure including stairwells, elevators and exterior
perimeter.
m. Stay visible to the public at all times.
n. Report to the parking attendant on duty any activity that may pose a threat to public
safety or City property, particularly vandalism, unusual loitering, skateboarding, in-
line skating, biking, unlawful drinking, and unlawful drug use.
o. Report to the Parking Attendant on duty all potential hazards to the public. These
would include: Spills in elevators or stairs, lack of light ing and elevators not working.
p. Do not intervene in a potentially dangerous situation; summon the Police
immediately; inform the parking attendant on duty of the situation.
q. Answer questions from the public.
r. Assist Structure users as needed to enter and exit parking spaces.
s. Report to the attendant on duty How full the Structure is on an hourly basis.
t. Report to the attendant on duty any back-ups in the Structures that exceed one level
of cars.
u. From 2230 to 2330 (depending on structure hours) adjust the patrol route in order
to keep the parking attendant booth in continuous view. This time range is the time
that the Structure is closing or at the Marsh Structure one of the two shifts is closing.
It is imperative that the guard is highly visible and in continuous view of the closing
booth.
Note: To prevent long waiting periods at the exit booth during peak periods, the parking attendant
on duty may initiate free exit periods. These free exit periods always occur during Farmers
Market on Thursday evenings at the Palm Street Parking Structure. They occasionally
occur during special events on Saturdays at the Palm Street Parking Structure. They rarely
occur at the Marsh Street Parking Structure. At the Palm Street Parking Structure eligible
traffic leaves through the Morro Street exit. At the Marsh Street Parking Structure eligible
traffic leaves through the auxiliary lane adjacent to the lane used by paying customers.
5. Traffic Control Duties for Security Officers During Free Exit Periods at the
842 Palm Street Parking Structure
a. Confirm the gate door is unlocked.
b. If the gate door is locked, obtain the key from the parking attendant on duty.
c. Raise the exit gate to the vertical position using the manual/auto switch.
d. Place the “60 Minutes Free” exit sign at the back exit ramp.
e. As a vehicle approaches the “60 Minutes Free” sign, examine the Structure ticket to
determine if the vehicle has been parked less than 60 minutes.
f. If the vehicle has been parked less than 60 minutes, direct the driver to the Morro Street
exit.
Packet Page 113
8
Page 26 Parking Security Guard Services RFP – specification no. 91625
g. If the vehicle has been parking more than 60 minutes, direct the driver to the attendant
booth at the Palm Street exit.
h. If directed by the parking attendant on duty in order to further ease traffic, allow vehicles
parked less than two hours to use the Morro Street exit.
i. Never collect money from customers.
j. When the free exit period is over, turn the “60 Minutes Free” sign around, lower
the exit to the horizontal position, lock the gate door, return collected Structure
tickets to the parking attendant on duty, and resume patrol duties.
Packet Page 114
8
Meeting Date: 3/20/2018
FROM: Derek Johnson, City Manager
Prepared By: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR CANNABIS BUSINESS
REGULATION SUPPORT SERVICES (SPECIFICATION NO. 91660)
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Manager to issue a Request for Proposals for Cannabis Business Regulation
and Education Support Services and award a contract to the consultant with the top proposal,
provided the contract amount does not exceed $35,000. Costs shall be recovered through
cannabis business operator application fees.
DISCUSSION
On February 20, 2018, the City Council authorized staff to move forward with cannabis
regulations, including a process to qualify and rank potential cannabis business operators. Staff is
proposing to use a consultant to assist with the process of developing the guidelines for
qualification, the ranking criteria, and the vetting of applications received. In addition, the City
Council asked staff to develop an outreach and education program as part of its implementation
of cannabis regulations. The chosen consultant will also advise the City regarding best practices
for this effort. The consultant contract would include advisory services with respect to
implementation of regulations, which will help to ensure that the City is ready to regulate and
educate, if and when cannabis business activity commences.
Background
The proposed consultant services include third-party review and ranking of applications for
qualification of eligible cannabis business operators. Once an applicant is qualified and ranked, it
would then be eligible to apply for a city commercial cannabis activity permit as authorized by
the qualification.
Packet Page 115
9
Council Review of Criteria
The City Council will be asked to review and approve by resolution the ranking criteria to be
used by the consultant in the future. As discussed during the study session on February 20, 2018,
the criteria may be used to create an incentive and encourage certain cannabis business activities
that the City Council would like to promote. These may include organic cultivation practices,
energy or water efficiency of the business, and/or focus on compassionate use/medicinal
customers. It will also be the role of the consultant to advise on all aspects of the qualification
and ranking criteria, as well as the enforceability of the regulations as a whole.
Consultant Selection Criteria
The following is the criteria that will be used to select the consultant to provide cannabis
business regulation and education support services.
1. Completeness of the proposal
2. Experience and qualifications of the project team
3. Experience working in jurisdictions with the development and implementation of
cannabis regulations
4. Understanding of the local community, public safety concerns and best practices, and
code enforcement best practices in the area of cannabis regulations.
5. Knowledge of California’s cannabis statutes and regulations
6. No financial interest in any commercial cannabis activity
7. Experience and/or demonstrated ability with respect to educational and outreach support
services
8. Responsiveness and evaluation of references
9. Results of face to face interview process (ranking by panel)
10. Cost of services
Activities to be Performed Under the Contract
The following activities will be covered under the contract that is ultimately agreed upon by the
City and the successful consultant in response to the RFP.
Packet Page 116
9
1. Evaluation and Qualification of Cannabis Business Operators
a. Engage with public safety officials and other key staff in the development of the
criteria by which applicants will be evaluated.
b. Develop the eligibility criteria
c. Present recommendations to the City Council for adoption of the criteria by
resolution.
2. Rank Eligible Cannabis Business Operators
a. Develop ranking criteria by which applicants will be evaluated.
b. Develop and propose point system that will benefit and encourage local business
operators, organic cultivation practices, energy and water efficient operations, and
other desirable business characteristics.
c. Present recommendations to the City Council for adoption of ranking criteria by
resolution.
3. Support for Cannabis Business Regulation Activities
a. Work with the Community Development Department regarding code enforcement
best practices and advise on systems and structures to implement a complete
regulatory system, including advising on a cost recovery structure to fully recover
costs of permitting and enforcement.
b. Work with the Police and Fire Department staff on best practices to address
public safety concerns and for engagement with cannabis business operators
c. Assist the City Attorney’s Office with recommendations regarding overall city
oversight and regulation of cannabis business activities from the perspective of
practicality and enforceability.
4. Development of Educational Materials and Communications
a. Work with City staff on the development of educational materials including an
overview of the City’s regulations, what to expect during the compliance
inspection process, how to successfully apply to become cannabis business
operator in the City of San Luis Obispo, and how to successfully obtain and
maintain a commercial cannabis operator permit as well as a conditional use
permit for commercial cannabis activity in the City.
b. Communicate with cannabis business operators, stakeholders, and members of the
public regarding the City’s regulations and oversight/enforcement practices.
c. Advise City staff regarding education and outreach materials on the topic of safe
and responsible adult use of cannabis.
5. Additional Regulation and Educational Support Services
a. The City of San Luis Obispo has never managed a commercial cannabis
regulatory program and may be in need of additional support services not
explicitly identified in this RFP. Consultants are encouraged to evaluate this RFP
and suggest additional regulatory and educational/outreach services for
consideration that the City may not have identified.
Packet Page 117
9
CONCURRENCES
A steering committee of City staff members including the Community Development Director,
City Attorney, Police Chief, Fire Chief, and Finance Director was convened to guide the process
of developing regulations for consideration by the City Council and concurs with the
recommendations in this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The issuance of an RFP for consultant services is not a project under CEQA, and therefore, no
environmental review is required.
FISCAL IMPACT
Ultimately, if the City moves forward with regulations, it should establish fees and licenses that
allow it to recover 100% of the allowable costs associated with regulation. The costs associated
with this contract would be recoverable through application fees and license fees from cannabis
businesses seeking approval in the City. The costs will be quantified based on the amount of staff
time required to administer and license cannabis business entities. Community Development,
Attorney’s Office, Administration, Police, Fire, Utilities, and Finance will experience costs
associated with regulation, and staff will be developing a fee structure based on approved
regulations to recover the allowable costs.
Initial costs associated with this contract include:
(1) Development of eligibility and ranking criteria, and presentation of that information to
the City Council for review and approval
(2) Consultations with City staff regarding administrative procedures and operating
guidelines relative to law enforcement and code enforcement best practices
(3) Consultations with City staff regarding appropriate outreach and education materials,
messages and best practices
These costs are not expected to exceed $35,000, and can be paid for through existing
appropriated budgets consistent with the City’s fiscal policies. These are costs that would be
recovered following the establishment of cannabis regulations with the first open application
period.
Ongoing costs of managing the application process, ranking of applicants, and the provision of
continued support services to the City would be fully funded by application and annual licensing
revenues.
Packet Page 118
9
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue Consideration of the RFP to a Future Date. The City Council could decide not to
authorize issuance of the RFP at this time. If this alternative is taken, the Council should
provide direction to staff regarding additional information needed to move forward.
2. Direct Staff Not to Move Forward with a Consultant RFP. The City Council could decide
not to use a consultant for the proposed support services. This alternative is not
recommended because City staff does not have the capacity or expertise to internally manage
and execute the process of qualifying and ranking eligible cannabis business operators.
Attachments:
a - Cannabis Consultant RFP
Packet Page 119
9
Notice Requesting Proposals for
CANNABIS BUSINESS REGULATION AND EDUCATION SUPPORT
SERVICES
The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting sealed proposals for resident satisfaction survey services
pursuant to Specification No. 91660. All proposals must be received by the Department of Finance by
April 26, 2018 at 3:30 p.m., when they will be opened publicly in the City Hall Council Chambers, 990
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401.
Proposals received after said time will not be considered. To guard against premature opening, each
proposal shall be submitted to the Department of Finance in a sealed envelope plainly marked with the
proposal title, specification number, bidder name, and time and date of the proposal opening. Proposals
shall be submitted using the forms provided in the specification package.
Any questions can be directed to Michael Codron, Director of Community Development at (805) 781-
7187 or mcodron@slocity.org.
Packet Page 120
9
Specification No. [91660]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. Description of Work 1
B. General Terms and Conditions 3
C. Special Terms and Conditions 6
D. Agreement 9
E. Insurance Requirements 11
F. Proposal Submittal Forms 12
Packet Page 121
9
Section A
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
Consultant Selection Criteria
The following is the criteria that will be used to select the consultant to provide cannabis
business regulation and education support services.
1. Completeness of the proposal
2. Experience and qualifications of the project team
3. Experience working in jurisdictions with the development and implementation of
cannabis regulations
4. Understanding of the local community, public safety concerns and best practices, and
code enforcement best practices in the area of cannabis regulations.
5. Knowledge of California’s cannabis statutes and regulations
6. No financial interest in any commercial cannabis activity
7. Experience and/or demonstrated ability with respect to educational and outreach support
services
8. Responsiveness and evaluation of references
9. Results of face to face interview process (ranking by panel)
10. Cost of services
Activities to be Performed Under the Contract
The following activities will be covered under the contract that is ultimately agreed upon by the
City and the successful consultant in response to the RFP.
1. Evaluation and Qualification of Cannabis Business Operators
a. Engage with public safety officials and other key staff in the development of the
criteria by which applicants will be evaluated.
b. Develop the eligibility criteria
c. Present recommendations to the City Council for adoption of the crit eria by
resolution.
2. Rank Eligible Cannabis Business Operators
a. Develop ranking criteria by which applicants will be evaluated.
b. Develop and propose point system that will benefit and encourage local business
operators, organic cultivation practices, energy and water efficient operations, and
other desirable business characteristics.
c. Present recommendations to the City Council for adoption of ranking criteria by
resolution.
3. Support for Cannabis Business Regulation Activities
a. Work with the Community Development Department regarding code enforcement
best practices and advise on systems and structures to implement a complete
regulatory system, including advising on a cost recovery structure to fully recover
costs of permitting and enforcement.
b. Work with the Police and Fire Department staff on best practices to address
public safety concerns and for engagement with cannabis business operators
c. Assist the City Attorney’s Office with recommendations regarding overall city
Packet Page 122
9
oversight and regulation of cannabis business activities from the perspective of
practicality and enforceability.
4. Development of Educational Materials and Communications
a. Work with City staff on the development of educational materials including an
overview of the City’s regulations, what to expect during the compliance
inspection process, how to successfully apply to become cannabis business
operator in the City of San Luis Obispo, and how to successfully obtain and
maintain a commercial cannabis operator permit as well as a conditional use
permit for commercial cannabis activity in the City.
b. Communicate with cannabis business operators, stakeholders, and members of the
public regarding the City’s regulations and oversight/enforcement practices.
c. Advise City staff regarding education and outreach materials on the topic of safe
and responsible adult use of cannabis.
5. Additional Regulation and Educational Support Services
a. The City of San Luis Obispo has never managed a commercial cannabis
regulatory program and may be in need of additional support services not
explicitly identified in this RFP. Consultants are encouraged to evaluate this RFP
and suggest additional regulatory and educational/outreach services for
consideration that the City may not have identified.
Packet Page 123
9
Section B
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Requirement to Meet All Provisions. Each individual or firm submitting a proposal shall meet
all of the terms, and conditions of the Request for Proposals (RFP) specifications package. By
virtue of its proposal submittal, the bidder acknowledges agreement with and acceptance of all
provisions of the RFP specifications.
2. Proposal Submittal. Each proposal must be submitted on the form(s) provided in the
specifications and accompanied by any other required submittals or supplement al materials.
Proposal documents shall be enclosed in an envelope that shall be sealed and addressed to the
Department of Finance, City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401.
In order to guard against premature opening, the proposal should be clearly labeled with the
proposal title, specification number, name of bidder, and date and time of proposal opening. No
FAX submittals will be accepted.
3. Insurance Certificate. Each proposal must include a certificate of insurance showing:
a. The insurance carrier and its A.M. Best rating.
b. Scope of coverage and limits.
c. Deductibles and self-insured retention.
The purpose of this submittal is to generally assess the adequacy of the bidder’s insurance
coverage during proposal evaluation; as discussed under paragraph 12 below, endorsements are
not required until contract award. The City’s insurance requirements are detailed in Section E.
4. Proposal Quotes and Unit Price Extension. The extension of unit prices for the quantities
indicated and the lump sum prices quoted by the bidder must be entered in figures in the spaces
provided on the Proposal Submittal Form(s). Any lump sum bid shall be stated in figures. The
Proposal Submittal Form(s) must be totally completed. If the u nit price and the total amount
stated by any bidder for any item are not in agreement, the unit price alone will be considered as
representing the bidder’s intention and the proposal total will be corrected to conform to the
specified unit price.
5. Proposal Withdrawal and Opening. A bidder may withdraw its proposal, without prejudice
prior to the time specified for the proposal opening, by submitting a written request to the
Director of Finance for its withdrawal, in which event the proposal will be returned to the bidder
unopened. No proposal received after the time specified or at any place other than that stated in
the “Notice Inviting Bids/Requesting Proposals” will be considered. All proposals will be opened
and declared publicly. Bidders or their representatives are invited to be present at the opening of
the proposals.
6. Submittal of One Proposal Only. No individual or business entity of any kind shall be allowed
to make or file, or to be interested in more than one proposal, except an alternative proposal when
specifically requested; however, an individual or business entity that has submitted a sub-
proposal to a bidder submitting a proposal, or who has quoted prices on materials to such bidder,
is not thereby disqualified from submitting a sub-proposal or from quoting prices to other bidders
submitting proposals.
Packet Page 124
9
7. Cooperative Purchasing. During the term of the contract, the successful bidder will extend all
terms and conditions to any other local governmental agencies upon their request. These
agencies will issue their own purchase orders, will directly receive goods or services at their place
of business, and will be directly billed by the successful bidder.
8. Communications. All timely requests for information submitted in writing will receive a written
response from the City. Telephone communications with City staff are not encouraged, but will
be permitted. However, any such oral communication shall not be binding on the City.
CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION
9. Proposal Retention and Award. The City reserves the right to retain all proposals for a period
of 60 days for examination and comparison. The City also reserves the right to waive non-
substantial irregularities in any proposal, to reject any or all proposals, to reject or delete one part
of a proposal and accept the other, except to the extent that proposals are qualified by specific
limitations. See the “special terms and conditions” in Section C of these specifications for
proposal evaluation and contract award criteria.
10. Competency and Responsibility of Bidder. The City reserves full discretion to determine the
competence and responsibility, professionally and/or financially, of bidders. Bidders will
provide, in a timely manner, all information that the City deems n ecessary to make such a
decision.
11. Contract Requirement. The bidder to whom award is made (Contractor) shall execute a written
contract with the City within ten (10) calendar days after notice of the award has been sent by
mail to it at the address given in its proposal. The contract shall be made in the form adopted by
the City and incorporated in these specifications.
12. Insurance Requirements. The Contractor shall provide proof of insurance in the form,
coverages and amounts specified in Section E of these specifications within 10 (ten) calendar
days after notice of contract award as a precondition to contract execution.
13. Business License & Tax. The Contractor must have a valid City of San Luis Obispo business
license & tax certificate before execution of the contract. Additional information regarding the
City’s business tax program may be obtained by calling (805) 781-7134.
CONTRACT PERFORMANCE
14. Ability to Perform. The Contractor warrants that it possesses, or has arranged through
subcontracts, all capital and other equipment, labor, materials, and licenses necessary to carry out
and complete the work hereunder in compliance with any and all federal, state, county, city, and
special district laws, ordinances, and regulations.
15. Laws to be Observed. The Contractor shall keep itself fully informed of and shall observe and
comply with all applicable state and federal laws and county and City of San Luis Obispo
ordinances, regulations and adopted codes during its performance of the work.
16. Payment of Taxes. The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes that the
Contractor is required to pay.
Packet Page 125
9
17. Permits and Licenses. The Contractor shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and
fees, and give all notices necessary.
18. Safety Provisions. The Contractor shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to safety
established by OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety.
19. Public and Employee Safety. Whenever the Contractor’s operations create a condition
hazardous to the public or City employees, it shall, at its expense and without cost to the City,
furnish, erect and maintain such fences, temporary railings, barricades, lights, signs and other
devices and take such other protective measures as are necessary to prevent accidents or damage
or injury to the public and employees.
20. Preservation of City Property. The Contractor shall provide and install suitable safeguards,
approved by the City, to protect City property from injury or damage. If City property is injured
or damaged resulting from the Contractor’s operations, it shall be replaced or restored at the
Contractor’s expense. The facilities shall be replaced or restored to a condition as good as when
the Contractor began work.
21. Immigration Act of 1986. The Contractor warrants on behalf of itself and all subcontractors
engaged for the performance of this work that only persons authorized to work in the United State
pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and other applicable laws shall be
employed in the performance of the work hereunder.
22. Contractor Non-Discrimination. In the performance of this work, the Contractor agrees that it
will not engage in, nor permit such subcontractors as it may employ, to engage in discrimination
in employment of persons because of age, race, color, sex, national origin or ancestry, sexual
orientation, or religion of such persons.
23. Work Delays. Should the Contractor be obstructed or delayed in the work required to be done
hereunder by changes in the work or by any default, act, or omission of the City, or by strikes,
fire, earthquake, or any other Act of God, or by the inability to obtain materials, equipment, or
labor due to federal government restrictions arising out of defense or war programs, then the time
of completion may, at the City’s sole option, be extended for such periods as may be agreed upon
by the City and the Contractor. In the event that there is insufficient time to grant such extensions
prior to the completion date of the contract, the City may, at the time of acceptance of the work,
waive liquidated damages that may have accrued for failure to complete on time, due to any of
the above, after hearing evidence as to the reasons for such delay, a nd making a finding as to the
causes of same.
24. Payment Terms. The City’s payment terms are 30 days from the receipt of an original invoice
and acceptance by the City of the materials, supplies, equipment, or services provided by the
Contractor (Net 30).
25. Inspection. The Contractor shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity for City to
ascertain that the services of the Contractor are being performed in accordance with the
requirements and intentions of this contract. All work done and all materials furnished, if any,
shall be subject to the City’s inspection and approval. The inspection of such work shall not
relieve Contractor of any of its obligations to fulfill its contract requirements.
Packet Page 126
9
26. Audit. The City shall have the option of inspecting and/or auditing all records and other written
materials used by Contractor in preparing its invoices to City as a condition precedent to any
payment to Contractor.
27. Interests of Contractor. The Contractor covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall not
acquire any interest—direct, indirect or otherwise—that would conflict in any manner or degree
with the performance of the work hereunder, including, but not limited to, any interest in any
commercial cannabis business or operation that would be eligible to apply for any permit or
entitlement within the City. The Contractor further covenants that, in the performance of this
work, no subcontractor or person having such an interest shall be employed. The Contractor
certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest in performing this work is an
officer or employee of the City. It is hereby expressly agreed that, in the performance of the work
hereunder, the Contractor shall at all times be deemed an independent contractor and not an agent
or employee of the City.
28. 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 the performance of all obligations
under this Agreement, and all expenses of investigating and defending against same;
provided, however, that the Contractor’s duty to indemnify and hold harmless shall not include
any claims or liability arising from the established sole negligence or willful misconduct of the
City, its agents, officers or employees.
29. Contract Assignment. The Contractor shall not assign, transfer, convey or otherwise dispose of
the contract, or its right, title or interest, or its power to execute such a contract to any individual
or business entity of any kind without the previous written consent of the City.
30. Termination for Convenience. The City may terminate all or part of this
Agreement for any or no reason at any time by giving 30 days written notice to
Contractor. Should the City terminate this Agreement for convenience, the City
shall be liable as follows: (a) for standard or off-the-shelf products, a reasonable
restocking charge not to exceed ten (10) percent of the total purchase price; (b) for
custom products, the less of a reasonable price for the raw materials, components
work in progress and any finished units on hand or the price per unit reflected on this
Agreement. For termination of any services pursuant to this Agreement, the City’s
liability will be the lesser of a reasonable price for the services rendered prior to
termination, or the price for the services reflected on this Agreement. Upon
termination notice from the City, Contractor must, unless otherwise directed, cease
work and follow the City’s directions as to work in progress and finished goods.
31. Termination for Cause. If, during the term of the contract, the City determines that the
Contractor is not faithfully abiding by any term or condition contained herein, the City may notify
the Contractor in writing of such defect or failure to perform. This notice must give the
Contractor a 10 (ten) calendar day notice of time thereafter in which to perform said work or cure
the deficiency.
If the Contractor has not performed the work or cured the deficiency within the ten days specified
in the notice, such shall constitute a breach of the contract and the City may terminate the contract
Packet Page 127
9
immediately by written notice to the Contractor to said effect. Thereafter, neither party shall have
any further duties, obligations, responsibilities, or rights under the contract except, however, any
and all obligations of the Contractor’s surety shall remain in full force and effect, and shall not be
extinguished, reduced, or in any manner waived by the terminations thereof.
In said event, the Contractor shall be entitled to the reasonable value of its services performed
from the beginning date in which the breach occurs up t o the day it received the City’s Notice of
Termination, minus any offset from such payment representing the City’s damages from such
breach. “Reasonable value” includes fees or charges for goods or services as of the last milestone
or task satisfactorily delivered or completed by the Contractor as may be set forth in the
Agreement payment schedule; compensation for any other work, services or goods performed or
provided by the Contractor shall be based solely on the City’s assessment of the value of the
work-in-progress in completing the overall workscope.
The City reserves the right to delay any such payment until completion or confirmed
abandonment of the project, as may be determined in the City’s sole discretion, so as to permit a
full and complete accounting of costs. In no event, however, shall the Contractor be entitled to
receive in excess of the compensation quoted in its proposal.
Packet Page 128
9
Section C
SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. Proposal Content. Your proposal must include the following information:
Submittal Forms
a. Proposal submittal summary.
b. Certificate of insurance.
c. References from at least three firms for whom you have provided similar services.
Qualifications
e. Experience of your firm in performing similar services.
f. Resumes of the individuals who would be assigned to this project, including any sub-
consultants.
g. Standard hourly billing rates for the assigned staff, including any sub-consultants.
h. Statement and explanation of any instances where your firm has been removed from a
project or disqualified from proposing on a project.
Work Program
j. Description of your approach to completing the work.
k. Tentative schedule by phase and task for completing the work.
l. Estimated hours for your staff in performing each major phase of the work, including
sub-consultants.
m. Services or data to be provided by the City.
n. Any other information that would assist us in making this contract award decision.
Compensation
p. Proposed compensation and payment schedule tied to accomplishing key tasks.
Proposal Length and Copies
q. Proposals should not exceed ten pages, not including attachments and supplemental
materials.
r. Two copies of the proposal must be submitted.
2. Proposal Evaluation and Consultant Selection. Proposals will be evaluated City staff as
follows:
Phase 1 – Written Proposal Review/Finalist Candidate Selection
The finalist candidate(s) will be selected for follow-up interviews and presentations based on the
following criteria as evidenced in their written proposals:
a. Understanding of the work required by the City.
b. Quality, clarity and responsiveness of the proposal.
c. Demonstrated competence and professional qualifications necessary for successfully
performing the work required by the City.
Packet Page 129
9
d. Recent experience in successfully performing similar services.
e. Proposed approach in completing the work.
f. References.
g. Background and experience of the specific individuals to be assigned to this project.
Phase 2 – Interviews and Consultant Selection
Finalist candidate(s) will make a presentation to City staff and answer questions about their
proposal. The purpose of this second phase is two-fold: to clarify and resolve any outstanding
questions or issues about the proposal; and to evaluate the proposer’s ability to clearly and
concisely present information in person. As part of this second phase of the selection process,
finalist candidate(s) will submit proposed compensation costs for the work, including a proposed
payment schedule tied to accomplishing key proj ect milestones or tasks. After evaluating the
proposals and discussing them further with the finalist(s) or the tentatively selected contractor, the
City reserves the right to further negotiate the proposed work scope and/or method and amount of
compensation.
Contract award will be based on a combination of factors that represent the best overall value for
completing the work scope as determined by the City, including: the written proposal criteria
described above; results of background and reference checks; results from the interviews and
presentations phase; and proposed compensation.
3. Proposal Review and Award Schedule. The following is an outline of the anticipated schedule
for proposal review and contract award:
a. Issue RFP 3/21/18
b. Deadline for proposer questions 4/10/18
c. Responses to material questions posted 4/13/18
c. Receive proposals 4/26/18
d. Complete proposal evaluation 5/4/18
e. Conduct finalist interviews 5/10/18
f. Finalize staff recommendation 5/15/18
g. Award contract 5/29/18
h. Execute contract 6/15/18
i. Start work TBD
4. Ownership of Materials. All original drawings, plan documents and other materials prepared by
or in possession of the Contractor as part of the work or services under these specifications shall
become the permanent property of the City, and shall be delivered to the City upon demand.
5. Release of Reports and Information. Any reports, information, data, or other material given to,
prepared by or assembled by the Contractor as part of the work or services u nder these
specifications shall be the property of City and shall not be made available to any individual or
organization by the Contractor without the prior written approval of the City.
6. Copies of Reports and Information. If the City requests additional copies of reports, drawings,
specifications, or any other material in addition to what the Contractor is required to furnish in
limited quantities as part of the work or services under these specifications, the Contractor shall
provide such additional copies as are requested, and City shall compensate the Contractor for the
costs of duplicating of such copies at the Contractor’s direct expense.
7. Required Deliverable Products. The Contractor will be required to:
Packet Page 130
9
a. Assist the City in the review and development of appropriate survey questions based on
the City’s desire to conduct a survey that can be used for comparison purposes both with
other similar cities and questions used in previous surveys. Review, comment and
recommend changes in wording and/or ordering of survey questions.
b. Select a statistically valid and representative (geographically and demographically)
sample of residents from the City of San Luis Obispo, ensuring that only residents living
within the incorporated boundaries of the City are included.
c. Conduct a pretest of the survey (no fewer than 20 complete surveys) to determine any
needed changes to the survey instrument to assure the maximum possible response rate
and valid responses.
d. Conduct a survey of residents in a manner that yields a response of approximately 500
residents of the City.
e. Analyze the data collected where both the qualitative and quantitative data is analyzed in
a scientifically valid manner.
f. Provide the City with a digital file of the draft report. The report should include:
1. An executive summary.
2. An analysis of the results. This section should include a verbal discussion of the
results as well as graphic illustrations of significant findings.
3. A comparison, where applicable, to similar questions conducted in our previous
survey and/or to previous years. Frequency distributions of responses to all
questions and cross tabulations as specified by the City.
4. A description of the sampling and survey methodologies.
5. Copy of the survey instrument.
6. Presentation of survey results appropriate for City leadership and the City
Council.
g. Present the survey results to City staff.
h. After review of the draft report by City staff, submit a digital file of the final report and
presentation.
i. Present the results of the survey to City leadership and City Council (approx. two to three
meetings).
j. Provide the City with the following data:
1. The collected, raw data in a format that the City can continue to analyze and
utilize.
2. A tabulation of the outcome of all survey attempts made during the course of the
survey (depending on the survey type: undeliverable surveys, number of refusals,
business/disconnected numbers, numbers that were busy or not answered after X
attempts, and language and other issues).
3. Provide the data in a manner that is clear and easy to understand, making use of
graphical representations whenever possible.
Packet Page 131
9
11. Attendance at Meetings and Hearings. As part of the workscope and included in the contract
price is attendance by the Contractor at up to three meetings to present and discuss its findings
and recommendations. Contractor shall attend as many “working” meetings with staff as
necessary in performing workscope tasks.
12. Alternative Proposals. The proposer may submit an alternative proposal (or proposals) that it
believes will also meet the City’s project objectives but in a different way. In this case, the
proposer must provide an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the
alternatives, and discuss under what circumstances the City would prefer one alternative to the
other(s). If an alternative proposal is submitted, the maximum length of the proposal may be
expanded proportionately by the number of alternatives submitted.
Packet Page 132
9
Section D
FORM OF AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on this _____________day
of ____________________________________, by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal
corporation, hereinafter referred to as City, and [CONTRACTOR’S NAME IN CAPITAL LETTERS], hereina fter
referred to as Contractor.
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, on [date], City requested proposals for resident satisfaction survey services per Specification
No. 91660.
WHEREAS, pursuant to said request, Contractor submitted a proposal that was accepted by City for said
services.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants hereinafter
contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date this Agreement is made and entered,
as first written above, until acceptance or completion of said services.
2. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. City Specification No. 91660 and Contractor’s
proposal dated [date], are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement.
3. CITY’S OBLIGATIONS. For providing services as specified in this Agreement, City will pay
and Contractor shall receive therefor compensation in a total sum not to exceed [$ .00 ].
4. CONTRACTOR’S OBLIGATIONS. For and in consideration of the payments and agreements
hereinbefore mentioned to be made and performed by City, Contractor agrees with City to do everything required by
this Agreement and the said specification incorporated into this Agreement.
5. AMENDMENTS. Any amendment, modification or variation from the terms of this Agreement
shall be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the City Manager or duly authorized agent of the
City.
Packet Page 133
9
6. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings specifically
incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties hereto. No oral
agreement, understanding, or representation not reduced to writing and specifically incorporated herein shall be of
any force or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement, understanding, or representation be binding upon the parties
hereto.
7. NOTICE. All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail, postage
prepaid by registered or certified mail addressed as follows:
City City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Contractor [ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
8. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both City and Contractor do covenant that each
individual executing this agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to execute
Agreements for such party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and year
first above written.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, A Municipal Corporation
By:____________________________________
City Administrative Officer
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONTRACTOR
____________________________________ By:____________________________________
City Attorney
Packet Page 134
9
Section E
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: Consultant Services
The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for
injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of
the work hereunder by the Contractor, its agents, representatives, employees, or subcontractors.
Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001).
2. Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability, code
1 (any auto).
3. Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer’s Liability
Insurance.
4. Errors and Omissions Liability insurance as appropriate to the consultant’s profession.
Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits no less than:
1. General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property
damage. If Commercial General Liability or other form with a general aggregate limit is used,
either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general
aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Employer’s Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
4. Errors and Omissions Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence.
Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared
to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall r educe or eliminate such
deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers;
or the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim
administration and defense expenses.
Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be
endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
1. The City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be c overed as insureds as
respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Contractor; products
and completed operations of the Contractor; premises owned, occupied or used by the Contractor;
or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Contractor. The coverage shall contain
no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials,
employees, agents or volunteers.
2. For any claims related to this project, the Contractor’s insurance c overage shall be primary
insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any
insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or
volunteers shall be excess of the contractor’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.
3. The Contractor’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or
suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer’s liability.
Packet Page 135
9
4. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be
suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty
(30) days’ prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the
City.
Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no
less than A:VII.
Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish the City with a certificate of insurance showing
maintenance of the required insurance coverage. Original endorsements effecting general liability and
automobile liability coverage required by this clause must also be provided. The endorsements are to be
signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All endorsements are to be
received and approved by the City before work commences.
Packet Page 136
9
PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORM
The undersigned declares that she or he has carefully examined Specification No. 91552, which is hereby
made a part of this proposal; is thoroughly familiar with its contents; is authorized to represent the
proposing firm; and agrees to perform the specified work for the following cost quoted in full:
BID ITEM: Cannabis Business Regulation Support Services
Total Base Price
Other (provide detail below)
TOTAL
Delivery of equipment to the City to be within ________ calendar days after contract execution and
written authorization to proceed.
Certificate of insurance attached; insurance company’s A.M. Best rating:___________________.
Firm Name and Address
Contact Phone
Signature of Authorized Representative
Date
NOTES ON THIS SAMPLE FORM
This is the City’s “basic” submittal form, and something like it should accompany all
proposals, even if: a combined “description of work/detailed proposal submittal form” (like
Sample E) is required; or price information is not requested (like Sample F).
Packet Page 137
9
REFERENCES
Number of years engaged in providing the services included within the scope of the specifications under
the present business name: ___________________.
Describe fully the last three contracts performed by your firm that demonstrate your ability to provide the
services included with the scope of the specifications. Attach additional pages if required. The City
reserves the right to contact each of the references listed for additional information regarding your firm’s
qualifications.
Reference No. 1
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & FAX number
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Description of services provided
including contract amount, when
provided and link to final report
Reference No. 2
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & FAX number
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Description of services provided
including contract amount, when
provided and link to final report
Reference No. 3
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & FAX number
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Description of services provided
including contract amount, when
provided and link to final report
Packet Page 138
9
STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS
The bidder shall state whether it or any of its officers or employees who have a proprietary interest in it,
has ever been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from bidding on, or completing a federal,
state, or local government project because of the violation of law, a safety regulation, or for any other
reason, including but not limited to financial difficulties, project delays, or disputes regarding work or
product quality, and if so to explain the circumstances.
Do you have any disqualification as described in the above paragraph to declare?
Yes No
If yes, explain the circumstances.
Executed on ______________________________ at ______________________________ under penalty
of perjury of the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct.
______________________________________
Signature of Authorized Bidder Representative
Packet Page 139
9
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Page 140
9
Meeting Date: 3/20/2018
FROM: Garret Olson, Fire Chief
Prepared By: James Blattler, Administrative Analyst
SUBJECT: SURPLUS DESIGNATION OF FLEET ASSET BY SALE, AUCTION OR
TRADE-IN
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the surplus designation of the Fire Department’s Fleet Asset No. 9709, a 1997 Pierce
Lance Pumper, by sale, auction, trade-in or other method in accordance with the City’s policies
and procedures as prescribed in the Financial Management Manual Section 405-L and 480.
DISCUSSION
Per the City’s Financial Management Manual Section 405-F, “Fleet Use Target Guidelines
Before Replacement”, front-line fire pumper trucks should be replaced after 16 years with an
allowed additional 4 years of backup service. To ensure sustainability of engine services to the
City, the Fire Department maintains a fleet which includes one (1) reserve fire pumper to be used
when a front-line engine is undergoing maintenance or repairs.
The Fire Department’s Fleet Asset No. 9707, a 1997 Pierce Lance Pumper, was placed in reserve
status on August 24, 2014 after 16 years of front-line service. Engine 2 is currently being
replaced with a front-line Quint (fire pumper with aerial ladder) as part of the Department’s fleet
consolidation plan and will soon be placed in reserve status, thus allowing for the surplus
designation of Fleet Asset No. 9709.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to the recommended action in this
report, because the action does not constitute a “Project” under CEQA Guidelines sec. 15278.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no net-negative fiscal impact anticipated. The sale, auction, trade-in or other method of
disposal will result in an estimated $7,000 increase of the “Fleet Sale of Surplus Property”
revenue fund.
ALTERNATIVES
Deny surplus fleet designation. The City Council could choose to deny or defer the surplus
designation of the 1997 Pierce Lance Pumper. This alternative is not recommended by City Staff,
as denying or deferring will only result in a decrease in value of the vehicle.
Packet Page 141
10
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Page 142
10
Meeting Date: 3/20/2018
FROM: Garret Olson, Fire Chief
Prepared By: James Blattler, Administrative Analyst
SUBJECT: ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS REGIONAL GRANT
RECOMMENDATION
1. Authorize the Fire Department to participate in a regional grant to the Federal Assistance to
Firefighters Grant (AFG) Program for the amount of $308,985 to acquire replacement
portable radios and associated accessories.
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the grant documents and approve the budget changes
necessary to appropriate the grant amount upon notification that the grant has been awarded.
3. Authorize City Staff to release a Request for Proposal (RFP) for portable radios and
associated accessories, upon grant award.
4. Authorize the City Manager to award the contract resulting from the RFP, upon grant award.
DISCUSSION
State and federal grants are occasionally offered to assist local governments with the financial
impacts associated with daily operations and/or mandated programs. The Federal Emergency
Management Agency’s (FEMA) Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) Program is one of these
programs. The purpose of the AFG program is to award one-year grants directly to fire
departments to enhance their abilities with respect to fire and fire-related hazards. For fiscal year
2017, Congress appropriated $310,500,000 in funding for AFGs and is projecting to award 2,500
applicants.
Background
Portable radios are one of the most important life safety equipment items for a firefighter. They
allow for personnel accountability and critical communication between first responders at the
scene of an emergency and provide a direct link between suppression personnel and the
emergency communication center dispatchers. The lack of dependable portable radios could
immediately jeopardize the safety of both the public and suppression staff.
The Fire Department’s current inventory of portable radios has become obsolete due to age. The
model the Department utilizes was discontinued in 2013 and the manufacturer is running out of
parts to perform even basic repairs and anticipates not being able to perform any repairs after
2018.
Packet Page 143
11
Several neighboring fire agencies have similar communication needs and have agreed to
cooperate though a regional AFG application, hosted by the Cambria Community Services
District (CSD) Fire Department. Each participating department will be responsible for a 10%
funding match for their portion of the federal grant funding.
Upon grant award, City staff would release a RFP for 58 replacement portable handheld radios
and associated accessories in the amount totaling the grant award plus the City’s match
requirement. The RFP will require the equipment to meet all grant requirements and standards
necessary for use by a fire agency.
CONCURRENCES
The Information Technology Department concurs with both the need to replace the current
portable radio inventory and the need of grant funding to fully fund the project.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to the recommended action in this
report, because the action does not constitute a “Project” under CEQA Guidelines sec. 15278.
FISCAL IMPACT
If the regional applicants were to receive funding from the AFG Program, each agency would
have to match the Federal grant funds equal to 10% of their total project cost share. The City’s
share of the total grant request is $308,985, and if fully funded would require a match of
$30,899. Currently, the project to replace public safety radios has an approved budget of
$180,000 in an Information Technology capital improvement project (CIP) account, with an
estimated $150,000 earmarked to replace Police Department portable radios. If the required
match exceeds the remaining project budget, the Fire Department will absorb the additional cost
in the operating budget approved for the 2017-19 Financial Plan.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council could decide not to pursue the grant monies. This is not recommended as fire
service grant opportunities are limited and the grant funds would only serve to enhance the
effectiveness of the Fire Department while increasing fiscal sustainability for the City.
Packet Page 144
11
Meeting Date: 3/20/2018
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A NEW TWO-STORY COMMERCIAL
BUILDING AND A CREEK SETBACK EXCEPTION, AND DIRECTING
STAFF TO RETURN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR
ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION AND A RECOMMENDATION REGARDING A
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT FOR THE PROPERTY AT 1460 CALLE
JOAQUIN
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution denying the architectural review application and proposed creek setback and
providing direction to staff regarding the requested Zoning Map Amendment.
DISCUSSION
At its March 6th meeting the City Council reviewed applications for an amendment to the City’s
Zoning Map, to designate property at 1460 Calle J oaquin to be within a Tourist-Commercial
(C-T) Zone, for architectural review of a new two-story commercial building proposed to be
constructed on the property, and for a creek setback to accommodate uncovered parking spaces
for the project.
The Council voted 3-2 to direct staff to return the zoning request to the Planning Commission for
additional discussion and a recommendation regarding special considerations that apply to the
project site, and prepare a resolution for its consideration on March 20, 2018, denying the
application for Architectural Review and the proposed creek setback exception. No action was
taken on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project.
Staff has prepared the resolution describing these actions (Attachment A) and recommends that
the City Council adopt the resolution.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for the project, including Mitigation
Measures to reduce certain potential environmental impacts to a “less than significant” level. It
was circulated for public review and reviewed by the Council at their March 6th meeting. No
action was taken to adopt the MND and the document will be updated based on the Council’s
action. A new project description and recommendation will be forwarded to the Planning
Commission when this item is presented to them in the future.
Packet Page 145
12
FISCAL IMPACT
The recommended actions are intended to ensure appropriate site development consistent with
the City’s General Plan. When the General Plan was adopted, it was accompanied by a fiscal
impact analysis which concluded that development consistent with the Plan would have a
positive fiscal impact to the City as a whole. Individual decisions made on a project-by-project
basis to further General Plan objectives are consi dered to have a neutral to positive fiscal impact
to the City.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve the Zoning Map Amendment and Architectural Review applications for the project,
and adopt the project Mitigated Negative Declaration. Staff does not recommend this
alternative because the Council expressed concerns about special considerations that apply to
the site relative to visual impacts from building height, and adherence to creek setback
requirements, and did not support the proposed building design or the requested creek
setback exception.
2. Deny the Zoning Map Amendment and Architectural Review applications for this project.
Staff does not recommend this alternative because a majority of the Council was supportive
of some commercial use of the property, following additional discussion by the Planning
Commission regarding special considerations that apply to the site relative to limits on
building height and adherence to creek setback requirements.
Attachments:
a - Council Resolution (Draft)
Packet Page 146
12
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2018 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A NEW TWO-STORY COMMERCIAL
BUILDING AND A CREEK SETBACK EXCEPTION, AND DIRECTING
STAFF TO RETURN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR
ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT AND ASSOCIATED MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROPERTY AT 1460 CALLE
JOAQUIN (ARCH-3413-2016, EID-0016-2017; RZ-0015-2017)
WHEREAS, AuzCo Development, LLC (“Applicant”) submitted Architectural Review,
Rezoning, and Environmental Impact Determination applications (ARCH-3413-2016, RZ-0015-
2017, and EID-0016-2017) for rezoning of property at 1460 Calle Joaquin (APN 053-151-036),
and its development with a new two-story commercial building; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review 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 November 13, 2017 for the purpose of architectural review of the project design;
and recommended that the City Council approve construction of the proposed commercial building
and associated site improvements; 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
December 20, 2017, for the purpose of formulating and forwarding recommendations to the City
Council regarding the project applications, including the request for an exception to the 20-foot
creek setback to allow uncovered parking spaces within a portion of the setback area, and
recommended that the City Council designate the subject property as Tourism Commercial
consistent with General Plan designation, but not adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration
(“MND”), and further recommended that the City Council not approve the creek setback
exception; 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 March 6,
2018 for the purpose of considering final action on the project applications, including the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and the requested creek setback exception to allow uncovered parking spaces
within a portion of the setback area; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing and meeting were made at the time and in the
manner required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the record of
the Architectural Review Commission and Planning Commission hearings and recommendations,
testimony of the applicant and interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff
presented at said hearing.
Packet Page 147
12
Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that
the project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration (EID-0016-2017) does not adequately address
aesthetic impacts of the building design and location adjacent to a scenic highway and does not
adequately address potential impacts to the creek corridor associated with the requested creek
setback exception and does not approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration as drafted.
SECTION 3. Action. The City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo finds that the
height and visual prominence of the proposed building is inappropriate for its location immediately
adjacent to a Scenic Roadway, and does hereby deny the application for architectural review of
the project (ARCH-3413-2016). The Council further finds that granting the requested creek
setback exception is not appropriate because the parking area proposed within the setback area
does not minimize impacts to scenic resources or riparian habitat, and site development can be
accomplished with a redesign of the project, which would not deny the property owner reasonable
use of the property, and does hereby deny the creek setback exception. Council directs staff to
return the Zoning Map Amendment application (RZ-0015-2017) to the Planning Commission for
additional discussion and a recommendation regarding special considerations that apply to the
project site relative to limits on building height and adherence to creek setback requirements.
Upon motion of Council Member ______ , seconded by Council Member ______ , and
on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 20th day of March 2018.
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Packet Page 148
12
Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 3
_____________________________________
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 Page 149
12
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Page 150
12
Meeting Date: 3/20/2018
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Kyle Van Leeuwen. Planning Technician
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY THE APPLICANT, BCR
DEVELOPMENTS) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO
APPROVE A NEW ESCAPE ROOM BUSINESS, A COMMERCIAL
RECREATION FACILITY-INDOOR USE, WITH A CONDITION LIMITING
HOURS OF OPERATION TO 8:00 P.M. SUNDAY THROUGH THURSDAY,
AND 10:00 P.M. FRIDAY AND SATURDAY.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) denying the appeal and upholding the Planning
Commission’s approval of a Use Permit, with a categorical exemption from environmental
review.
SITE DATA
Applicant BCR Developments
Property Owner Javad Sani, Sarfar Properties LLC
Appeal Date January 2, 2018
General Plan General Retail
Zoning Downtown Commercial (C-D-MU)
Mixed Use Overlay
Site Area ~1,900 square feet
Environmental
Status
Categorically exempt from
environmental review under CEQA
Guidelines section 15301 (Existing
Facilities)
Background
On, August 31, 2017, the applicant, BCR Developments, requested an Administrative Use
Permit for an “escape room”1 business in the tenant space located at 583 Marsh Street. This type
of business is classified as a commercial recreation facility-indoor use. The Zoning Regulations
Section 17.22 (Table 9) allows for this use within the Downtown Commercial (C-D) zone with
the approval of an Administrative Use Permit. This tenant space is also located within a mixed-
use development. Zoning Regulations section 17.08.072 (Mixed Use Projects) requires a
Director’s approval when a commercial component of a mixed-use project will operate outside
1 An escape room game is one in which a group of participants (typically 4 to 10) have a limited amount
of time (usually one hour) to solve a series of puzzles of various types that provide clues leading the
solution of a final puzzle for “unlocking” the door of the room.
Packet Page 151
13
the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., to ensure that the commercial use will not negatively impact
the residential uses. The applicant’s original request was for operating hours until 10:00 p.m.,
Sunday through Thursday, and 11:30 p.m. on Friday and Saturday. On October 9, 2017, the
Administrative Hearing Officer approved the Administrative Use Permit to establish the use
(Attachment B).
Leading up to the hearing, the City received correspondence from four residents of the
development expressing concerns regarding the proposed business, with three residents in
attendance at the hearing that voiced their concerns. These concerns primarily centered on noise
the business would create and the hours of operation. To ensure compatibility between the
business and residential uses at this location, the Use Permit included a condition limiting the
hours of operation to between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and between
8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., Friday and Saturday. This condition was intended to address potential
noise impacts to the existing residents living above and adjacent to the commercial tenant space.
The Use Permit also included a condition requiring review by the Hearing Officer six months
from the date of occupancy of the business to evaluate the effectiveness of the conditions of the
Use Permit and determine if any changes are necessary.
Appeal Filed
On October 19, 2017, the property owner filed an appeal of the Administrative Hearing Officer’s
decision to approve the Use Permit (Attachment C). The intent of the appeal is to address
Condition No. 3, which limits the hours of operation, and Condition No. 6 that requires a review
of the permit after six months of occupancy of the business. The appellant asserted that these
conditions added too much uncertainty and risk to the project.
On December 20, 2017, the Planning Commission, on a 5-1 vote (Commissioner Malak voting
against), denied in part and upheld in part the appeal of the Administrative Hearing Officer’s
decision. The Planning Commission (PC) maintained the hours of operation that were approved
by the Administrative Hearing Officer, but eliminated the condition requiring review by the
Hearing Officer six months after the date of occupancy of the business (Attachment D). Three
residents of the mixed-use development spoke at the hearing, and three sent in official
correspondence, to express their concerns about possible extension of the hours of operation.
On January 2, 2018, the applicant, BCR Developments, appealed the PC’s decision. The
appellants request is to allow hours of operation of 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Sunday through
Thursday, and 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., Friday and Saturday. This would be one hour per day
more than the PC resolution allows (Attachment E). The Council is being asked to review the PC
approved Use Permit in consideration of the applicant’s appeal and provide a final determination
on the project.
DISCUSSION
Applicant Appeal
The appeal form filed by the applicant identifies the intent of the appeal is to specifically address
Condition #2, which limits the hours of operation of the business (Attachment E).
Packet Page 152
13
Condition #2 states, “business hours shall be between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Sunday through
Thursday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday.” The reason for the
appeal as stated by the applicant has two specific points: 1) Due to the nature of the business, the
condition requires that the last escape room sessions commence at 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m.
respectively, to comply with the approved hours of operation because each session lasts
approximately one hour; and 2) The approved hours of operation of the business are too
restrictive and will render the business economically unviable.
The appeal is specifically requesting that the City Council approve hours of operation of 8:00
a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., Friday and Saturday.
This additional hour would allow for the final escape room session to begin at 8:00 p.m., Sunday
through Thursday, and 10:00 p.m., Friday and Saturday.
Appeal Evaluation
1. Land Use Element Goals & Policies
Goals and policies in the General Plan Land Use Element state th at the Downtown should be the
location of entertainment facilities, including nighttime entertainment (Goal 27, Policies 4.1, 4.3,
4.8). Land Use Element policies for the Downtown also call for residential uses to be
interspersed with commercial projects and incorporated into new large projects (Policies 4.2,
4.2.1).
2. Noise Thresholds & Hours of Operation
Noise Element
The Noise Element of the General Plan sets noise exposure standards for noise-sensitive land
uses, and performance standards for new commercial and industrial uses. Residences are
considered a noise-sensitive land use and have specific thresholds for exposure. For reference,
the maximum hourly noise exposure for a residence is 50 decibels between the hours of 7:00
a.m. and 10:00 p.m. (day) and 45 decibels from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (night).
Zoning Regulations
The Zoning Regulations (Section 17.08.072) states “A mixed-use project proposing a
commercial component that will operate outside of the hours from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. shall
require the Director's approval to ensure that the commercial use will not negatively impact the
residential uses within the project.” The requirement that a “commercial use will not negatively
impact the residential uses” sets a strict standard for any use that may create impacts after 6:00
p.m. when located within a mixed-use development. This is especially true within the Downtown
area where Land Use Element policies encourage both nighttime entertainment uses, and
residential uses interspersed in new development.
Packet Page 153
13
3. Analysis
Hours of operation were carefully considered by both the Hearing Officer and the Planning
Commission in their respective reviews and actions on the project. Given the General Plan noise
thresholds, Zoning Regulations language on hours of operation for mixed-use projects, and
correspondence and testimony given by the residents of the project site, both the Hearing Officer
and Planning Commission determined the following hours for the proposed business was
appropriate:
Friday and Saturday: Allowing hours of operation to extend until 10:00 p.m., Friday
and Saturday, is consistent with the decibel threshold change in the General Plan (10:00
pm).
Sunday through Thursday: In considering the appropriate hours of operation Sunday
through Thursday, a limit of 8:00 p.m. was established as the middle ground between the
allowed hours per the Zoning Regulations (6:00 p.m.) and the decibel threshold change in
the General Plan (10:00 p.m.).
The Planning Commission also informed the applicant that they would be able to apply for a
modification to the Use Permit once they demonstrate the business fits well with the neighbors
and does not have a negative impact on residential uses.
It should be noted that the applicant provided the CC&Rs for the com mercial tenant space as
additional information included with their appeal documentation to the Planning Commission in
support of later hours for the business. The CC&Rs for the commercial units prohibit businesses
from operating between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. However, the CC&Rs for the
residential component of the development only contain a broad acknowledgement that increased
noise, traffic, and other disturbances at all hours are expected when living in a downtown mixed-
use project. The residential CC&Rs do not include language acknowledging specific hours of
operation allowed in the commercial component. While the CC&Rs are legally binding in
connection to the property, they are a civil agreement and do not take precedent over City
ordinances and regulations and are not enforced by the City.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is categorically exempt under Class 1, Existing Facilities; Section 15301 of the
CEQA Guidelines, because the project consists of the permitting and minor alterations of an
existing private structure.
FISCAL IMPACT
When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which
found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed
project is consistent with the General Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact. There is no fiscal
impact associated with the approval of this project.
Packet Page 154
13
ALTERNATIVES
1. Uphold the appeal. The Council can uphold the appeal and approve the project with hours of
operation between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and between 8 a.m. and 11
p.m., Friday and Saturday.
2. Uphold the appeal in part, approving the project with modifications. The Council can
approve the project with modifications as appropriate, based on findings of consistency with
applicable policies and regulations.
Attachments:
a - Draft Resolution
b - Administrative Hearing Agenda Report
c - Appeal of Hearing Officer's Decision
d - Planning Commission Resolution
e - Appeal of Planning Commission Decision
f - Planning Commission Minutes
g - Project Description & Site Plan
Packet Page 155
13
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2018 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE A USE PERMIT FOR AN
ESCAPE ROOM BUSINESS, CLASSIFIED AS A COMMERCIAL
RECREATION FACILITY – INDOOR, WITH A CONDITION LIMITING
HOURS OF OPERATION, IN THE DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL ZONE
WITH A MIXED USE OVERLAY, AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF
REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED MARCH 20, 2018 (583 MARCH
STREET APPL-1324-2018)
WHEREAS, on October 9, 2017, the Administrative Hearing Officer of the City of San
Luis Obispo approved an Administrative Use Permit at a public hearing in the Council Hearing
Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, pursuant to a proceeding
instituted under USE-1024-2017, BCR Developments, applicant; and
WHEREAS, On October 19, 2017, Javad Sani, as the owner of the subject property, filed
an appeal of the Administrative Hearing Officer’s action; and
WHEREAS, on December 20, 2017, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis
Obispo adopted Resolution PC-1013-17, denying in part and upholding in part an appeal of the
Administrative Hearing Officer’s decision at a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall,
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under APPL-
1135-2017, Javad Sani, appellant; and
WHEREAS, On January 2, 2018, BCR Developments, the applicant, filed an appeal of
the Planning Commission’s action; and
WHEREAS, On March 20, 2018, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under the appeal of the Planning
Commission’s decision APPL-1324-2018, BCR Developments, applicant/appellant; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has duly considered all
evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and
recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing, and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the
following findings:
Packet Page 156
13
Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 2
R ______
1. As conditioned, the use will not harm the general health, safety, and welfare of people
living or working in the vicinity because the use will be entirely inside an existing building
and will meet all code requirements.
2. The proposed use is consistent with Land Use Element Goal #27 for the City to serve as
the County’s hub for entertainment and cultural services, and Land Use Element policies
(4.1, 4.3, and 4.8) that call for the Downtown to be the location of entertainment facilities
including nighttime entertainment.
3. The proposed use is consistent with the Zoning Regulations, Chapter 17.42, which states
that the C-D zone is intended to provide for a wide range of retail sales, services, and
entertainment uses.
4. As conditioned, the proposed use will not negatively impact the residential uses in the
development because the business will have operating hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.,
Sunday through Thursday, and 8:00 to 10:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt under Class 1,
Existing Facilities; Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project consists of the
permitting and minor alterations of an existing private structure.
SECTION 3. Action. The City Council does hereby grant final approval to the project
with incorporation of the following conditions.
Planning Division
1. A building plan check submittal for tenant improvements that incorporates the following
conditions of approval, shall be submitted for review and approval of the Community
Development Department. A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working
drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions of project approval.
Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are
addressed.
2. Business hours shall be between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and between
8 a.m. and 10 p.m. Friday and Saturday.
3. The security door that exits into the residential entryway shall be removed or permanently
secured to ensure that access by customers or employees to the residential corridor is not
possible.
Indemnification
4. The Owner/Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City or its agents or
officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents,
officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void, or annul, in whole or in part, the City's
Packet Page 157
13
Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 3
R ______
approval of this project. In the event that the City fails to promptly notify the
Owner/Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, or that the City fails to cooperate
fully in the defense of said claim, this condition shall thereafter be of no further force or
effect.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2018.
____________________________________
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 Page 158
13
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of an Administrative Use Permit to operate an escape room, a physical adventure
game in which players solve a series of puzzles using clues, hints and strategy to complete the
objectives at hand, in the C-D-MU zone. This project includes a request to allow hours of operation
until 10 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and 11:30 p.m. on Friday and Saturday, where a commercial
component of a mixed-use development is limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily, with a
categorical exemption from environmental review.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 583 Marsh Street BY: Kyle Van Leeuwen, Planning Technician
Phone Number: (805) 781-7091
E-mail: kvanleeuwen@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: USE-1024-2017 FROM: Tyler Corey, Principal Planner
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Administrative Use Permit to operate an escape room, a commercial recreation facility
use, in the C-D-MU zone, based on findings and subject to conditions.
SITE DATA
SUMMARY
The applicant, BCR Developments, has applied for an Administrative Use Permit requesting approval
of an “escape room” business in the tenant space located at 583 Marsh Street. An escape room is a
physical adventure game in which players solve a series of puzzles using clues, hints and strategy to
complete the objectives with a set time limit. This type of business is classified as a commercial
recreation facility-indoor use. Zoning Regulations section 17.22 (Table 9) allows for a commercial
recreation facility-indoor use within the C-D zone with the approval of an Administrative Use Permit.
This tenant space is also located within a mixed-use development. Zoning Regulations section
17.08.072 (Mixed Use Projects) requires a Director’s approval when a commercial component of a
mixed-use project will operate outside the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., to ensure that the
Applicant BCR Developments
Complete Date September 15, 2017
General Plan General Retail
Zoning Downtown Commercial, Mixed Use
overlay (C-D-MU)
Commercial Area ~1,900 square feet
Environmental
Status
Categorically exempt from
environmental review under CEQA
Guidelines section 15301 (Existing
Facilities)
Meeting Date: October 9, 2017
Item Number: 1
Packet Page 159
13
USE-1024-2017
583 Marsh Street
Page 2
commercial use will not negatively impact the residential uses. The applicant is requesting operating
hours that would go until 10 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and 11:30 p.m. on Friday and Saturday.
1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
1.1 Site Information/Setting
The project site is a mixed-use development with commercial tenant spaces on the ground floor
fronting Marsh Street. The residential units of the site are located on the upper floors and behind
the commercial spaces. The tenant space proposed for the escape room is approximately 1,900
square feet, and is currently vacant. The other three commercial tenant spaces in the structure are
occupied by a furniture store, hair salon, and an additional vacant tenant space. The development
also includes 12 residential units, of which one unit is located directly above the proposed use.
This area along Marsh Street is comprised entirely of Downtown Commercial (C-D) zoning, with
High-Density Residential (R-4) zoning on the opposite side of the block facing Pacific Street.
1.2 Project Description
The applicant has proposed to establish an “Escape Room” in an existing commercial tenant space
in the Downtown Commercial (C-D) zone. This type of use, a commercial recreation facility-
indoor, is allowed in this zone with the approval of an Administrative Use Permit (Zoning
Regulations, Table 9). The new business proposes hours of operation of Noon to 10 p.m., Monday
through Thursday, 11 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. Friday and Saturday, and 11 a.m. to 10 p.m. on Sunday.
The business offers interactive experiences for groups of 2-10 people. These groups will enter one
of the four themed rooms in the facility and work together to solve large, multi -faceted puzzles.
The puzzles require communication and critical thinking skills to advance through the game, and
groups have one hour to solve the challenges and “escape” the room. The business does not
physically lock participants in the room. The facility would typically have three employees on
site at any given time.
2.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
2.1 Consistency with General Plan and Zoning Regulations
Commercial Recreation Facility-Indoor Use: An Administrative Use Permit is required, per Table
9 of the Zoning Regulations, for a commercial recreation facility-indoor use to operate in the C-
D zone. This specific type of indoor recreation facility, which provides a unique entertainment
experience, is consistent with a number of goals and policies found in the Land Use Element of
the General Plan. These goals and policies call for San Luis Obispo to be the County’s hub for
entertainment (Community Goal #27), and more specifically for entertainment facilities to be
located in the downtown area (Policy #4.1, 4.3, & 4.8). The use at this location is also consistent
with Zoning Regulations, Chapter 17.42, which establishes that the C-D zone is intended to
provide for a wide range of retail sales, services, and entertainment uses.
Hours of Operation: The applicant proposal includes hours of operation for the business that
would extend into the evening, past 6:00 p.m. Per section 17.08.072 of the Zoning Regulations,
“A mixed-use project proposing a commercial component that will operate outside of the hours
from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. shall require the Director's approval to ensure that the commercial
Packet Page 160
13
USE-1024-2017
583 Marsh Street
Page 3
use will not negatively impact the residential uses within the project.” Staff finds that the potential
negative impact to surrounding residents created by the use are properly addressed with the
inclusion of specific conditions of approval. These conditions include limiting the hours of
operation to 10 p.m. daily for the business and requires staff to monitor customers for compliance
with noise restrictions. This is consistent with the City’s noise exposure limits as stated in the
Municipal Code for commercial zones, which require lower noise levels starting at 10 p.m.
3.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Applicant Submitted Documents
4.0 ACTION
The Administrative Hearing Officer does hereby approve the Administrative Use Permit (USE-1024-
2017), to establish an “escape room”, a commercial recreation facility-indoor use, in the C-D-MU
zone, with hours of operation not to exceed 10 p.m. daily, based on findings and subject to conditions
of approval.
Findings
1. The use will not harm the general health, safety, and welfare of people living or working in
the vicinity because the use will be entirely inside an existing building and will meet all code
requirements.
2. The proposed commercial recreation facility is consistent with the policies of the General
Plan, which calls for entertainment facilities to be in the downtown area.
3. The proposed use is consistent with the Zoning Regulations, Chapter 17.42, which states that
the C-D zone is intended to provide for a wide range of retail sales, services, and entertainment
uses.
4. As conditioned, the proposed use will not negatively impact the residential uses in the
development because the business is required to close at 10:00 p.m. daily and noise levels
created by the use during business hours will be within allowable limits as described in the
Municipal Code.
5. The project is categorically exempt from environmental review because the project consists
of the permitting and minor alterations of an existing private structure. (Class 1, Section
15301, Existing Facilities, CEQA Guidelines).
Conditions
Please note the project conditions of approval do not include mandatory code requirements. Code
compliance will be verified during the plan check process, which may include additional requirements
applicable to your project.
Packet Page 161
13
USE-1024-2017
583 Marsh Street
Page 4
Planning Division
1. The Owner/Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City or its agents or
officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents,
officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void, or annul, in whole or in part, the City's
approval of this project. In the event that the City fails to promptly notify the Owner/Applicant
of any such claim, action or proceeding, or that the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense
of said claim, this condition shall thereafter be of no further force or effect.
2. A building plan check submittal for tenant improvements that incorporates the following
conditions of approval, shall be submitted for review and approval of the Community
Development Department. A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings
submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions of project approval. Reference shall
be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed.
3. Business hours shall be between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and between 8
a.m. and 10 p.m. Friday and Saturday.
4. To further reduce the likelihood of noise negatively impacting surrounding residential units,
customers entering and exiting the business shall be monitored by staff for compliance with
noise restrictions.
5. The security door that exits into the residential entryway shall be removed or permanently
secured to ensure that access by customers or employees to the residential corridor is not
possible.
6. The use permit shall be reviewed by the Hearing Officer six months from the date of
occupancy. At the review hearing, the Hearing Officer may add, delete, or modify conditions
of approval
7. This Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Administrative Hearing Officer if the City receives
substantiated written complaints from any citizen, Code Enforcement Officer, or Police
Department employee, which includes information and/or evidence supporting a conclusion
that a violation of this Use Permit, or of City ordinances, regulations or Police Department
resources (calls for service) applicable to the property or the operation of the business, has
occurred. At the time of the Use Permit review, to insure on-going compatibility of the uses on
the project site, conditions of approval may be added, deleted, modified, or the Use Permit may
be revoked.
Packet Page 162
13
USE-1024-2017
583 Marsh Street
Page 5
Approve
Approve as modified
Deny
Continue to: ______________________ to allow __________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
Continue indefinitely to allow: _________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________
Hearing Officer
Packet Page 163
13
Packet Page 164
13
Packet Page 165
13
Packet Page 166
13
Packet Page 167
13
Packet Page 168
13
Packet Page 169
13
Packet Page 170
13
Packet Page 171
13
Packet Page 172
13
Packet Page 173
13
Packet Page 174
13
City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
Planning Commission
Minutes
Wednesday, December 20, 2017
Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order on
Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Stevenson.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners
Present: Commissioners Kim Bisheff, Hemalata Dandekar, Ronald Malak, Nicholas
Ostebur, Vice-Chair John Fowler and Chair Charles Stevenson.
Commissioners None
Absent:
City Staff
Present: Community Development Deputy Director Davidson, Assistant City
Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, Principal Planner Tyler Corey, Associate
Planner Kyle Bell; Planning Technician Kyle Van Leeuwen, Assistant
Planner Walter Oetzell; Recording Secretary Teresa Purrington.
Pledge of Allegiance
Chair Stevenson led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Chair Stevenson requested to reorder the agenda to hear Item 5 Part A and B after Item 2. By
consensus, the Planning Commission reordered the agenda as requested.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None
Packet Page 175
13
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
December 20, 2017
Page 2 of 7
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meetings of September 27, 2017, October 11,
2017 and October 25, 2017
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DANDEKAR, SECOND BY VICE CHAIR
FOWLER, CARRIED 6-0 to approve the minutes of September 27, 2017, as presented
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MALAK, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER DANDEKAR,
CARRIED 6-0 to approve the minutes of October 11, 2017 as presented.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BISHEFF, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MALAK,
CARRIED 5-0-1 (Vice Chair Fowler abstained due to conflict of interest) to approve the minutes
of October 25, 2017, as presented.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. 600 Perkins; Review of a tentative parcel map to create two lots, with a requested exception
to the minimum lot size requirements, including a Negative Declaration of environmental
review; Case #: SBDV-0626-2017, R-2-S zone; Neils Grether, applicant.
Associate Planner Kyle Bell presented the staff report and responded to Commission inquiries.
Applicant Neil Grether, summarized the project.
Mike Stanton, Project Engineer, provided information regarding the engineering for the project.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Elaine Cormier
Alex McClure
--End of Public Comment--
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MALAK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
DANDEKAR to approve the recommendation to adopt a Resolution entitled:
“A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVING A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO
CREATE TWO LOTS, WITH A REQUESTED EXCEPTION TO THE
MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS (SLO 17-0013), INCLUDING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS
REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS
DATED NOVEMBER 15, 2017
(600 PERKINS, SBDV-0626-2017, EID-0628-2017)”
Packet Page 176
13
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
December 20, 2017
Page 3 of 7
Motion passed 6-0-0-0- on the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS BISHEFF, DANDEKAR, MALAK, OSTEBUR, VICE-
CHAIR FOWLER AND CHAIR STEVENSON
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
MOTION CARRIED.
Item 5 A and B heard at this time. See Item 5 below for direction provided.
RECESS: The Commission recessed at 7:36 p.m. and reconvened at 7:41 p.m. with all
Commissioners present.
3. 583 Marsh St. Review of an appeal of the Administrative Hearing Officer’s decision to
approve a use permit for an “Escape Room” business, a commercial recreation facility – indoor
use, with conditions limiting hours of operation and requiring a review of the use permit six
months after occupancy of the business, in the Downtown Commercial zone with a Mixed-Use
overlay. Case #: USE-1024-2017; C-D-MU zone, Javad Sani, applicant.
Planning Technician Kyle Van Leeuwen presented the staff report and responded to Commission
inquiries.
Applicant Brian Lacertosa, summarized the project and explained the request for expanded hours.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Robert Spector
Cinda Fox
Sabastian Ponce
Barry Jones
John Hans
--End of Public Comment--
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE CHAIR FOWLER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
OSTERBUR TO approve the recommendation to adopt a Resolution entitled:
Packet Page 177
13
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
December 20, 2017
Page 4 of 7
“A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING
COMMISSION DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARING OFFICER’S DECISION TO APPROVE A USE PERMIT FOR
AN ESCAPE ROOM BUSINESS, CLASSIFIED AS A COMMERCIAL
RECREATION FACILITY – INDOOR, WITH CONDITIONS LIMITING
HOURS OF OPERATION AND REQUIRING A REVIEW OF THE USE
PERMIT SIX MONTHS AFTER OCCUPANCY OF THE BUSINESS, IN
THE DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL ZONE WITH A MIXED-USE
OVERLAY, AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND
ATTACHMENTS DATED DECEMBER 20, 2017
(583 MARCH STREET APPL-1135-2017)”
With the elimination of Planning Condition #5.
Motion passed 5-1-0 on the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS BISHEFF, DANDEKAR, OSTEBUR, VICE-CHAIR
FOWLER AND CHAIR STEVENSON
NOES: COMMISSIONER MALAK
ABSENT: NONE
4. 1460 Calle Joaquin; Consideration of an amendment to the City’s Zoning Map to designate
property at 1460 Calle Joaquin to be within a Tourist Commercial (C-T) Zone; construction of
a new two-story commercial building; an exception to the Creek Setback requirement to allow
six (6) uncovered parking spaces within the setback; and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental review. Case # RZ-0015-2017 & EID-0016-2017; No Zone (C-T Zone
proposed); AuzCo Development, LLC, applicant
Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell, presented the staff report and responded to Commission
inquiries.
Applicant Representative, George Garcia, provided an overview of the project.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
--End of Public Comment--
RECESS: The Commission recessed at 9:39 p.m. and reconvened at 9:53 p.m. with all
Commissioners present.
Packet Page 178
13
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
December 20, 2017
Page 5 of 7
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MALAK, SECOND BY VICE CHAIR FOWLER,
based on the record and the testimony presented, including the visual simulations, the PC hereby
recommends that the City Council amend the Zoning Map to designate the subject property as
being within a Tourist Commercial (C-T) Zone, consistent with its General Plan designation, but
not adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, based on potential significant environmental
impacts to aesthetics, specifically, blocking of views of Irish Hills and the scenic corridor, and
further recommends that the City Council not approve the creek exception. Motion passed 5-1-0
on the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS DANDEKAR, MALAK, OSTEBUR, VICE-CHAIR
FOWLER AND CHAIR STEVENSON
NOES: COMMISSIONERS BISHEFF
ABSENT: NONE
BUSINESS ITEM
5. Zoning Regulations Update. The Zoning Regulations Update is focused on implementing
the policies and programs of the Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE). This will be a
standing item on the Planning Commission agenda from June 14, 2017 through completion of
the Update of the Zoning Regulations, tentatively scheduled for completion in March
2018. This will be an opportunity for staff to update the Commission on the status of the
Zoning Regulations Update and for the Commission to listen to ongoing public testimony and
discuss any such updates as they come forward. As a standing item, sometimes there will be
nothing to report; other times staff will give a brief update with limited discussion; and at
certain points, such as review of the Land Use Table, Parking Requirements, and the
Reformatted Outline, there will be more substantive discussion on the item. When materials
are associated with the Update, as with the White Papers associated with the Update, such
information will be made available to the public and Commission prior to the meeting.
Specific Items for Consideration are:
1. Draft White Paper: Case Studies in Local Adult-Use and Medical Marijuana
Regulations
2. Alcohol Outlet Regulations Effectiveness Update (to inform implementation of Land
Use Element 4.32)
Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson, and Associate Planner Kyle Bell,
presented the staff report and responded to Commission inquiries.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Jody Belsher
Lisa Guy
Vivian Soul
Packet Page 179
13
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
December 20, 2017
Page 6 of 7
Gail Ryff
Mila Vujovich-LaBarre
John Belsher
Sean Donahue
--End of Public Comment--
The following discussions/questions were provided:
Local Adult Use and Medical Marijuana Regulations:
• Like to know what the State has done regarding regulatory control and what’s coming up
in the future to help better understand the issue.
• Highlight state regulations regarding this issue.
• Have we seen any expressed interest in cultivation, manufacturing and testing or is this
all about retail?
• Can the city regulate the type of goods sold? For example, candy and soda
• Is there other data we can obtain from other cities that allow the sale of cannabis?
• Concerned how we will decouple the physical and social impacts when we are trying to
determine size and location from schools and that we are reviewing this in a silo. Will
struggle with this when we don’t have all the information.
• Suggest that if there is time on the schedule in January for another study session to get
answers to some of the questions asked tonight.
• Is the State of California looking to form a bank to handle the money that other banks
won’t, since the money can’t be deposited in a federal bank.
• What sorts of facilities are we talking about and where they can be located. What are the
consequences on the street for enforcement. Feel very uneducated on this, would like to
hear from the Police Chief.
Alcohol licensing
Would like to hear from Chief Cantrell regarding experience in the downtown and incidents of
alcohol related crime which are significant.
Item 5 C through E were heard at this time.
3. Table 9 (Uses Allowed by Zone) Follow-up Discussion
4. Tentative Schedule for Zoning Regulations Update
5. Director Action and Use Permit Requirements
Doug Davidson, Deputy Director presented the staff report and responded to Commission
inquiries.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
Packet Page 180
13
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
December 20, 2017
Page 7 of 7
--End of Public Comment--
NO ACTION: Commissioners discussed and provided general direction.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
6. Agenda Forecast – Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson provided an
update of upcoming projects.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. The next Regular meeting of the Planning Commission
is scheduled for Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 6:00 p.m., in the location, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California.
APPROVED BY THE ADVISORY BODY NAME: 01/10/2018
Packet Page 181
13
AH1 - 5Packet Page 182
13
AH1 - 6Packet Page 183
13
AH1 - 7Packet Page 184
13
AH1 - 8 Packet Page 18513
AH1 - 9Packet Page 186
13
Meeting Date: 3/20/2018
FROM: Monica Irons, Director of Human Resources
Prepared By: Nickole Sutter, Human Resources Analyst II
SUBJECT: REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF LABOR RELATIONS OBJECTIVES
RECOMMENDATION
Review and approve draft updated Labor Relations Objectives (LRO) that will guide labor
negotiations with employee groups.
DISCUSSION
Background
During the 2011 Financial Plan process, Council publicly identified a financial objective that was
critical to the adoption of the 2011-13 Financial Plan. This financial objective, reducing
employee compensation in the General Fund by $2.6 million, resulted in LRO of reducing total
compensation by 6.8% and achieving significant progress in long-term systemic pension cost
containment and reductions. Sharing the LRO with employee groups and with the community
was helpful in focusing the negotiations that followed. Agreements reached with every employee
group reduced total compensation by 6.8% or more and a lower second tier retirement benefit
was implemented.
The City has a responsi bility and commitment to negotiate in good faith with its employee
representatives. LRO are overarching principles or policy direction that broadly define a desired
outcome, but do not prescribe how it will be achieved. Thus, as is the case with other general
policy direction, it is appropriate to discuss this aspect of the labor relations process in open
session. However, to abide by the laws that govern bargaining in good faith, the focus of the
open session discussion should be on establishing City-wide policy objectives, not plans,
proposals, or concepts specific to bargaining units or terms and conditions of employment.
Sharing LRO may help all employee groups by providing a common understanding between all
the parties involved in labor negotiations by allowing them to look at how specific proposals fit
with the overall Council objectives.
Achieving LRO may require time, trade-offs or incentives to achieve a negotiated agreement.
The specific authority that the City’s bargaining representatives ne ed to develop and exchange
proposals with an employee group is provided by Council as negotiating parameters in closed
session. To do otherwise could put the City at risk for an unfair labor practice charge.
On July 1, 2014 Council adopted a Fiscal Responsibility Philosophy (Attachment A). This
philosophy defines fiscal responsibility and establishes several tenants or considerations in
attempting to maintain it. Among these is a commitment to openness and transparency that
includes, to the extent legally possible, transparency in the labor relations process. This
objective combined with the benefits described above, lead to the adoption of LRO (Attachment
Packet Page 187
14
B) by Council in September 2014.
The LRO adopted in 2014 have guided ten successor agreements with six employee groups. In
anticipation of labor negotiations with four employee groups in spring/summer 2018 and the
significant increase in CalPERS retirement costs projected for the City, reviewing and updating
the LRO is timely.
Developing LRO
In drafting the 2014 LRO for Council consideration, staff kept with the same balanced themes
other agencies were using: 1) cost containment, 2) cost sharing, and, 3) recruitment and retention
strategies that include competitive compensation. The 2014 LRO work in concert with other City
policies such as Financial Management policies, the Compensation Philosophy (Attachment C),
and the City’s Fiscal Responsibility Philosophy. Themes within these policies include the City’s
commitment to make current expenditures with current revenues, allocate resources in alignment
with community needs and priorities, and address long-term liabilities including pension
obligations to maintain and enhance fiscal responsibility. Further these policies reiterate the
City’s commitment to providing competitive compensation as part of an overall strategy of
attracting and retaining well qualified employees who exemplify the City’s organizational
values, while avoiding any sort of formula that ties Council’s hands with respect to determining
“competitive compensation”. The Compensation Philosophy provides five considerations in
determining competitive compensation: i) financial sustainability, ii) community acceptability,
iii) the relevant labor market, iv) internal relationships, and v) other relevant factors.
The objectives are not listed in a manner that is meant to suggest weight or emphasis. Weight or
emphasis may be provided by staff to Council in the form of negotiating parameters during each
negotiation.
Recommended Updates to the LRO
In considering updates to the LRO, staff reached out to other cities and counties with LRO,
reviewed the LRO with labor relations counsel, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, and considered the
effectiveness of the LRO during the applicable labor negotiations and the challenges facing the
City in the next several years. Through the review process, the 2014 LRO (1 - 4) remain very
relevant overall. However, staff is recommending two additional LRO (5 and 6 below in italics)
be considered. With that in mind, staff recommends adding the following additions to the LRO:
1. Maintain fiscal responsibility by ensuring that fair and responsible employee
compensation expenditures are supported by on-going revenues.
2. Continue to make progress in the area of long-term systemic pension cost containment
and reduction, including reversing the unfunded pension liability trend and other actions
consistent with State law.
3. Continue to effectively manage escalating health benefit costs through balanced cost
sharing and other means while maintaining comprehensive health care coverage for all
eligible employees.
4. As necessary to attract and retain well qualified employees at all levels of the
organization, provide competitive compensation as articulated in the City’s
Compensation Philosophy, including relevant local, statewide or national labor markets.
Packet Page 188
14
5. Employee labor agreements will be negotiated in good faith, in a timely manner that
avoids retroactivity provisions unless there is a compelling need.
6. Contract provisions shall take into consideration the City’s ability to effectively and
efficiently implement and administer them using the City’s financial and human
resources systems to ensure accuracy and compliance with federal, state, and local laws.
The proposed additions document the City’s historical approach to negotiations and anticipate
the implementation of an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system fiscal year 2018 -19. The
ERP should significantly streamline the way the City does business including providing many
improvements in the area of personnel and payroll processing. The objectives encourage the
parties to work together efficiently and effectively and to discuss implementation to ensure
provisions can be accurately provided. Today, certain provisions cannot be automated within the
City’s payroll system, thus errors in calculations occur from time to time, causing rework and
frustration. Further, avoiding retroactivity avoids unanticipated financial impacts on prior
periods and serves to motivate the parties to work efficiently and effectively to reach agreement.
Steady Progress Towards LRO
Since adopting the LRO in 2014, the City has made steady progress on each of the four 2014
LRO. Labor relations cost estimates have been further refined through Human Resources and
Finance staff working closely and utilizing budget software. Labor costs are estimated and
considered in the context of on-going impacts to the City’s long-term fiscal forecast.
Pension cost containment and reduction has continued in keeping with the LRO. The chart
below outlines the percent of employees the City has by retirement formula (tier) with Tier 3
being the lowest benefit and Tier 1 being the highest benefit.
CalPERS
Retirement Tier
% of City
Employees
Tier 1 56%
Tier 2 11%
Tier 3 33%
Currently, 44% of the City’s workforce receive lower Tier 2 or 3 benefits. This number has
increased by 12% in the last two years due to attrition that allows new employees to receive
lower benefits. These lower benefit tiers are not expected to result in unfunded liabilities. All
City employees pay the full member contribution to CalPERS that varies between 6.25% and 9%
depending on the retirement plan and tier. Employees represented by the San Luis Obispo Police
Officers Association (SLOPOA) pay an additional 3% towards the Employer contribution to
CalPERS. The City does not participate in Social Security and thus employees are not required
to also make the 6.2% contribution to Social Security.
The City has also taken action to address the City’s unfunded liability. One-time payments in
the amount of $2.75 million have been made and a key component of the City’s proposed Fiscal
Health Response Plan (FHRP) is setting aside money to fund a Trust for the exclusive purpose of
paying down the unfunded liability. The FHRP will be presented to Council on April 17, 2018,
however, Council approved formation of the Trust on February 20, 2018 with an initial deposit
Packet Page 189
14
of $4.2 million.
The City contracts with CalPERS for medical plans and while premiums have increased steadily
over the past five years, they have not been as significant as other health plans due in part to
CalPERS purchasing power. Over the past five years, CalPERS medical plans have averaged an
increase of 9.2% for the most popular HMO plan and 2.9% for the most popular PPO plan for
family coverage. The City negotiates a contribution towards the cost of health insurance with all
employee groups that is typically modified annually by half of the average percent increase in
CalPERS medical plan costs. The 2018 monthly City contribution to family medical coverage
varies by bargaining unit from $1,442 to $1,499. The chart below summarizes the 2018 monthly
family coverage out of pocket expenses for employees and the percentage of insurance paid by
the City for the most popular HMO and PPO plans.
Percent of Health Insurance Paid by the City & 2018 Monthly
Family Coverage Employee Out of Pocket Expense
Most Popular City Plan
% Insurance
Paid with City
Monthly Out of
Pocket Expense
HMO Plan - United HealthCare 83% $ 296
PPO Plan - PERS Choice 74% $ 510
Since 2014, employees that elect family coverage have picked up an additional 11% of the total
cost for HMO plans and an additional 1% for PPO Plans in keeping with the objective of cost
sharing. A new, lower cost, medical plan was also introduced by CalPERS, providing more
options for employees.
The City continues to monitor the competitiveness of its compensation pursuant to the
Compensation Philosophy. A comprehensive Benchmark Compensation Study was conducted in
2014 and guided specific adjustments to compensation during following negotiations while
taking into account recruitment and retention challenges and fiscal responsibility. Classifications
with low turnover and strong applicant pools, may lag the market median, while classifications
with demonstrated hiring challenges and higher turnover, were likely to receive equity
adjustments to bring them close to market median.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The Fiscal Responsibility Philosophy is not a project as defined under the California
Environmental Quality Act and therefore not subject to CEQA.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no fiscal impacts associated with adopting Labor Relations Objectives. Fiscal impacts
will be identified as Council provides direction through negotiating parameters to staff in closed
session and will also be identified when proposed MOAs are presented to Council.
Packet Page 190
14
ALTERNATIVES
1. Council may choose to modify the LRO either at the meeting or through direction to staff. If
Council chooses to direct staff, staff requests specific direction regarding the desired
outcome.
2. Council may choose not to adopt the updated LRO and instead direct staff to continue using
the 2014 LRO or to forego LRO completely and simply provide negotiating parameters to
staff in closed session.
Attachments:
a - Fiscal Responsibility Philosophy
b - Labor Relations Objectives (Legislative Draft)
c - Compensation Philosophy
Packet Page 191
14
RESOLUTION NO. 10546 (2014 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ADOPTING ITS FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY PHILOSOPHY
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo strives to provide excellent service to the
community at all times, and believes fiscal responsibility is a means for promoting community
health and well - being; and
WHEREAS, the City has a robust financial planning process with a strong foundation of
citizen input and sound fiscal policies to ensure a balanced budget; and
WHEREAS, the City has used its fiscal health contingency plan as a means to
proactively reduce the negative impacts of economic downturns; and
WHEREAS, the City regularly examines its cost and revenue drivers and presents
updated fiscal forecasts to Council; and
WHEREAS, the City recognizes that personnel costs represent a significant portion of
the City's total expenditures and, as such, adopted a Compensation Philosophy and continues to
monitor, report, and propose means to effectively manage those costs; and
WHEREAS, the City will strive to achieve fiscal, economic and environmental
accountability and sustainability, as well as maintain a quality of life residents find desirable for
current and future generations; and
WHEREAS, ultimate accountability for the fiscal health of the community rests with the
elected City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo that the City's fiscal responsibility philosophy is adopted as follows:
SECTION 1. The City is committed to fiscal responsibility through good economic
times as well as economic downturns.
SECTION 2. Definition: Fiscal responsibility is the balanced approach to providing the
infrastructure, maintenance, and services that preserve and enhance the quality of life in our
community, as identified and prioritized through community input.
SECTION 3. In achieving and maintaining fiscal responsibility, the City commits to the
following:
A. Informed Decision - making. The City will identify and consider immediate and
long -term economic, social, and environmental impacts of all decisions considered by
the Council.
B. Shared responsibility. The City recognizes a shared responsibility between the
employee and employer to appropriately fund employee benefits, including pension
benefits. Ensuring an appropriate balance is a valuable tool in attracting and retaining
R 10546
Packet Page 192
14
Resolution No. 10546 (2014 Series)
Page 2
well qualified employees that deliver services to the community, while maintaining a
long -term, sustainable, and balanced budget.
C. Increased Transparency. The City will conduct all business, including labor
negotiations and other employee compensation matters, with transparency pursuant to
all applicable laws and regulations. The City will continue to develop tools, such as
key measures and dashboards that make information readily available to community
members in a timely and useful manner.
D. Aligned Investments. The City shall allocate resources in alignment with community
needs and priorities for maintaining and /or adding capital projects, assets, or services.
E. Diversified and Aligned Revenue Sources. The City will pursue diversified
revenue sources that are aligned with expenditures and community priorities.
F. Long -Term Unfunded Liabilities. The City will identify all long -term liabilities,
including unfunded pension obligations and strive to achieve a higher funded portion
of pension obligations; and shall manage all liabilities to maintain and enhance fiscal
responsibility.
G. Continued Efficiency and Effectiveness. The City will explore and implement
operational efficiencies including alternative service delivery, best management
practices, and cost containment measures while preserving effectiveness.
Upon motion of Council Member Smith, seconded by Council Member Ashbaugh,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members Ashbaugh and Smith, Vice Mayor Christianson
And Mayor Marx
NOES: Council Member Carpenter
ABSENT: None
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 1 st day of July 2014.
lud 4_
Mayor J2"rx'
T:
pWony J. ejit, CM
ity Clerk
APPR VED AS T RM:
J hristine Dietrick
City Attorney
Packet Page 193
14
Labor Relations Objectives
Adopted by Council September 23, 2014
Revised by Council March 20, 2018
1. Maintain fiscal responsibility by ensuring that fair and responsible employee
compensation expenditures are supported by on-going revenues. (Theme –
Fiscal Responsibility)
2. Continue to make progress in the area of long-term systemic pension cost
containment and reduction, including reversing the unfunded pension liability
trend and other actions consistent with State law. (Theme – Cost
Containment/Reduction)
3. Continue to effectively manage escalating health benefit costs through balanced
cost sharing and other means while maintaining comprehensive health care
coverage for all eligible employees. (Theme – Cost Containment)
4. As necessary to attract and retain well qualified employees at all levels of the
organization, provide competitive compensation as articulated in the City’s
Compensation Philosophy, including relevant local, statewide or national labor
markets. (Theme – Recruitment and Retention)
5. Employee labor agreements will be negotiated in good faith, in a timely manner
that avoids retroactivity provisions unless there is a compelling need. (Theme –
Cost Containment)
6. Contract provisions shall take into consideration the City’s ability to effec tively
and efficiently implement and administer them using the City’s financial and
human resources systems to ensure accuracy and compliance with federal,
state, and local laws. (Theme – Best Practices and Compliance)
Packet Page 194
14
RESOLUTION NO . 10248 (2011 Series )
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MODIFYING IT S
COMPENSATION PHILOSOPHY SUPERSEDING PREVIOU S
RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLIC T
WHEREAS,the City of San Luis Obispo strives to provide excellent service to th e
community at all times, and supports this standard by promoting organizational values includin g
customer service, productivity, accountability, innovation, initiative, stewardship, and ethics ; an d
WHEREAS,to achieve our service standards, the City must attract and retain wel l
qualified employees who exemplify our organizational values ; an d
WHEREAS,fostering an environment attractive to such employees depends upon man y
factors, including a competitive compensation program .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Lui s
Obispo that the City's compensation philosophy is adopted as follows :
SECTION 1 .The City is committed to providing competitive compensation as part o f
an overall strategy of attracting and retaining well qualified employees who exemplify ou r
organizational values .
SECTION 2 . The City will consider total compensation, including but not limited to ,
salary, health, retirement, and time off benefits .
SECTION 3 .In evaluating competitive compensation, the City considers :
A.Financial sustainability including the City's financial condition as reflecte d
throughout the financial forecast, competing service priorities, maintenance needs, capita l
improvement and other asset requirements, fund reserve levels, and revenue projections prior t o
implementing changes in compensation .
B.Community acceptability since taxpayers and ratepayers ultimately fund al l
employee compensation .
C.The "relevant labor market"that may vary depending upon classification and i s
primarily defined by the geographic region (local, state-wide, or national) and key market s
(municipal, other government agencies, private sector) where labor talent is found, recruite d
from, and/or lost.
When the relevant labor market is defined as "local"; local private sector compensation data wil l
be considered along with local public sector compensation (municipal and other governmen t
agencies . When the relevant labor market is statewide or national, the City will conside r
compensation date for public sector agencies (municipal and other government) with severa l
R 10248Packet Page 195
14
Resolution No . 10248 (2011 Series )
Page 2
comparable demographic data points including but not limited to population, median home price ,
median household income, median age, median education level, services provided, an d
unemployment rate . Quality of life should also be considered when selecting comparable
municipal and other government agencies .
D."Internal relationships"referring to the relative value of classifications to on e
another as determined by the City . Classifications performing comparable duties, wit h
comparable responsibilities, requiring a similar level of skill, knowledge, ability, and judgment ,
will be valued similarly in the City's compensation structures .
E.Other relevant factors may include unforeseen economic changes, natura l
disasters, states of emergency, changes in City services, and changes in regulatory or lega l
requirements .
SECTION 4 .At least every five years, the City will evaluate its compensation structure ,
programs, and policies to assess market competitiveness, effectiveness, and compliance with Stat e
Law . Adjustments to the compensation structure may be made as a result of this periodi c
evaluation and will be done through the collective bargaining process, if applicable, or othe r
appropriate Council-management processes .
Upon motion of Council Member Carter, seconded by Council Member Carpenter, and o n
the following vote :
AYES :
Council Members Carpenter, Carter and Smith, and Mayor Mar x
NOES :
Vice Mayor Ashbaug h
ABSENT : Non e
The foregoing resolution was adopted on March 15, 2011 .
ATTEST :
Elaina Cano
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM :
Packet Page 196
14
Meeting Date: 3/20/2018
FROM: Derek Johnson, City Manager
SUBJECT: DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT CLOSURE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT UPDATE AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH CONDUCTING
AN ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS / FINANCIAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
RECOMMENDATION
Receive an update on the status of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant closure settlement and
approve a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to contribute $90,000 of the estimated costs
associated with an Economic/Financial Impact Analysis and Regional Economic Strategy.
BACKGROUND
In response to the anticipated economic hardships of the planned closure, PG&E, the County, the
cities within the County; the San Luis Obispo Coastal School District (School District) and other
partners negotiated a settlement agreement that included the Community Impact Mitigation
Program (CIMP) that would bring $85 Million to the region to alleviate some of the impacts of
the Diablo retirement. Of that amount, $39 Million would be distributed among the county,
cities and community service districts to help offset projected impacts and another $10 Million to
form an economic development fund for the cities and county. Of that latter amount, $400,000
would be set aside for immediate economic planning.
In addition, Senate Bill 968 was signed in to law in 2015, approving a study (Monning Study) to
analyze the impacts of nuclear power plant closures. It was anticipated that funding for the
Monning Study would complement the $400,000, to provide a long-term economic and
workforce development strategy that addresses the various needs of the micro economies within
the County.
In an effort to ensure equitable consideration of the adverse impacts of the retirement on area
cities, the City joined the Coalition of Cities (Coalition) in September 2016. In collaboration
with our County and School District partners, the Coalition to helped negotiate the settlement
agreement with PG&E and advocate at the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), in
public forums and in the media to successfully move the agreement forward. The City of San
Luis Obispo served as the lead agency for the Coalition, assuming responsibility for management
of outside counsel, initial payment of legal fees and coordinating information and advocacy
efforts. The parties agreed at the initial formation of the Coalition that those legal costs would be
distributed across the agencies in equitable manner.
The settlement agreement was brought before the CPUC in the fall of 2017 as part of
proceedings related to the Joint Proposal. The Administrative Law Judge Peter V. Allen issued
an opinion unfavorable to the CIMP, stating in part that the CPUC did not have clear authority to
approve the CIMP in its decision. The final CPUC January 11, 2018 decision did not include
CIMP funding. The decision continues to be a disappointing outcome, as the decision severely
Packet Page 197
15
limits the region’s ability to address the impacts of Diablo Canyon’s closure.
DISCUSSION
In the process of joining the Coalition of Cities (Coalition), the City Managers agreed to an
operating framework whereby the cities within the Coalition spread the legal fees and fiscal and
economic impact study and strategy development costs equitably. In the framework, San Luis
Obispo served as the lead agency for legal representation of the Coalition, to argue on behalf of
the local communities for the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to approve the
settlement agreement. Additionally, the City of San Luis Obispo supported the development of a
funding contingency plan, which would be activated in the event that the Joint Proposal and
associated settlement agreement with PG&E was not supported by the CPUC.
In addition, according to the contingency plan, the City Managers agreed that they would
recommend funding an equitable portion of the fiscal and economic impact study and strategy
development. The total cost of the study and strategy development is expected to exceed
$1,000,000. The following table shows the expected amounts that each City and the County
Administrative Officer agreed to recommend to their respective Boards and Councils. The
amounts in the table below are subject to change based on whether these recommendations are
approved. At the time of this report, only the City of Arroyo Grande has yet to approve the staff
recommendation. Staff will update Council with the status of the other partners’ Council
approved recommendations.
Packet Page 198
15
While the Coalition works with the County and other partners to pursue an economic
development strategy, efforts are underway on various avenues to fund the CIMP. Currently, our
partners are pursuing a legislative response. A spot bill has been filed, which ultimately, if
successful, would provide funding for the CIMP to not only included developing a strategy, but
to also provide regional funding for the implementation of economic initiatives in line with this
strategy. City staff will keep Council informed on the bill’s progress through the legislative
process.
CONCURRENCES
The proposed action is consistent with the Guiding Principles, which were approved by the City
Council on July 19, 2016 (Attachment A).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Receiving an update on the Diablo Canyon Power Point closure settlement agreement and
contributing to the costs of an Economic / Financial Impact Analysis and Strategy Development
is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.
FISCAL IMPACT
The recommendation would provide up to $90,000 towards the overall cost of the study and
analysis. The City has $100,000 in funding available that can be allocated for this purpose at City
Manager authority. The Cities and Counties in San Luis Obispo County have agreed to fund
$627,0001. The City of Santa Maria has been approached to fund $135,000 which is their
proportional cost related to their budget, population, and number of Diablo employees that live
within their jurisdiction. This leaves approximately $300,000 in funding needed to fund both
direct consultant costs and estimated project management costs.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council could not support this recommendation. The recommendation is in line with
our regional partners to fund economic analysis and a regional economic strategic plan. This
plan is intended to align actions with our regional strengths and opportunities so that limited
resources are efficiently applied in to respond to the direct, indirect and induced economic
impacts related to the planned and approved timescale for the closure of the Diablo Canyon
Nuclear Power Plant.
1 The County has agreed to recommend $217,000 for phase 1 and $108,000 for phase 2. The Cities of San Luis
Obispo County have agreed to recommend $302,000 for both phases. The City of Santa Maria is considering
$135,000 towards the costs. If the Cit y of Santa Maria does not participate, the project costs will be reduced
proportionally.
Packet Page 199
15
Attachments:
a - Guiding Principles
b - Diablo Canyon Resolution
Packet Page 200
15
Packet Page 201
15
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2018 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
CONTRIBUTE $90,000 OF THE ESTIMATED COSTS ASSOCIATED
WITH AN ECONOMIC / FINANCIAL IMPACT ANALYSIS AND
REGIONAL ECONOMIC STRATEGY REGARDING THE CLOSURE OF
THE DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
WHEREAS, on August 11, 2016, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) filed its application
proposing to retire the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (DCNPP) upon the expirations of
applicable licenses to allow for the continued operation of the plant; and
WHEREAS, protests and responses to the Joint Proposal were filed and eventually the
Joint Proposal was amended with a settlement agreement. The settlement agreement adjusted the
Community Impact Mitigation Program (CIMP) and was reached with many parties and locally
included: The San Luis Coastal Unified School District, the County of San Luis Obispo, and The
Coalition of Cities; and
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2017 Administrative Law Judge, Peter V. Allen, released
the Proposed Decision regarding the Joint Proposal to close the DCNPP. The Proposed Decision
rejected the proposed CIMP and on January 11, 2018 the CPUC voted to not include the CIMP;
and
WHEREAS, in the process of joining the Coalition of Cities (Coalition), the City
Managers agreed to an operating framework providing for a funding contingency plan to be
activated in the event that the Joint Proposal and associated settlement agreement with PG&E was
not supported by the CPUC; and
WHEREAS, according to the contingency plan, the City Managers agreed that they would
recommend funding an equitable portion of the fiscal and economic impact study and strategy
development among the partner cities. The total cost of the study and strategy development is
expected to exceed $1,000,000 and the City of San Luis Obispo’s contributio n of that amount is
$90,000; and
WHEREAS, The City has $100,000 in funding available for this purchase that was
previously approved.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
that:
a) The City Manager is authorized to expend $90,000 to contribute to the City’s portion of
funding an Economic / Fiscal Impact Analysis and Regional Economic Strategy regarding the
closure of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant.
Packet Page 202
15
Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 2
R ______
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2018.
____________________________________
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 Page 203
15
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Page 204
15