HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-03-2018 Agenda Packet
Tuesday, April 3, 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
PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS ONLY
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS AND BUSINESS ITEMS
1. PUBLIC HEARING - WATER ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROJECT (MATTINGLY /
FLOYD / MEEKS – 60 MINUTES)
Recommendation:
1. Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, authorizing a services agreement with Pacific Gas and Electric
Company pursuant to California Government Code 4217.10 et seq., for the City’s Water
Energy Efficiency Project” which would consider the following:
a. Authorize the City to enter into an agreement to participate in Pacific Gas and
Electric Company’s (PG&E) Sustainable Solutions Turnkey Program for the
Water Energy Efficiency Project; and
b. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a service agreement, in a form subject
to the approval of the City Attorney, for the Water Energy Efficiency Project
pursuant to Government Code section 4217.10 et seq; and
c. Authorize the City Manager to execute a Work Order to implement the
Investment Grade Audit for the Water Energy Efficiency Project with the Work
Order amount not to exceed $860,000; and
2. Approve the transfer of $280,000 of unreserved working capital to fully fund the
Investment Grade Audit.
Packet Pg 1
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda April 3, 2018 Page 2
2. POLICE DEPARTMENT 2016/2017 CRIME REPORT COMPARISON AND
UPDATE (CANTRELL / SMITH – 60 MINUTES)
Recommendation:
Receive and file the 2016-2017 Police Department crime report.
ADJOURNED TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 3, 2018 TO BEGIN AT 6:00
PM IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER
Packet Pg 2
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda April 3, 2018 Page 3
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: Vice Mayor Carlyn Christianson
PRESENTATIONS
3. PROCLAMATION - MONTH OF THE CHILD AND CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION
MONTH (HARMON – 5 MINUTES)
4. PROCLAMATION - SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS MONTH (HARMON – 5
MINUTES)
5. PROCLAMATION - COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES (CASA) 25TH
ANNIVERSARY (HARMON – 5 MINUTES)
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA (not to exceed 15
minutes total)
The Council welcomes your input. You may address the Council by completing a speaker slip
and giving it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. At this time, you may address the Council
on items that are not on the agenda. Time limit is three minutes. State law does not allow the
Council to discuss or take action on issues not on the agenda, except that members of the
Council or staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons
exercising their public testimony rights (gov. Code sec. 54954.2). Staff may be asked to
follow up on such items
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.
Packet Pg 3
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda April 3, 2018 Page 4
6. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
(PURRINGTON)
Recommendation:
Waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.
7. MINUTES OF MARCH 12, 2018, MARCH 20, 2018 AND MARCH 21, 2018
(PURRINGTON)
Recommendation:
Approve the Minutes of the City Council meetings of March 12, 2018, March 20, 2018 and
March 21, 2018.
8. REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE 2017 GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL REPORT
(CODRON / VERESCHAGIN)
Recommendation:
As recommended by the Planning Commission, accept the 2017 General Plan Annual
Report.
9. WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY (WRRF) DESIGN SERVICES
CONTRACT AMENDMENT (MATTINGLY / HIX)
Recommendation:
1. Approve a contract amendment with CH2M, Inc. for $790,767 for completion of Design
Services for the Water Resource Recovery Facility Project, Spec. No. 91363; and
2. Approve transfer of $790,767 from the Sewer Fund working capital for the WRRF
project to the project account.
10. RESCHEDULE THE 2018 CITY COUNCIL MEETING CALENDAR (HERMANN /
PURRINGTON)
Recommendation:
Amend the 2018 City Council Meeting Calendar to reschedule the regular City Council
meeting of Tuesday, November 20, 2018 to Tuesday, November 27, 2018.
Continue to next page
Packet Pg 4
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda April 3, 2018 Page 5
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS AND BUSINESS ITEMS
11. PUBLIC HEARING – CAPITAL FACILITIES FEE PROGRAM UPDATE/NEXUS
STUDY (AB 1600) ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION AND WATER AND
WASTEWATER DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM (CODRON / FOWLER
– 120 MINUTES)
Recommendation:
1. Receive a presentation on the Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study, which
identifies various infrastructure projects associated with transportation, parkland and
park improvements, police, fire, and general government facilities, and calculates new
development’s fair share of the cost of these facilities; and
2. Consider recommended policy adjustments to reduce the fair share for new development
to ensure the feasibility of various development types, including multi-family and
smaller single-family units; and
3. Introduce an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San
Luis Obispo, California, amending the municipal code to establish Capital Facilities Fee
program and make related and conforming amendments to Chapter 4.56 (Ordinance No.
1256 (1994 Series)) to include the Capital Facilities Fee Program, and adopting CEQA
exemption findings”; and
4. Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, amending and establishing Capital Facilities Fee, also referred to as
Development Impact Fees”; and
5. Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, amending Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fees.”
COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
(Not to exceed 15 minutes) Council Members report on conferences or other City activitie s.
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).
Packet Pg 5
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda April 3, 2018 Page 6
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to a Special Meeting to be held on Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council
Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purposes of discussing
the Anholm Bike Plan and Zoning Regulations Update.
The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 4:30 p.m.
and 6:00 p.m., respectively, in the Council Hearing Room and 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 Pg 6
Meeting Date: 4/3/2018
FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director
Prepared By: Aaron Floyd, Deputy Director Water
Jason Meeks, Water Treatment Plant Operator
SUBJECT: WATER ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt a resolution to consider the following:
a. Authorizing the City to enter into an agreement to participate in Pacific Gas and Electric
Company’s (PG&E) Sustainable Solutions Turnkey Program for the Water Energy
Efficiency Project; and
b. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a service agreement, in a form subject to the
approval of the City Attorney, for the Water Energy Efficiency Project pursuant to
Government Code section 4217.10 et seq; and
c. Authorize the City Manager to execute a Work Order to implement the Investment Grade
Audit for the Water Energy Efficiency Project with the Work Order amount not to exceed
$860,000; and
2. Approve the transfer of $280,000 of unreserved working capital to fully fund the Investment
Grade Audit.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
In support of the City’s Climate Action goals, environmental stewardship and operational
efficiency, the Utilities Department participated in an energy assessment of its water operations,
including the water supply, treatment, and distribution systems. Leveraging the successful
public/private partnership established by the City’s previous 2012 Energy Efficiency Project at
the Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF), the Utilities Department engaged staff from
PG&E’s Sustainable Solutions Turnkey (SST) program to evaluate the feasibility of an energy
efficiency project focused on Water Division operations that would reduce energy consumption,
optimize the control of energy-consuming systems, and generate energy on-site from renewable
sources.
PG&E’s SST program is divided into four phases.
Sustainable Solutions Turnkey Program Phases Complete
1 Feasibility Discussion
2 Preliminary Energy Assessment
3 Investment Grade Audit
4 Finance and Implementation
To date, the City has participated with PG&E in the first two phases of the program at n o cost to
the City. Phase 3, the Investment Grade Audit (IGA), would provide the City further engineering
calculations and includes roughly 30 percent design of the identified projects in Phase 2.
Packet Pg 7
1
“To effectively address the immediate and long-term energy requirements of water infrastructure in urban
environments, a paradigm shift toward more sustainable management of water and energy use is critical.”
- American Water Works Association Journal, February 2018
Participating in Phase 3 would require an investment from the City of $860,000 and requires
Council approval of expenditures and an agreement with PG&E (Attachment A).
The proposed agreement with PG&E is atypical of the City’s contracting procedures defined in
Article IX, Section 901 of the City’s Charter. However, the City’s Charter, Article IX, Section
907 exempts energy projects and California Government Code Section 4217.10 et seq. allows the
City to forgo standard procurement processes for certain conservation energy projects if it finds
it best serves the City’s interest.
The City’s cost for the IGA will not exceed $860,000 and is proposed to be funded through the
transfer of funds from the appropriated Energy Efficiency project, the Water Treatment Plant
Major Equipment Maintenance account, and unreserved Water Fund working capital in order to
proceed with the Phase 3, 30 percent design of the Water Energy Efficiency Project.
The City identified Climate Action as one of its four Major City Goals in its 2017-2019 Financial
Plan. A “Major City Goal” is defined as the most important, highest priority goals for the City to
accomplish over the next two years. The key elements stated for this goal include implementing
the 2012 Climate Action Plan, assessing the requirements to achieve a “net-zero carbon City”
target, and implementing cost-effective measures. Documents and policies that support the City’s
participation in the SST Program include the Climate Action Major City Goal in the City’s 2017-
19 Financial Plan, policies from the General Plan’s Conservation and Open Space Element, 2012
Climate Action Plan, and the Utilities Department Strategic Plan.
DISCUSSION
Background
In 2017, the City spent over $2 million on electricity. For its
part, the Utilities Department spends approximately $1.2
million each year for electricity; one of the largest users being
the Water Division. The Water Division treats and delivers an
average of 4.9 million gallons of water each day at an annual
electricity cost of $625,000. The City Council has previously
supported actions to reduce energy usage, and associated costs,
throughout the Utilities Department. The City’s focus on
continuous improvement supports this holistic approach to
environmental and fiscal sustainability of the City’s provision
of utilities.
Inspired by information received at several conferences, trade
Packet Pg 8
1
journals, and the successes of the (WRRF) SST project in 2012, staff realized the potential to
achieve greater energy efficiency within the Water Division. An
underlying factor is the desire of staff to create sustainable
facilities within the Water Division that could showcase the
commitment to the triple bottom line as identified in the
Utilities Department Strategic Plan and aligned with the
City’s commitment to Climate Action.
Focused on putting together a project that reflected the
City’s fiscal, social, and environmental
commitment to sustainability, staff began
gathering information on ways to lower energy
costs and air pollution emissions associated with
treating and delivering water. All operations
staff were included at the origin of this project,
therefore information from a wide array of
sources and experience was brought to the
discussion table. Through extensive professional
networking, staff met with several leaders in the utilities
energy field. These meetings helped to determine what was proving most effective in meeting
the goals of sustainability in the water industry.
In July 2016, Utilities staff contacted PG&E to investigate the City’s potential opportunity to
renew participation in the SST program and other available program funds or incentives. This
action resulted in various groups touring and commenting on potential projects at the Water
Treatment Plant and Water Distribution facilities. PG&E (2016), San Luis Obispo County
Energy Watch (2017), and Southland Energy (2017) were some of the entities that performed
assessments. The information provided by this diverse group of experts allowed staff to develop
an understanding of the potential for future energy upgrades to Water Division faci lities.
Equipped with the information from the various energy efficiency evaluations, City staff and
PG&E began the process of looking for opportunities to simultaneously lower energy demands,
take advantage of energy efficiency knowledge, address aging and inefficient infrastructure, and
build upon the success realized in the 2012 WRRF project using PG&E’s SST program.
The SST program is a turn-key design, construction, and financing program which had initially
only been available to federal institutions. In 2012, PG&E was looking for an opportunity to
expand the successful program to the municipal sector through a partnership with a motivated
city, such as San Luis Obispo. The City’s 2012 WRRF project was PG&E’s inaugural
implementation of the SST program at the municipal level and has been at the forefront of this
program's successful expansion to other municipalities throughout PG&E’s service territory.
From the successful foundation established with the City of San Luis Obispo, the SST program
continues to offer turn-key energy projects for cities and Counties territory-wide. As of January
2018, PG&E has completed a master contract with the State Department of General Services
(DGS) to provide comprehensive energy services to qualifying state agencies. Notable SST
engagements include cities such as San Rafael, Santa Maria, Orange Cove and the counties of
San Mateo, Santa Cruz, and San Luis Obispo.
Packet Pg 9
1
PG&E SST Program Overview
PG&E’s SST program involves a unique approach that allows streamlined solutions for
implementing energy conservation projects. The goal of the SST program is to implement energy
saving projects at facilities and use the money saved from reduced energy consumption and
operational maintenance costs to pay the debt service for the design and construction of the
project. The SST program would allow the City to finance the entire project by this method or to
pay for part of it out of existing funds and/or finance the remainder.
The SST program is divided into four phases described in Table 1. The first two phases of the
Program are provided at no cost to the participant. After each phase, participants determine if the
Program meets the organization’s objectives and a decision is made on whether to continue to
the next phase.
Table 1. Sustainable Solutions Turnkey Program Outline
Public/Private Partnership
There are advantages to partnering with PG&E for an energy efficiency project. As the City’s
local energy provider, it has access to all relevant billing rate structure information and available
incentives. PG&E benefits from these projects by being able to add renewable/sustainable
projects to its energy portfolio which defers the expense of building future electricity sources.
Packet Pg 10
1
City Participation to Date
With its previous work at the federal, state and local level, PG&E has gone through a thorough
selection process to contract with experts related to the energy field. As engineering firms with
expertise in water utilities, and with a focus on energy efficiency, Southland Energy and Michael
K. Nunley and Associates (MKN), were selected by PG&E to provide the engineering services
required for these projects. In July of 2016, staff from the City initiated Phase 1 of the program
by meeting with PG&E and the project team to discuss the feasibility of partnering on another
energy project. In discussions, City staff shared their desire to meet several citywide and Utilities
Department goals and objectives (discussed in more detail later in the report), elements of the
Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan (Water Master Plan) and identified
Water Treatment Plant capital improvement projects with an energy efficiency nexus which
could be addressed as part of the evaluation process.
Based on the Feasibility Discussion (Phase 1), the City, PG&E, Southland Energy, and MKN
began Phase 2 by developing a Preliminary Energy Assessment (Attachment B) to identify the
most economical and viable energy projects for the City to undertake. The assessment process
was strengthened by the institutional knowledge of City staff from all the Utilities Department’s
Water Division facilities, the City’s Sustainability Manager, and SLO County Energy Watch.
Based on the assessments, City staff, PG&E, Southland Energy, and MKN worked together to
identify potential energy efficiency projects at the Water Treatment Plant and Water Distribution
facilities. To be considered viable, a potential project was required to meet the following criteria:
1. Projects must adhere to the concepts of being both environmentally and
fiscally sustainable.
2. Projects must target upgrades and retrofits for the Water Treatment Plant and
Water Distribution facilities that reduce energy consumption, improve the
condition of the facilities and infrastructure, and improve operational
resiliency and efficiency.
3. Projects needed to be evaluated on their impact to the entire water treatment
and distribution process, as opposed to being studied individually, so that
maximum efficiency could be realized.
4. Identify paths and solutions that move the City toward its Climate Action
goals and being a Zero Net Energy (ZNE) utility consumer.
City staff assisted in data collection for the draft Preliminary Energy Assessment (PEA) and
reviewed the report for accuracy. Completed in March of 2018, the PEA identified the most
viable projects in a package type proposal. The final PEA includes 12 individual projects varying
from replacement of the primary water disinfection system (ozone generation) at the Water
Treatment Plant, installation of electricity hydro-generation on the Nacimiento Reservoir water
supply line, and the installation of photovoltaic generation sites. The majority of the projects
being considered for incorporation into the proposed Water Energy Efficiency Project have been
previously identified and budgeted for as Capital Improvement Projects as part of the 2017 -19
Financial Plan. Based on the estimated costs identified in the PEA, final project costs are
projected to be between $15 to $20 million dollars. It is important to note that not all identified
PEA projects can be expected to be included in the final proposed project list. The final list of
proposed projects will be vetted through the Triple Bottom Line and comprised of thos e Energy
Packet Pg 11
1
Conservation Measures that provide the greatest efficiencies, address failing infrastructure issues
critical to supplying drinking water to the community, and are within a cost range that can be
supported by the Water Fund.
The finalized PEA document completed Phase 2 of the SST Program. This proposal was
prepared at no cost to the City and provided a comprehensive review of potential energy
reduction strategies by experienced and highly qualified engineering firms in the utilities
industry. Typically, feasibility study costs related to any design and construction project would
be incurred by the City.
Next Steps
Participation in Phase 3 of the SST Program would involve the City entering into an agreement
and negotiating the terms of a Work Order with PG&E to fund the development of the
Investment Grade Audit (IGA). Based on the initial proposal (Attachment C) provided by
PG&E, the City’s portion of the cost for an IGA will not exceed $860,000. The overall cost of
the IGA is in line with industry standards (10 to 15 percent of project cost) related to design. The
proposal will be used to develop the Work Order which will include the final scope and the terms
and conditions for the work to be performed.
This phase of the program, and the associated costs, would provide further engineering
calculations and would include a 30-percent design of the identified projects. The IGA would be
a more in-depth evaluation of the implementation costs of the project, including utility rebates
and incentives, and potential energy savings. This part of the program is considered a partial
design and a final project proposal, a typical step in any construction project. The IGA will
require City funding to complete but does not commit the City to the final design and
construction component of the SST Program.
Once completed, the City would own the 30-percent design documents generated during this
phase, thereby creating a tool to assess the individual components of the energy project. The IGA
can also serve as a marketing tool to secure outside funding if necessary. In addition, the IGA
would provide the City with a set of documents that could be used for the energy efficiency
component of the Water Master Plan and identified Water Treatment Plant Capital Improvement
Projects should the Council elect not to continue to Phase 4 of the SST program. The IGA can be
used on a stand-alone basis or used as a comparison and value-added feature for the future design
and upgrades at the facility.
Phase 4 of the program would involve making a final decision on which of the proposed projects
to move forward with based on the IGA. The final design and construction would be included in
the Phase 4 costs. Staff would return to the City Council with a complete Phase 4 project
package proposal including funding options for the Council’s consideration. If approved, sub-
contractors would be hired on a bid for proposal basis and construction of the accepted projects
would commence.
Alternate Procurement Process for Energy Services
The proposed agreement with PG&E is atypical of the City’s contracting procedures which are
defined in the City’s Charter in Article IX, Section 901, and Municipal Code Chapter 3.24. In a
Packet Pg 12
1
typical scenario, the City would identify a project, solicit proposals for project design, bid the
project, then award a construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder.
California Government Code 4217.10 et seq. however, provides a separate statutory basis for
alternate delivery for certain energy conservation project services if the City finds it best serves
the City’s interest. Based on the cost and payback period on investment and the long-term benefit
to the City’s water ratepayers, it is recommended the City Council adopt such findings to support
the continued participation in the SST Program (Phase 3).
Included in this report is a proposed resolution (Attachment D) and service agreement that
supports energy efficiency and energy upgrades utilizing the procurement process allowed by
California Government Code 4217.10.
Supporting Policies and Documents
The City has guiding policies that set the course for the organization in terms of energy
efficiency and conservation. The proposed Water Energy Efficiency Project is supported by
several of these guiding documents.
City Goal:
Climate Protection: Implement greenhouse gas reduction and Climate Action Plan. Conduct
energy audits of all city facilities, increase energy conservation, invest in infrastructure which
will save energy and funds in the future.
General Plan, Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) Policies:
COSE 4.3.1: The City will employ the best available practices in energy conservation,
procurement, use and production, and will encourage individuals, organizations and other
agencies to do likewise.
COSE 4.3.2: City Buildings and facilities will be operated in the most energy-efficient manner
without endangering public health and safety and without reducing public safety or service
levels.
COSE 4.3.3: The City will continue to identify energy efficiency improvement measures to their
greatest extent possible, undertake all necessary steps to seek funding for their implementation
and, upon securing availability of funds, implement the measures in a timely manner.
COSE 4.6.11: The City will actively seek all available sources of funding for implementing
energy efficiency improvement and utilities infrastructure renewal projects, including federal
and state budget appropriations, federal, state and private sector grant opportunities, utilities
and other unique public/private sector financing arrangements.
2012 Climate Action Plan:
The City’s Climate Action Plan in response to AB 32: The Global Warming Solutions Act. The
Climate Action Plan contains a strategy directing energy efficient improvements be made to the
City’s Utilities infrastructure. In addition to this work effort, the City is also implementing new
Title 24 Energy Efficient Standards and CALGreen Building Standards; making upgrades to City
Packet Pg 13
1
facilities such as the Water Treatment Plant and Water Distribution Facilities; and participating
with the Local Government Commission to develop strategies to adapt to climate change in the
future.
Utilities Strategic Plan – Outcome Oriented Goals:
Infrastructure
Goal: The Department will have a clear understanding of its long-range infrastructure
requirements and a plan to address them.
Objective: Increase planning efforts that identify and address infrastructure improvements
considering impacts to economic, environmental, and long-term factors.
Stewardship
Goal: The Department will be recognized by regulators, the public, and all stakeholders as an
effective steward of natural and fiscal resources.
Objective: Expand the identification and implementation of practices that increase the
conservation of all-natural resources.
CONCURRENCES
The Finance Department and City’s Sustainability Manager concur with the contracting
procedures recommended in this report. This report has also been reviewed by the San Luis
Obispo County Energy Watch Program.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Participation in the Water Energy Efficiency Project’s Investment Grade Audit is exempt from
environmental review as a Statutory Exemption under Section 15262, Feasibility and Planning
Studies (CEQA Guidelines). Projects identified in the Investment Grade Audit will need future
authorization and environmental review prior to actual project funding and construction.
FISCAL IMPACT
The cost to proceed with the IGA (Phase 3 of the SST Program) will not exceed $860,000.
Many of the ECMs identified are components of the Water Treatment Plant Energy Efficiency
Project and Water Treatment Plant – Major Facility Maintenance projects adopted as part of the
2017-19 Financial Plan such as:
• ECM 1 – Hydropower Generation
• ECM 2 – Ozone System Upgrade
• ECM 3 – Transfer Pump Station Backup Power
• ECM 4 – Transfer Pump Station Upgrades
• ECM 11 –SCADA Controls and Upgrades
• ECM 13 –Water Distribution System Upgrades
Packet Pg 14
1
As this project will result in upgrades and efficiencies of the processes and equipment at the
Water Treatment Plant and Water Distribution facilities, it is recommended that funding
associated with the IGA is allocated from the following three sources.
1. Previously appropriated $447,500 capital funding for Water Energy Efficiency Project
study and design identified in the 2017-19 Financial Plan.
2. Transfer of $132,500 of available budget from the Water Treatment Plant Major
Equipment Maintenance account identified in the 2017-19 Financial Plan. The
recommended funds were programmed for the replacement of the existing ozone
compressor. It had been anticipated in the 2017-19 Financial Plan that a cost savings
could be recognized if this project were to be included as part of the proposed energy
efficiency project. The WTP Major Equipment Maintenance account has an available
balance of $395,999.
3. Allow the use of $280,000 of working capital to fully finance the project.
2017-2018 Financial Plan
Available
Budget
Funding
Request
Water Energy Efficiency Project Study and Design $447,500 $447,500
Water Treatment Plant Major Equipment Maintenance $395,999 $132,500
Unreserved Working Capital $9,217,105 $280,000
Additional ECMs in this project associated with Phase 3 are related to the implementation of
energy efficiency elements identified in the Water Master Plan and anticipated Water Treatment
Plant capital improvement projects that will accelerate critical infrastructure replacement. This
will allow the City to start receiving financial benefit from reduction in energy use more rapidly
if incorporated into the broader Water Energy Efficiency Project, as opposed to being broken
into smaller projects to be accomplished at a later point in time.
If the City opts to not continue with additional stages of the SST program beyond the IGA, the
City will maintain ownership of the 30% design documents and may proceed with conventional
project delivery methods.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Deny the request to participate in the PG&E Sustainable Solutions Turnkey Program.
Council should only select this alternative if it feels this public/private partnership will not
provide a quality, cost effective project and is not in the best interest of the community. The
recommended action will allow the City to operate its enterprise fund in a successful business
model and pursue projects it already needs to accomplish in partnership with private
companies.
2. Pursue a standard engineering services procurement process. If the Council agrees with
Packet Pg 15
1
the preliminary scope of the project, it could direct staff to pursue a standard engineering
services procurement process. This action would delay energy cost savings as project
implementation would be deferred while a project package for bidding purposes was
developed. A significant amount of quality design work has been accomplished at no cost to
the City up to this point. As a reminder, in order to realize energy savings as soon as possible
through these types of programs, California Government Code Section 4217 supports
forgoing standard procurement processes for energy services.
Attachments:
a - SST Master Services Agreement (June 2016)
b - Preliminary Energy Assessment (PEA)
c - Investment Grade Audit (IGA) Scope
d - Resolution
Packet Pg 16
1
Agreement No: SST-XXXXX
(Customer name)
Ver 3.0 (April 2014)
Page 1 of 13
SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Services Agreement is made and entered into as of ______________, ______ (“Effective
Date”) by and between ________________________, a ___________________with offices at
________________ (“Customer”) and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, a California corporation, with
offices at 77 Beale Street, San Francisco, California 94105 (“PG&E”). Customer and PG&E shall each
individually be referred to as a “Party” and together constitute the “Parties.”
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Customer desires assistance in implementing energy conservation and management
services and other energy-related projects and services at one or more of its facilities located in PG&E’s
service territory;
WHEREAS, PG&E desires to assist Customer implement the energy conservation measures as
more fully set forth herein; and
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and agreements
set out in this Agreement, Customer and PG&E agree as follows:
1. DEFINITIONS. In addition to those definitions set forth elsewhere in this Agreement, the following
capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth below:
1.1 “Agreement” shall mean this Agreement, and all such Agreement’s Exhibits, Work Orders and
Change Orders, all of which are incorporated herein; as such Agreement, Exhibits, Work Orders or
Change Orders may be amended, changed or modified from time to time.
1.2 “Change” shall mean: (a) any material addition to, deletion from, suspension of or other
modification that materially affects the design, configuration, quality, or function of the Project or the
Services; (b) a change or modification to or repeal of an applicable law after the Effective Date, (c) delay
or other demonstrable material adverse impact to the Work Order resulting from a Force Majeure Event,
or (d) any applicable performance or compliance requirement which Customer may newly articulate or
revise during the Term.
1.3 “Change Order” shall mean a written document signed by the Parties that describes a Change to
the Scope of Work or Work Order, and authorizes and directs PG&E to perform such Change. The
Change Order may also authorize the additional compensation, if any, to be paid PG&E to perform such
Change.
1.4 “Energy Conservation Measures” or “ECM” means an energy conservation measure which may
include a feasibility study, engineering and design (e.g., IGA), operation and maintenance.
1.5 “Investment Grade Audit” or “IGA” shall mean the detailed analysis of all or a portion of a
Facility to determine the technical and financial feasibility of implementing, operating and maintaining
one or more ECMs at such Facility.
1.6 “Equipment” shall mean all of the equipment, machinery, technology and other items described
in the applicable Work Order.
Packet Pg 17
1
Agreement No: SST-XXXXX
(Customer name)
Ver 3.0 (April 2014)
Page 2 of 13
1.7 “Facility(ies)” shall mean the above-ground buildings and related premises owned or leased by
Customer as set forth in the applicable Work Order.
1.8 “Force Majeure Event” shall mean any cause, act, event, condition or other occurrence materially
impacting the Services or the Project Schedule not caused by the Party asserting the Force Majeure Event
and that is beyond the control of such Party to avoid, overcome or re medy through the exercise of due
diligence and reasonable efforts. Without limiting the foregoing, the following are examples of Force
Majeure Events: acts of God and the public enemy; the relocation, repair, shut down, or construction of
PG&E transmission or distribution facilities; flood, earthquake, tornado, storm, fire, power failures,
epidemics, civil disobedience, labor disputes, shortage of components and supplies.
1.9 “Hazardous Materials.” Any hazardous, toxic or dangerous wastes, substances, chemicals,
constituents, contaminants, pollutants, and materials, including without limitation, asbestos -containing
equipment or materials, lead-based paint, ozone depleting refrigerants, fluorescent tubes, fluorescent
magnetic core and coil ballasts, carcinogenic, corrosive, ignitable, radioactive, and reactive or otherwise
hazardous substances or mixtures (whether solids, liquids, or gases) now or at any time subject to
regulation, control, removal, remediation or otherwise addressed under applicable law or under PG&E's
CPUC-approved rules.
1.10 “Material Changed Condition” shall mean the unforeseeable or unanticipated discovery of the
presence of Hazardous Materials or other unanticipated or unforeseeable condition or circumstance, at or
near a Facility or Project site that has occurred or has been discovered after the Services has commenced
that materially impacts the Schedule, the Services or PG&E's costs to perform the Services, was not
caused by PG&E and that PG&E could not have discovered through the exercise of reasonable due
diligence. Only by way of example, a Material Changed Condition includes but is not limited to (i)
Hazardous Materials or other differing and unexpected site conditions, surface or subsurface conditions,
(ii) adverse weather conditions unusual to the area where the Services is to be performed and that could
not have been anticipated and that materially impacts the Services or Project Schedule; or (iii)
unforeseeable material delays in Equipment, material deliveries or the availability of labor that materially
impacts the Services or Project Schedule.
1.11 “Project” shall mean energy efficiency, energy conservation, energy management, energy
production or other energy-related measures or projects; or any other energy-related matter, measure or
project that is, or will become, the subject of a Work Order.
1.12 “Project Schedule” shall mean the estimated commencement date, sequence, duration, and, if
appropriate, milestones, for Substantial Completion of the Project as set forth in the Work Order.
1.13 “Services” mean, collectively all activities to be performed by PG&E pursuant to this Agreement
to complete a Project, including, without limitation, preliminary and/or IGA, design, Equipment or
materials procurement, construction, installation, testing, completion, maintenance and operation of a
Project. Services shall also include all labor, work, Equipment fabrication, assembly, modification, repair
and replacement, and other activities as the Parties may agree upon and are set forth in a Work Order.
1.14 “Scope of Work” shall mean all of the Services to be performed by PG&E and/or its
Subcontractors pursuant to the terms and conditions of a Work Order, and any Change Orders to a Work
Order, as well as all other efforts of PG&E and other entities with respect to such Work Order, for the
implementation of an ECM alone or as part of a Project pursuant to the terms and conditions of this
Agreement and as specifically described in each Work Order and applicable Change Orders.
Packet Pg 18
1
Agreement No: SST-XXXXX
(Customer name)
Ver 3.0 (April 2014)
Page 3 of 13
1.15 “Subcontractor” shall mean any corporation, limited liability company, partnership, association,
or individual hired by PG&E to perform Services.
1.16 “Substantial Completion” shall mean the Project is generally capable of being used for or of
achieving the purpose intended by the Work Order.
1.17 “Work Order” means the document executed by both Parties to complete the Services identified
in such Work Order. Each Work Order shall be subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and
the terms and conditions set forth in such Work Order. If there is a conflict between the Work Order or
Change Orders and the terms and conditions of this Agreement, such Work Order/Change Order shall
take precedence and shall establish the Scope of Work of each Project.
2. SCOPE. This Agreement sets forth the terms and conditions under which PG&E may assist
Customer implement ECMs at one or more of Customer’s Facilities through Work Orders. This
Agreement sets forth the terms and conditions under which Work Orders may be entered into by the
Parties. All Work Orders shall be subject to and governed by this Agreement.
3. RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES.
3.1 Independent Contractors. The Parties are independent contractors. Nothing herein shall
be construed as creating any agency, partnership, or other form of joint enterprise between the Parties and
neither Party may create any obligations or responsibilities on behalf of the other Party.
3.2 Subcontractors. PG&E may subcontract its obligations hereunder to other persons or
entities in order to perform the Services hereunder. PG&E agrees to impose on its Subcontractors
obligations consistent with those set forth in this Agreement with respect to safety, security,
confidentiality, insurance and indemnification. The fees and costs billed to Customer shall be inclusive of
any and all fees and compensation due to any Subcontractors.
3.2.1 Subcontractor Selection. PG&E may perform some or all of the Services under a
Work Order itself or through Subcontractors. Subcontractor selection shall be based on cost, experience,
past performance, reliability and such other factors as practicably related to the Customer’s needs.
3.3 Project Management.
3.3.1 Authorized Persons. Customer and PG&E will each designate an employee who
is sufficiently experienced to provide the information and support necessary to the other party for the
performance of this Agreement (the “Authorized Person”). The Authorized Person for each party shall be
the primary point of contact for inquiries and requests. Each such Authorized Person shall provide the
other with such information and assistance as may be reasonably requested by the other from time to time
for the purpose of the performance of this Agreement.
3.3.2 Approvals. The Authorized Person for each party will have the authority to
issue, execute, receive, grant and provide any and all approvals, requests, notices and other
communications permitted, required or requested by the other party; provided, however, that neither
Customer nor PG&E shall rely for any purpose on any oral communication not confirmed in writing by
an Authorized Person within twenty-four (24) hours, and provided however, that neither Customer nor
PG&E shall rely for any purpose on any oral communication which would have the effect of amending
this Agreement.
Packet Pg 19
1
Agreement No: SST-XXXXX
(Customer name)
Ver 3.0 (April 2014)
Page 4 of 13
4. SERVICES.
4.1 General. Customer may request that PG&E assist Customer in the implementation of one
or more of the ECMs at set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference
herein.
4.1.1 Preliminary Audit. At Customer’s written request, PG&E or its Subcontractor
will conduct, at no cost to Customer, a preliminary audit consisting of an on-site building investigation and
evaluation for a mutually agreeable Facility to determine if any significant energy conservation
opportunities exist and whether a further IGA is needed.
4.1.2 Investment Grade Audit. After reviewing the Preliminary Audit, the Parties may
enter into a Work Order setting forth a Scope of Work for an “IGA to determine whether the ECMs
proposed in the Preliminary Audit are feasible. The Work Order for the IGA shall specify the terms for
completing the IGA and establish a price for the IGA. Customer shall pay for the IGA in accordance with
the payment terms of this Agreement and the applicable Work Order. Unless otherwise agreed upon in the
Work Order for the IGA, Customer shall provide PG&E, at Customer’s sole cost and expense, legible and
complete copies of all floor plans, drawings and any other documents deemed necessary by PG&E in order
to provide the IGA.
4.1.3 Design and Implementation Phase. Upon completion of the IGA, PG&E will
provide an ECM implementation proposal, which would include additional design, engineering and
construction services (the “Proposal”). Customer shall evaluate the Proposal for technical and price
reasonableness. If Customer elects to proceed with the ECM, the Parties will agree upon a Scope of Work
with specifications, time of performance, ECM cost, source and cost of capital or financing, payment
terms, amortization schedule and termination schedule which shall be set forth in a Work Order. If
required, PG&E will provide acceptable payment and performance bonds.
4.1.4 Assumptions. Customer understands that performance of the Services is
dependent upon Customer’s cooperation. Therefore, Customer agrees to use its best efforts to cooperate
with PG&E in the performance of the Services and shall provide PG&E with timely access to, during
normal business hours, and use of Customer’s personnel, facilities, data, Equipment, materials and
information to the extent necessary for PG&E to perform the Services. Customer acknowledges and
agrees that Work Orders may set forth additional details regarding PG&E’s access to and use of the
foregoing as well as Customer’s computer systems and networks.
4.2 Changes and Change Orders. If a Change has occurred the Parties shall, if reasonably
possible, agree on a Change Order. If the Parties are unable to agree on a Change Order, PG&E shall
suspend its performance of the Services including the Change, until such time as the Parties’
disagreement has been resolved pursuant to Section 11 (Dispute Resolution).
4.2.1 Material Changed Condition. PG&E will give written notice to Customer of the
discovery of Hazardous Materials on or near a Facility, or other condition or circumstance PG&E or its
Subcontractor believes to be a Material Changed Condition. Neither PG&E nor its Subcontractor will
remove, remediate, repair or otherwise disturb any site, soil, subsurface conditions, Hazardous Materials
or other adverse impacts on the Services or the Facility until Customer has had a reasonable opportunity
to investigate to determine whether a Material Changed Condition has occurred. If Customer reasonably
determines a Material Changed Condition has occurred, the Parties will, if reasonably possible, agree on a
Change Order with respect to such Material Changed Condition. If the Parties fail to agree on a Change
Packet Pg 20
1
Agreement No: SST-XXXXX
(Customer name)
Ver 3.0 (April 2014)
Page 5 of 13
Order relating to a Material Changed Condition, PG&E shall suspend Services until such time as the
Parties have resolved the disagreement pursuant to Section 11 (Dispute Resolution).
(a) Handling and Disposal of Hazardous Materials. Customer acknowledges and
agrees that PG&E has no obligation to investigate or inspect the Facility for the presence of Hazardous
Materials, or to identify, remove, dispose of, abate, or remediate Hazardous Materials. Customer shall
have sole responsibility for the identification, removal, disposal, abatement or remediation of Hazardous
Materials, and for the clean-up, transport and disposal of any fixtures, materials, Equipment, or
substances containing, exposed to or contaminated by Hazardous Materials, all in accordance with
applicable laws.
4.2.2 Unanticipated Conditions. If any unusual or unanticipated conditions exist or
arise at the Site (such as Hazardous Materials, environmental conditions or pollution), which conditions
would involve the incurrence by PG&E of any expenses to correct such conditions, PG&E shall submit a
written request to Customer for Customer’s prior written approval of the corrective work and payment of
the related expenses. The additional Services resulting therefrom will be set forth in a Change Order
signed by both Parties.
4.2.3 Safety Waiver and Repair Services. If in the process of performing the Services,
a condition is discovered at the Facility that, in the sole judgment of PG&E, (a) represents an extreme
safety hazard to its worker’s safety or other personnel, (b) may cause operational failure of the Equipment
comprising the Facility, or (c) may cause damage to other Equipment being served by the Facility, PG&E
will immediately notify Customer in writing of such condition and the Services necessary to remedy the
condition. Customer will be asked to sign this written notification in the form of Exhibit B (Safety
Waiver). Failure or refusal to sign the Safety Waiver will relieve PG&E and its Subcontractors of any
responsibility to perform the Services.
4.2.4 Customer Delay. If the performance of particular Services by PG&E depends
upon approvals or other decisions by Customer, or Customer furnishing particular data, drawings,
documents or other information, and Customer does not timely perform or provide the same, the
minimum time estimate for PG&E's completion of the particular Services which are dependent thereon
shall be extended by the period of Customer's delay with respect thereto.
4.2.5 Change Costs. Customer shall reimburse PG&E for those reasonable costs
incurred by PG&E or its Subcontractor(s) to implement a Change in accordance with the Change Order.
These costs include, but are not necessarily limited to, increased costs for design and other professional
services, expenses and taxes, if any.
4.2.6 With respect to any Change Order made in accordance with this Section 4,
Customer acknowledges that PG&E and its Subcontractors shall not be obligated to commence and/or
perform any Services pursuant to a Change Order unless and until PG&E has received the signed Chan ge
Order and Customer has issued PG&E a Work Order for such Change Order.
4.3 PG&E’s Utility Obligations. Customer acknowledges that PG&E has an obligation to
maintain, repair and service its own facilities, including those under the operation and control of the
California Independent System Operator, in order to perform its duties as a public utility, which
obligation takes precedence over any obligations undertaken in this Agreement. Accordingly, if PG&E
determines at any time, in its sole discretion, that it requires any personnel or resources previously
committed to the performance of Services under a Work Order in order to maintain adequate service to
PG&E’s other customers or to fulfill its duties as a public utility, then PG&E shall have the right to divert
Packet Pg 21
1
Agreement No: SST-XXXXX
(Customer name)
Ver 3.0 (April 2014)
Page 6 of 13
the use of such personnel or resources to satisfy such requirements. If as a result of such ac tion, PG&E is
unable to perform its obligations under this Agreement and is unable to procure a third party to perform
the Services (or a portion thereof), then PG&E shall be excused from the performance of the Services
affected by such action to the extent so affected. In that event, PG&E shall have no liability to Customer,
and shall not be considered in default under this Agreement, for such failure to perform.
5. FACILITY SAFETY AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
5.1 Facility Safety. Customer shall be responsible for ensuring that the Facilities are safe for
PG&E personnel and Subcontractors performing Services at Customer’s facilities. Customer shall also
cooperate with PG&E personnel working on-site and shall promptly take such actions that may be
requested by PG&E personnel to help ensure a safe working environment.
5.2 Hazardous Materials. Prior to performing any Services at a Facility, Customer will
inform PG&E and Subcontractors of the presence of any Hazardous Materials of which Customer is
aware exist inside the Facility (e.g., asbestos). If PG&E or its Subcontractor discovers any Hazardous
Materials at or around the Facility after commencement of the Services, the procedures specified below in
Section 5.3 shall apply. Neither PG&E nor its Subcontractors shall handle, remove, dispose of or
remediate any Hazardous Materials absent Customer’s prior written instructions and the execution of a
Change Order.
5.3 If, during performance of the Services, PG&E or a Subcontractor reasonably believes
that it has encountered or detected the presence of Hazardous Materials, PG&E will promptly stop
performing the Services and notify Customer of such Hazardous Materials or conditions. Customer will
promptly investigate for the presence of Hazardous Materials and inform PG&E of the results of this
evaluation. PG&E will not resume the performance of the Services until the Hazardous Materials have
been removed, disposed of, abated or remediated to PG&E’s reasonable satisfaction. Any delay or
increase in the Services or costs as a result of the testing, presence, removal, disposal, abatement or
remediation of Hazardous Materials shall be grounds for a Change Order.
6. COMPENSATION.
6.1 Payment Terms. Customer shall pay PG&E for the Services performed in accordance
with payment terms set forth in the applicable Work Order. Unless otherwise set forth in the Work Order,
each payment made by Customer must reference this Agreement, the Work Order and invoice number
and be mailed to PG&E to the attention of Accounts Payable.
6.2 Late Payments. All late payments shall be subject to an interest charge, which is the
greater of: (i) one and one half percent (1.5%) per month, or (ii) the maximum legal rate. In the event that
any unpaid amounts are referred to collection, including but not limited to any applicable late fees,
Customer shall reimburse PG&E for all costs and expenses of collection, including all reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs related thereto.
6.3 Expenses. Customer agrees to reimburse PG&E for all expenses incurred in connection
with PG&E’s performance of the Services, including but not limited to all travel and lodging expenses.
Expenses shall be invoiced at their actual cost and will be reflected on PG&E’s invoices and shall be paid
in accordance with the payment terms set forth in the applicable Work Order.
6.4 Taxes. Customer shall be solely responsible for the payment of any and all sales, use,
transfer, and other taxes and duties, whether state, federal, national or international, however designated,
Packet Pg 22
1
Agreement No: SST-XXXXX
(Customer name)
Ver 3.0 (April 2014)
Page 7 of 13
which are levied or imposed on PG&E because of the Services performed under this Agreement (other
than taxes based on PG&E's net income) ("Taxes"). If PG&E has the legal obligation to pay or collect
Taxes for which Customer is responsible under this Section 6.4, the appropriate amount shall be invoiced
to and paid by Customer unless Customer provides PG&E with a valid tax exemption certificate
authorized by the appropriate taxing authority verifying that Customer is not required to pay those Taxes
and is legally exempt.
7. WARRANTIES AND WARRANTY DISCLAIMERS
7.1 Customer Warranties. Customer represents and warrants to PG&E that: (a) it has the full
corporate right, power, and authority to enter into the Agreement and to perform its obligations
hereunder; (b) the terms of the Agreement and the performance by such Party of its duties and
obligations hereunder, do not violate and will not cause a breach of the terms of any other a greement or
any applicable law to which such Party is a party or by which it is subject or bound; (c) when executed
and delivered by such Party, the Agreement will constitute the legal, valid and binding obligation of such
Party, enforceable against such Party in accordance with its terms; and (d) it is either the owner or lessee
of the Facility and has all necessary rights to allow PG&E and Subcontractors access to such Facility so
that they may perform the Services.
7.2 PG&E Limited Warranties.
7.2.1 PG&E warrants that the Services will be performed in a commercially reasonable manner
consistent with the level of care and skill exercised by others when performing Services of a similar
nature under similar circumstances. Unless otherwise agreed to by PG&E in writing, the warranty period
for Services furnished hereunder shall be for a period of twelve (12) months from the date of Substantial
Completion (“Service Warranty Period”).
7.2.2 Remedies. Customer must notify PG&E of any non-conformity or defect in the Services
within the Service Warranty Period. If Customer notifies PG&E within the Services Warranty Period,
and PG&E confirms the Services were not performed in accordance with Section 7.2.1, then PG&E, in its
sole discretion, will either re-perform the non-conforming Services within a commercially reasonable
period of time at PG&E’s cost and expense or (b) refund the applicable fees paid to PG&E by Customer
for the non-conforming Services. THIS SECTION 7.2.2 STATES CUSTOMER’S SOLE AND
EXCLUSIVE REMEDY AND PG&E’S SOLE LIABILITY FOR A BREACH OF THE SERVICE
WARRANTIES SET FORTH ABOVE IN SECTION 7.2.1. THE SERVICE WARRANTIES EXTEND
TO CUSTOMER ONLY AND CANNOT BE ASSIGNED BY CUSTOMER.
7.3 Third Party Warranties. PG&E shall use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain from all
manufacturers, Customers and distributors standard guarantees and warranties (“Third Party Warranties”)
on the Equipment used in the Services or in an ECM, and any warranty for the Equipment shall be limited
to the Third Party Warranties provided by manufacturers, Customers, and distributors. All such Third
Party Warranties, including without limitation those for defects, whether latent or patent, in Equipment
shall terminate upon the conclusion of each such applicable Third Party Warranty period. Neither PG&E
nor its Subcontractors shall have any liability for breach of a Third Party Warranty, whether express or
implied, or for any latent or patent defect of any kind. PG&E shall assign all Third Party Warranties
directly to Customer.
7.3.1 The Third Party Warranty expressly excludes any remedy or liability for damage or
defect caused by the improper use, or improper or inadequate operations or maintenance of Equipment or
for the Services by users other than the Customer; corrosion, erosion, deterioration, abuse, modifications
Packet Pg 23
1
Agreement No: SST-XXXXX
(Customer name)
Ver 3.0 (April 2014)
Page 8 of 13
or repairs not performed by an authorized subcontractor; or for wear and tear under normal usage. At
Customer’s option, Customer may contact the Equipment manufacturer, Customer or distributor directly
to resolve any Third Party Warranty issues and Customer acknowledges that Customer and Equipment
manufacturer, Customer or distributor shall have sole responsibility for such issues.
7.4 No Guarantee of Energy Savings. PG&E DOES NOT WARRANT OR GUARANTEE ANY
LEVEL OF ENERGY, WATER SAVINGS, COST REDUCTIONS OR EQUIPMENT OR ECM
PERFORMANCE.
7.5 Disclaimer. EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION 8, CUSTOMER
EXPRESSLY AGREES THAT PG&E MAKES NO OTHER WARRANTIES AND ASSUMES NO
OTHER LIABILITIES, WHETHER IN CONTRACT OR IN TORT, IN CONNECTION WITH THE
AUDIT, DESIGN, ENGINEERING, EQUIPMENT PROCUREMENT, CONSTRUCTION,
IMPLEMENTATION, OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, SERVICES, EQUIPMENT OR ECMS
HEREUNDER WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, IN LAW, IN EQUITY OR IN
COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN PG&E AND CUSTOMER. PG&E SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS
ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE. CUSTOMER SHALL HAVE NO REMEDIES AGAINST PG&E FOR ANY DEFECTIVE
SERVICES, INSTALLED EQUIPMENT, OR OPERATION OF AN ECM EXCEPT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE WARRANTY SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION 7 OR AS THE PARTIES
MAY EXPRESSLY AGREE IN ANY WORK ORDER OR AMENDMENT TO THIS AGREEMENT.
8. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
8.1 IF PG&E IS HELD TO BE LIABLE TO CUSTOMER OR TO ANY PARTY
CLAIMING BY OR THROUGH CUSTOMER BY REASON OF PG&E’S PERFORMANCE OF
SERVICES UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, PG&E’S TOTAL AGGREGATE LIABILITY WITH
RESPECT TO DAMAGES AND LOSSES RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE LIMITED
TO THE LESSER OF: (A) THE PRICE FOR THE SERVICES UNDER THE WORK ORDER GIVING
RISE TO THE CLAIM; OR (B) THE TOTAL AMOUNT PAID BY CUSTOMER TO PG&E FOR THE
SERVICES UNDER THE WORK ORDER GIVING RISE TO THE CLAIM.
8.2 IN NO EVENT SHALL PG&E BE LIABLE TO CUSTOMER OR ANY THIRD
PARTY FOR INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, PUNITIVE, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LOSS OF USE, COST OF DELAYS, REPLACEMENT OF
POWER, OR LOSS OF PROFITS, EVEN IF PG&E IS ADVISED BY CUSTOMER OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
8.3 THE ABOVE LIMITS OF LIABILITY ARE EXCLUSIVE AS TO ALL REMEDIES
AND THE LIABILITY CAP SHALL NOT BE COMBINED WITH ANY OTHER LIMITS OF
LIABILITY SO AS TO INCREASE THE CAP VALUE IN ANY PARTICULAR INSTANCE OR
SERIES OF INSTANCES. THE PARTIES AGREE THE ABOVE SECTIONS 7 - 9 REPRESENT THE
BASIS OF THE BARGAIN AND A FAIR ALLOCATION OF RISK BETWEEN THE PARTIES.
8.4 Basis of the Bargain. THE PARTIES ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT THE
FOREGOING SECTIONS ON WARRANTIES, WARRANTY DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF
LIABILITY IN THE AGREEMENT FAIRLY ALLOCATE THE RISKS BETWEEN THE PARTIES
AND ARE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE BASIS OF THE BARGAIN BETWEEN THE PARTIES
SUCH THAT THE PARTIES WOULD NOT HAVE ENTERED INTO THIS AGREEMENT
WITHOUT SUCH SECTIONS.
Packet Pg 24
1
Agreement No: SST-XXXXX
(Customer name)
Ver 3.0 (April 2014)
Page 9 of 13
9. INDEMNIFICATION. Customer covenants and agrees that Customer will indemnify, defend and hold
harmless PG&E, its affiliates, and PG&E’s and its affiliates’ respective directors, officers, employees,
agents, successors and assigns (collectively, the “PG&E Indemnitees”) from and against any and all
claims, damages, costs, expenses, (including attorneys’ fees and court costs) and liabilities (including
settlements) brought or asserted by any third party against the PG&E Indemnitees resulting from, arising
out of or related to any claim: (i) for personal injury, including death, or property damage, including theft,
caused to any of the PG&E Indemnitees, Subcontractors or a third party by Customer’s action or inaction,
whether negligence or intentional misconduct; and (ii) resulting from Customer’s breach of any
representations, warranties or covenants contained above in Sections 7.1 or 7.2; and (iii) any data,
Equipment, information, software or other property provided to PG&E hereunder or any elements
embodied therein, or that any of the PG&E Indemnitees’ use of any of the foregoing infringe or
misappropriate the intellectual property rights of any third party (each of the foregoing (i) through (iii) are
referred to as a “Claim”). PG&E shall promptly notify Customer of any Claim and shall (at Customer’s
sole expense) reasonably cooperate with Customer to facilitate the settlement or defense of such Claim.
Customer shall, at its own expense, indemnify, defend and hold harmless the PG&E Indemnitees from
and against all costs of defending the Claim, including attorneys’ fees and court costs (including those
incurred by the PG&E Indemnitees in enforcing this provision). Customer shall keep PG&E Indemnitees
informed of, and consult with PG&E Indemnitees in connection with the selection of counsel to defend
the Claim and the progress of such litigation or settlement. Customer shall not have any right to settle
any such Claim without the specific prior written approval from a designated legal representative of the
PG&E Indemnitees.
10. TERM, SUSPENSION AND TERMINATION
10.1 Term. This Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall terminate upon
later of: (a) three (3) years from the Effective Date, or (b) the Final Completion of all then-outstanding
Work Orders, unless otherwise terminated earlier pursuant to this Section 10 (the “Initial Term”). This
Agreement may be renewed, upon thirty (30) days prior written notice, for two (2) additional one (1) year
periods upon the mutual written agreement of the Parties (each a “Renewal Term”). The Initial Term and
all Renewal Terms shall be collectively referred to as the “Term”.
10.2 Termination for Cause. If either Party materially defaults in the performance of any of
its duties and obligation hereunder, or such material default is not cured within thirty (30) days after
written notice thereof, this Agreement may be terminated by the non-defaulting party for cause as of the
date specified in the notice. In addition, a Party may be entitled to terminate the Agreement immediately
if a Party files a petition in bankruptcy, makes an assignment for the benefit of its creditors, becomes
insolvent, fails to do business in the ordinary course, shall have or suffer the appointment of a receiver or
trustee for its business or property, or be adjudicated bankrupt or insolvent, or bankruptcy proceedings are
commenced by or against such Party.
10.3 PG&E’s Additional Termination Rights.
10.3.1 Change in Law. In the event legislation or governmental regulations would
prohibit PG&E from providing the Services under this Agreement (in whole or in part), PG&E
may terminate the Agreement or any Work Order (without any liability or penalty) upon thirty
(30) days' notice. Upon the effective date of PG&E’s termination notice under this Section,
Customer will pay PG&E for all of the Services provided to Customer as of the effective date of
the termination notice.
Packet Pg 25
1
Agreement No: SST-XXXXX
(Customer name)
Ver 3.0 (April 2014)
Page 10 of 13
10.3.2 Program Change. PG&E may terminate this Agreement immediately and
without prior notice in the event the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) issues a
ruling or order prohibiting or otherwise preventing PG&E from fulfilling, or substantially
interfering with PG&E’s ability to fulfill, its obligations under this Agreement, or finding that this
Agreement is contrary to the policies of the CPUC. .
10.4 Suspension of Service. PG&E reserves the right (in addition to any and all other rights
and remedies PG&E may have) to suspend the performance of the Services, including those performed by
Subcontractors, without any penalty or liability to Customer, if any invoice remains unpaid (in whole or
in part) after the date payment is due until such invoice (including late penalties) is paid in full.
10.5 Effect of Termination. Upon any expiration or termination of this Agreement, PG&E’s
obligations to Customer shall be to continue to perform the Services until the effective date of such
termination (except as otherwise instructed in writing by PG&E), to wind down and terminate the
Services in an efficient, workmanlike and cost-effective manner, and to cooperate with PG&E in the
transition to third parties or employees designated by PG&E.
10.5.1 Effect of Customer’s Termination.
(a) If Customer terminates a Work Order for cause pursuant to Section 10.2 and
prior to Substantial Completion, Customer may do so by giving written notice to PG&E at least
thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of such termination. In that event, Customer shall pay
PG&E the amount set forth in the termination schedule set forth in the applicable Work Order.
(b) If Customer terminates a Work Order for cause pursuant to Section 10.2 and after
Substantial Completion, Customer may do so by giving written notice to PG&E at least thirty
(30) days prior to the effective date of such termination. In that event, Customer shall pay PG&E
the amount set forth in the termination schedule set forth in the applicable Work Order.
10.6 Survival. The following Sections of this Agreement shall survive expiration, cancellation
or other termination of this Agreement: 1, 6, 7through 9, 10.5, 10.6 and11 through 13. Any other
provisions of this Agreement that would generally be construed as intended to survive the expiration,
cancellation or other termination of this Agreement shall also survive such expiration, cancellation or
other termination.
11. DISPUTE RESOLUTION. If any dispute, excluding payment defaults or delinquencies, arises under
the Agreement that is not settled promptly in the ordinary course of business, the Parties shall first seek to
resolve any such dispute between them by negotiating promptly in good faith in face -to-face negotiations.
These face-to-face negotiations shall be conducted by the respective designated senior managers of each
Party responsible for their relationship, and shall be escalated internally by each Party as reasonably
necessary to seek resolution of the dispute. If the Parties are unable to resolve the dispute between them
through these face-to-face negotiations within thirty (30) business days following their commencement
(or within such other period as the parties may otherwise mutually agree upon), then the parties shall
escalate the dispute to their most senior executives within their organization. If the Parties’ most senior
executives are unable to resolve the dispute within thirty (30) business days or such other period as they
ma y mutually agreed, then either Party may pursue available legal and equitable remedies.
12. GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance
with the laws of the State of California, excluding any choice of law rules that may direct the application
of the laws of another jurisdiction. Any controversy or claim arising out of or in any way relating to this
Packet Pg 26
1
Agreement No: SST-XXXXX
(Customer name)
Ver 3.0 (April 2014)
Page 11 of 13
Agreement shall be litigated in a California Superior Court of competent jurisdiction; or if jurisdiction
over the action cannot be obtained in a California Superior Court, in a Federal District Court of competent
jurisdiction situated in the State of California, and Customer hereby consents to the personal jurisdiction
of such courts.
13. FORCE MAJEURE. A Party will be excused from a delay in performing, or a failure to perform, its
obligations under this Agreement (excluding Customer’s payment obligations) to the extent such delay or
failure is caused by the occurrence of a Force Majeure Event. In such event, the performance times shall
be extended for a period of time equivalent to the time lost due to the Force Majeure Event. However, if
a Force Majeure Event (excluding any affecting Customer’s payment obligations) continues more than
ninety (90) days, the party not relying on the excusable delay may, at its option, terminate the affected
Product Order Form or Work Order, in whole or in part, upon notice, without penalty or obligation to the
party suffering under the Force Majeure Event.
14. GENERAL TERMS. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties regarding the
Services and supersedes any other prior oral or written agreements. In the event of any conflict or
inconsistency between the terms of this Agreement and any Work Order, such Work Order shall control.
Any different or additional provisions in purchase orders, invoices or similar documents issued by
Customer are hereby deemed refused by PG&E and such refused provisions will be unenforceable. Any
modifications hereto must be in writing and signed by the parties. A waiver by any party of any breach
will not constitute a waiver of any different or subsequent breach. If any part of this Agreement is invalid,
illegal or unenforceable for any reason, that portion shall be replaced with a valid provision appropriate to
the parties’ original intent and the remainder shall be enforced.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the
Effective Date first set forth above.
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
245 Market Street MC N10D
San Francisco, CA 94105
By:
(Signature)
Name: Roxanna Fong
Title: Manager
Date:
CUSTOMER
By:
(Signature)
Name:
Title:
Date:
Packet Pg 27
1
Agreement No: SST-XXXXX
(Customer name)
EXHIBIT A
POTENTIAL ECMS
Potential ECMs that may be included in a Work Order are set forth below:
a) Hydro-Electric Power Generation on the Nacimiento raw water transmission line,
b) Water Treatment Plant Ozone Generation System Upgrade
c) Water Treatment Plant Transfer Pump Station Back-up Power
d) Water Treatment Plant Transfer Pump Station Upgrades
e) Water Treatment Plant Photovoltaic (solar) Power Generation
f) Water Treatment Plant Photovoltaic (solar) Shade Canopy for Actiflo and Filter Basins
g) Water Treatment Plant Lighting Improvements
h) Water Treatment Plant HVAC and HVAC Control Improvements
i) Water Treatment Plant Service Water System Upgrades
j) Water Treatment Plant SCADA/Controls Upgrades
k) Reservoir #1 Photovoltaic (solar) Power Generation
l) Whale Rock Pump Station Upgrades,
m) Any other cost-effective ECM, including those that reduce Customer’s energy consumption,
energy demand or energy costs, provide energy savings, improve energy reliability, and other
energy infrastructure improvements, and water conservation.
n) Design and/or scoping efforts in support of Authorization(s) other than the Authorizati on in
which such design and/or scoping efforts are ordered and under which they are compensated.
13
Packet Pg 28
1
Agreement No: SST-XXXXX
(Customer name)
EXHIBIT B
SAFETY WAIVER
PG&E has informed the Customer’s on-site representative of the following condition(s) which, in
the opinion of PG&E’s on-site representative, should be remedied before the Services may be resumed at
the Facility. Customer recognizes that if the below-listed condition at the Facility is not remedied as
recommended by PG&E, an accident may occur causing damage to the Facility, Equipment and/or injury
to persons, including but not limited to, the employees of Customer, PG&E and Subcontractors.
By signing this waiver, Customer acknowledges and accepts all liability associated with this
condition
Description of condition:
Equipment ID#: _____________________ (If applicable)
Executed this ___ day of ___________________, _______
Facility name: ____________________________________
CUSTOMER
Sign: ____________________________________________
Name (print): ______________________________________
Title ____________________________________________
Date: ____________________________________________
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
Sign: ___________________________________________
Name (print): ____________________________________
Title: ___________________________________________
Date: ___________________________________________
14
Packet Pg 29
1
Preliminary Energy Assessment Report for:
WATER ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROJECT
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
March 7, 2018
Prepared by:
Southland Energy
a Division of Southland Industries
7390 Lincoln Way
Garden Grove, CA 92841
1.800.613.6240
P +714.657.1500
southlandindenergy.com
Packet Pg 30
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2
Table of Contents
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Key Objectives and Goals ......................................................................................................... 6
1.2 Summary of Findings and Benefits ........................................................................................... 6
1.3 Financial Summary .................................................................................................................... 9
2 APPROACH TO PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT ............................................................. 11
2.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 11
2.2 Facilities Included .................................................................................................................... 11
2.3 Achieving Climate Action and Zero Net Energy Goals ............................................................ 12
2.4 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. 14
3 UTILITY DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................ 15
4 ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES ......................................................................................... 22
4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 22
4.2 Discussion of ECMs ................................................................................................................ 22
5 SST PROGRAM OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................. 54
APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................................. 57
APPENDIX A – WTP ENERGY ALLOCATION DETAILS ......................................................................... 58
Packet Pg 31
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3
List of Acronyms
Acronym Definition
AFY Acre-feet Per Year
ATS Automatic Transfer Switch
CAP Climate Action Plan
CARB California Air Resources Board
CFM Cubic Feet per Minute
CIP Capital Improvement Projects
ECM Energy Conservation Measure
ESCO Energy Services Company
FA Feasibility Assessment
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FPA Federal Power Act
GHG Green House Gas
GPM Gallons per minute
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IGA Investment Grade Audit
kW Kilowatt
kWh Kilowatt Hour
MCC Motor Control Center
MG Million gallons
MGD Million gallons per day
mg/l Milligrams per liter
M&V Measurement and Verification
Packet Pg 32
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4
Acronym Definition
MW Megawatt
NOE Notice of Exemption
NWP Nacimiento Water Project
O&M Operation and Maintenance
PEA Preliminary Energy Assessment
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric
PSI Pounds per square inch
PV Photovoltaic
Res-1 Reservoir No. 1
Res-2 Reservoir No. 2
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SCFM Standard cubic feet per minute
SST Sustainable Solutions Turnkey
TOU Time of Use
TPS Transfer Pump Station
VFD Variable Frequency Drive
WDS Water Distribution System
WR Whale Rock
WTP Water Treatment Plant
ZNE Zero Net Energy
Packet Pg 33
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of San Luis Obispo’s (City) focus on reducing energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions is a
continuation of its commitment to improving the quality of life in the City, and enhancing the public trust.
The Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E)/Southland Energy team is excited about this partnership with the
City’s Utilities Department to help it meet its vision and obligations to its citizens by reducing energy use
and spending and increasing environmental responsibility. This Preliminary Energy Assessment (PEA)
identifies solutions and associated savings that continue the City’s path to sustainability, resilient facilities,
and zero net energy use in a fiscally and socially responsible way by reducing energy consumption and
implementing renewable energy responsibly. The benefits are aligned with the City’s vision to create
community assets that provide economic, social, and environmental value for the community, which
includes the following:
· Environmental
o Develop and implement a holistic strategy to maximize sustainable resource recovery
o Prioritize responsible use of water resources
o Incorporate sustainability practices in planning, design, construction, and operation
o Maintain compliance and minimize impacts to operations and the community during
construction
o Sustain reliable compliance during post-construction operation and maintenance
· Social
o Create and sustain diverse partnerships that add value to the community
o Provide opportunities to engage and educate the community
o Be a good neighbor
o Engender the trust of project stakeholders
o Support the development and empowerment of City employees
· Economic
o Optimize capital investment and life cycle cost
o Maximize value for ratepayers’ investment
o Incorporate flexibility and scalability to adapt to future conditions
o Simplify process flow and make treatment more robust
o Embrace new technology in a practical and disciplined manner
Packet Pg 34
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6
1.1 Key Objectives and Goals
The City/PG&E/Southland team was guided by the following mutually agreed upon goals set during the
Feasibility Assessment and the Kickoff meeting for the PEA:
· Refine the evaluation of implementing hydro power generation from the high-pressure Nacimiento
Water Project (NWP) raw water supply to the Water Treatment Plant (WTP).
· Identify upgrades and retrofits for the Utilities Department’s facilities that reduce energy
consumption, improve facilities and infrastructure, and enhance operational resiliency and
efficiency.
· Investigate the viability of implementing solar photovoltaic (PV) energy generation and other
renewable energy technologies.
· Identify paths and solutions that move the Utilities Department and the City toward its energy
goals identified in the General Plan, Climate Action Goals, and being a Zero Net Energy (ZNE)
utility consumer.
· Identify potential funding sources for a Sustainable Solutions Turnkey (SST) project including low
and no interest financing sources, traditional financing opportunities, and utility rebates,
incentives, and grants.
· Identify an economically viable project to move to the Investment Grade Audit (IGA) phase of the
SST program that is aligned with the City’s objectives.
1.2 Summary of Findings and Benefits
In July 2016, PG&E/Southland presented a Feasibility Assessment (FA) of several preliminary Energy
Conservation Measures (ECM) for the City’s consideration. Based on the City’s feedback from the FA,
this PEA has been performed to further explore the viability and merit of the ECMs in the FA and identify
additional energy conservation opportunities. The ECMs and their key benefits are summarized in Table
1.1, and the energy and financial elements for the ECMs are summarized in Table 1.2 in Section 1.3.
The recommended measures also provide significant progress towards the City’s efforts to achieve its
Climate Action goal of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to the 1990 level by 2020, and being a
Zero Net Energy (ZNE) utility consumer. Implementation of the identified measures will reduce GHG
emissions by City operations by 764 MTCO2e (Metric Tons CO2 equivalent). This is 99% of the reduction
target of 770 MTCO2e identified for Government Operations in the Climate Action Plan (see Figure 1.1
below) and 1.9% of the Community Wide GHG reduction target (15% of the 2005 baseline of 264,230
MTCO2e). Additionally, the reduced energy use created by the proposed efficiency ECMs combined with
the energy generated by the identified renewable energy systems will exceed all of the City’s water
Packet Pg 35
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7
utility’s current annual electricity consumption by 775,000 kWh or 24%, signifying that the water utility will
be a net exporter of electricity. This is illustrated in Figure 1.2 below.
Table 1.1 Energy Conservation Measures and Key Benefits
Benefit Impact Legend: Significant Moderate Minor None
KEY BENEFITS
Social Environment Economic
ECM ECM Description Facility Water Quality Human Health Supply & Resiliency Operations Renewable Energy Zero-Net Energy Energy Savings Infra- structure Cost Reduction 1 Hydro Power Generation WTP
2 Ozone System Upgrade WTP
3 Transfer Pump Station Backup
Power WTP
4 Transfer Pump Station
Upgrades WTP
5 Photovoltaic Energy Generation
(Solar) WTP
6 Photovoltaic Shade Canopy for
Actiflo and Filter Basins WTP
7 Lighting Improvements WTP
8 HVAC and HVAC Control
Improvements WTP
9 Plant Service Water System
Upgrades WTP
10 Filter Backwash Tank Filling
Improvements WTP
11 SCADA/
Controls Upgrades WTP
13 Install VFDs for Ferrini Pumps
& Altitude Valve for Ferrini Tank
Water
Dist.
15 Photovoltaic Energy Generation
(Solar) Res-1
16 Whale Rock Pump Station
Upgrades
Whale
Rock
17 Whale Rock Renewable Energy
Generation
Whale
Rock
Packet Pg 36
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 8
Figure 1.1 GHG Forecast and Target for Government Operations (from Climate Action Plan, Aug. 2012)
Packet Pg 37
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9
Figure 1.2 Zero-Net Energy - SST Project's Impact on Water Utility’s Energy
1.3 Financial Summary
The PG&E/Southland team identified and evaluated multiple ECMs that are supported by a combination
of utility cost savings, operation and maintenance cost reductions, and Capital Improvement Project
funding. The table below summarizes the costs and savings of the measures considered.
Packet Pg 38
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10
Table 1.2 ECM Financial Summary
Notes for Table 1.2: 1) The ECM’s identified with “*” are identified in the City’s 2017-2019 Financial Plan.
2) ECMs in gray are discussed in this report, but costs and/or savings have not been generated for these
ECMs.
ECM
ID ECM Description Facility ID
Annual
Savings
(kWh)
ECM Cost
Annual
Utility Cost
Savings
Annual
O&M
Savings
Total
Annual
Cost
Reduction
1 Hydro Power Generation *WTP 1,320,875 1,774,000$ 193,327$ (5,000)$ 188,327$
2 Ozone System Upgrade *WTP 185,971 7,000,000$ 30,685$ 50,000$ 80,685$
3 Transfer Pump Station Backup Power *WTP - 500,000$ -$ -$ -$
4 Transfer Pump Station Upgrades *WTP - 350,000$ -$ -$ -$
5 Photovoltaic Energy Generation (Solar)WTP 341,189 1,093,000$ 56,296$ -$ 56,296$
6
Photovoltaic Shade Canopy for Actiflo and
Filter Basins WTP 100,806 390,000$ 16,633$ -$ 16,633$
7 Lighting Improvements WTP 28,417 59,000$ 3,801$ 250$ 4,051$
8 HVAC and HVAC Control Improvements WTP - -$ -$ -$ -$
9 Plant Service Water System Upgrades WTP 38,680 102,000$ 6,382$ 250$ 6,632$
10 Filter Backwash Tank Filling Improvements WTP - -$ -$ -$ -$
11 SCADA/Controls Upgrades *WTP - 851,000$ -$ -$ -$
13
Install VFDs for Ferrini Pumps & Altitude
Valve for Ferrini Tank *Distr.- 159,000$ 5,000$ 8,000$ 13,000$
15 Photovoltaic Energy Generation (Solar)Res-1 1,860,000 5,960,000$ 199,000$ -$ 199,000$
16 Whale Rock Pump Station Upgrades WR 75,570 993,000$ 17,683$ -$ 17,683$
17 Whale Rock Renewable Energy Generation WR - -$ -$ -$ -$
-CEQA Activities Budget Multiple - 500,000$ -$ -$ -$
3,951,508 19,731,000$ 528,808$ 53,500$ 582,308$
Packet Pg 39
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 11
2 APPROACH TO PRELIMINARY ENERGY
ASSESSMENT
2.1 Methodology
During the development of this PEA, the PG&E/Southland team interviewed relevant stakeholders,
reviewed design documents and system operational data, performed comprehensive analysis of utility
data and bills, performed on-site audits, analyzed data for key systems, and utilized existing data to gain
a thorough understanding of the energy consumption and load profiles. This information was used to
further evaluate the ECMs identified in the Feasibility Assessment.
2.2 Facilities Included
The following City facilities are included in the PEA.
W ater Treatment Plant Pacific Beach Well
Bressi Pump Station Madonna PRV
Reservoir No. 2 Edna Saddle
Ferrini Pump Station Terrace Hill PRV
McCollum Pump Station Fire Station #4 Well
Reservoir No. 1 Whale Rock Pump Station A
Rosemont Pump Station Whale Rock Pump Station B
Corp Yard Well Whale Rock Shop
Bishop Tank Whale Rock SCADA Repeater
Bishop Pump Station Whale Rock Streetlights
Alrita Pump Station
Packet Pg 40
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 12
2.3 Achieving Climate Action and Zero Net Energy Goals
The City has identified Climate Action as one of its four Major City Goals in its 2017-2019 financial plan.
Major City Goals are defined as the most important, highest priority goals for the City to accomplish over
the next two years. The key elements of this goal include implementing the Climate Action Plan (CAP)
that was adopted by the City in 2012, assessing the requirements to achieve a “net-zero carbon City”
target, and implementing cost-effective measures. This PG&E Sustainable Solutions Turnkey (SST)
project will directly contribute to achieving this Major City Goal by:
· Performing energy assessments/audits at the City’s water utility facilities.
· Implementing energy and cost saving measures identified in the energy assessments that are
aligned with the goals and strategies in the CAP including:
o Government Operations Strategy GO-1 – City Energy Conservation
o Government Operations Strategy GO-2 – City Renewable Energy
o Government Operations Strategy GO-5 – Water and Wastewater Infrastructure
· Implementing renewable energy systems that reduce the City’s utility costs and consumption of
fossil fuel based energy.
· Significantly reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from City operations toward the goals of
being 15% below the City’s GHG baseline by 2020, and being a “net-zero carbon City.”
The recommended measures provide significant progress towards the City’s efforts to achieve its Climate
Action goal of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to the 1990 level by 2020, and being a Zero
Net Energy (ZNE) utility consumer. Implementation of the identified measures will reduce GHG emissions
from City operations by 764 MTCO2e (Metric Tons CO2 equivalent). This is 99% of the reduction target of
770 MTCO2e identified for Government Operations in the Climate Action Plan (see Figure 2.1 below) and
1.9% of the Community Wide GHG reduction target (15% of the 2005 baseline of 264,230 MTCO2e).
Additionally, the reduced energy use created by the proposed efficiency ECMs combined with the energy
generated by the identified renewable energy systems will exceed all of the City’s water utility’s current
annual electricity consumption by nearly 775,000 kWh or 24%, signifying that the water utility will be a net
exporter of electricity. This is illustrated in Figure 2.2 below.
Packet Pg 41
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13
Figure 2.1 GHG Forecast and Target for Government Operations (from Climate Action Plan, Aug. 2012)
Packet Pg 42
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14
Figure 2.2 Zero-Net Energy - SST Project's Impact on Water Utility’s Energy
2.4 Acknowledgements
The PG&E/Southland team would like to express our gratitude to the City for committing its valuable team
members to the PEA process, and for the opportunity to present our findings to the City Council. A special
thank you goes out to Aaron Floyd, Dean Furukawa, Jason Meeks, Miguel Barcenas, and Marcus
Henderson of the City of San Luis Obispo, and John Griesser and Chris Read of the County of San Luis
Obispo Energy Watch for their significant contributions to this PEA.
Packet Pg 43
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15
3 UTILITY DATA ANALYSIS
The utility analysis is a key, fundamental element of the PEA that is used to gain a deeper understanding
of utility consumption and costs for each of the City’s facilities. The results of the analysis provide the
foundation for all subsequent steps in the PEA including comparison and benchmarking of facilities,
allocation of energy and cost to systems within individual facilities, and savings calculations.
The City of San Luis Obispo receives electric utility service for its facilities from PG&E. PG&E provided 36
months of electrical use and cost data (Sept. 2014 – Sept. 2017) and 12 months of 15-minute interval
data to the SST team for the Utilities Department’s water utility facilities and the Whale Rock raw water
system facilities1. A summary of the annual electric consumption and costs for each facility is captured in
Table 3.1 and Figure 3.1 below. Analysis of this data reveals that the Water Treatment Plant (WTP) and
the two Whale Rock pump stations account for 96% of the total annual energy use and 94% of the cost.
This insight will help focus the efforts of the SST team during the IGA to areas where the greatest impact
on energy use, demand, and related costs can be made.
1 Whale Rock facilities are jointly owned by the City of San Luis Obispo, the California Men's Colony, and
the California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo. These three agencies form the Whale
Rock Commission which is responsible for operational policy and administration of the reservoir. Day-to-
day operation is provided by the City.
Packet Pg 44
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 16
Table 3.1 Annual Electric Consumption and Costs
Facility Name
PG&E Meter
#
Total
Annual Use
(kWh)
Annual
Electricity
Cost ($)
Max
Billing
Demand
(kW)
Total
Annual
Cost ($)
% of Total
Electric
Use
% of
Total
Cost
Water Treatment Plant 1010078556 2,100,124 345,695 499 346,304 66.1% 55.1%
Whale Rock Pump Station #2 1010002034 487,690 126,038 390 126,183 15.4% 20.1%
Whale Rock Pump Station #1 1010027122 467,245 118,397 406 118,533 14.7% 18.9%
Bressi Pump Station 1006909621 31,679 6,992 48 7,001 1.0% 1.1%
Reservoir No.2 1010116728 23,782 5,616 4 5,623 0.7% 0.9%
Ferrini Pump Station 1009500372 21,325 11,962 79 11,968 0.7% 1.9%
McCollum Pump Station 1006472096 14,408 3,268 37 3,272 0.5% 0.5%
Reservoir No.1 1009921396 10,834 2,604 0 2,608 0.3% 0.4%
Whale Rock Shop 1008718720 10,585 2,628 9 2,632 0.3% 0.4%
Rosemont Pump Station 1005529721 1,558 439 11 440 0.0% 0.1%
Whale Rock Streetlights 1006875451 1,382 442 0 442 0.0% 0.1%
Corp Yard Well 1009608623 1,287 534 0 534 0.0% 0.1%
Bishop Tank 1009657691 1,060 331 0 331 0.0% 0.1%
Bishop Pump Station 1006909452 1,037 443 47 443 0.0% 0.1%
Alrita Pump Station 1006708574 734 377 1 377 0.0% 0.1%
Pacific Beach Well 1004497758 415 328 8 328 0.0% 0.1%
Madonna PRV 1008780550 410 204 0 204 0.0% 0.0%
Edna Saddle 1010262147 344 315 0 315 0.0% 0.1%
Terrace Hill PRV 1009488291 249 171 0 171 0.0% 0.0%
Fire Station #4 Well 1009568491 77 256 0 256 0.0% 0.0%
Whale Rock SCADA Repeater 1008718721 75 139 3 139 0.0% 0.0%
Totals => 3,176,300 627,178 628,104
Packet Pg 45
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 17
Figure 3.1 Annual Electric Use for Water Utility Facilities
Water Treatment Plant Energy Allocation
Using the utility data and our current understanding of the systems and operation of the WTP, we
performed an initial allocation (breakdown) of the WTP’s annual energy use to the equipment and
systems in the WTP to gain an understanding of where the energy is used. Based on this analysis, the
top five energy consuming systems in the WTP (accounting for more than 96% of the annual energy) are
shown in Figure 3.2. The detailed list of significant systems and equipment evaluated in the allocation
analysis, and the estimated energy use for each is shown in Table 3.2. Note that the air compressors
shown within the Disinfection process in Table 3.2 are the prime components in the air-preparation
system for the ozone generators and are integral to the ozone system. The process of determining the
breakdown of the annual electrical energy use for the WTP included:
· Identify the primary energy consuming systems and equipment and their ratings.
· Determine the annual operating hours for the equipment.
Packet Pg 46
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 18
· Estimate the average power draw for the equipment over the course of a year of operation.
· Calculate the annual energy use for the equipment.
· Calculate the total annual energy use for all the equipment in the allocation analysis and
compare the total to the annual use in the utility bills.
During the PEA effort, the inventory of the primary energy consuming systems and equipment and their
ratings was identified through site visits, review of WTP drawings and documentation, and discussions
with WTP personnel. The equipment inventory is entered in the analysis spreadsheet including the
associated WTP system/process, equipment type, and electrical rating for each piece of equipment
(typically motor horsepower). This information is the foundation for the analysis and summarizing the
results.
The next step involved estimating the average power draw in kilowatts (kW) for the equipment during its
operation over the course of a year. The estimated power draw (or load) was determined by using the
equipment’s electrical rating as the maximum possible power draw and then applying a load factor (0% -
100%) to the rating to arrive at the value for the analysis. The load factors used in the WTP analysis were
influenced by one or more factors including method of motor control (constant speed or variable speed),
typical operating speed if variable, observed operating conditions (including actual operating power draw
from a submeter or equipment controller, flowrate, pressure, etc.), input from WTP operating staff, and
professional opinion based on prior experience.
The last element of determining the energy use for the equipment is to determine the annual operating
hours and apply that to the average power draw. The process of determining the operating hours was
similar to determining power draw and primarily utilized observed operating conditions, input from WTP
operating staff, and professional opinion based on prior experience. It’s important to note that many
processes/systems in the WTP have redundant equipment that do not operate simultaneously with the
lead equipment. In most of these cases, operation of the lead and backup equipment will be switched to
distribute the annual run time across the equipment. To simplify the calculations for redundant equipment,
all of the annual operating hours are attributed to the lead machine(s) and the backup will have zero
hours.
The equipment inventory with the associated electrical ratings, load factors, power draw, operating hours
and calculated energy use is included in Appendix A.
Packet Pg 47
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 19
Figure 3.2 WTP Top Five Energy Consuming Systems
Packet Pg 48
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 20
Table 3.2 WTP - System and Equipment List and Energy Use
Major Process/Top Energy Use Systems
Electric
Energy
Use (%)
Electric
Energy Use
(kWh)
Electric
Energy
Cost ($)
Disinfection
Blower - Ozone Destruction Unit #1 0.54% 10,892 $1,776
Blower - Ozone Destruction Unit #2 0.00% 0 $0
Compressor - AC-1 11.51% 233,003 $37,987
Compressor - AC-2 5.76% 116,502 $18,994
Compressor - AC-3 2.01% 40,735 $6,641
Other kW Load - Ozone Gen-1/PSU 13.06% 264,363 $43,100
Other kW Load - Ozone Gen-2/PSU 13.06% 264,363 $43,100
Other kW Load - Ozone Gen-3/PSU 0.00% 0 $0
Distribution Pumping
Pump - Transfer Pump 1 12.24% 247,668 $40,378
Pump - Transfer Pump 2 12.24% 247,668 $40,378
Pump - Transfer Pump 3 12.24% 247,668 $40,378
Pump - Transfer Pump 4 0.00% 0 $0
Flocculation / Sedimentation
Mixer - Coagulation Basin Mixer CMX-1 1.23% 24,960 $4,069
Mixer - Coagulation Basin Mixer CMX-2 0.00% 0 $0
Mixer - Flash Mixer #1 1.23% 24,960 $4,069
Mixer - Flash Mixer #2 0.00% 0 $0
Mixer - Injection Basin Mixer IMX-1 1.23% 24,960 $4,069
Mixer - Injection Basin Mixer IMX-1 0.00% 0 $0
Mixer - Maturation Basin Mixer MMX-1 0.84% 17,018 $2,775
Mixer - Maturation Basin Mixer MMX-2 0.00% 0 $0
Packet Pg 49
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 21
Major Process/Top Energy Use Systems
Electric
Energy
Use (%)
Electric
Energy Use
(kWh)
Electric
Energy
Cost ($)
Pump - Sand Pump SP-1A 1.85% 37,440 $6,104
Pump - Sand Pump SP-1B 1.85% 37,440 $6,104
Pump - Sand Pump SP-1C 0.00% 0 $0
Pump - Sand Pump SP-2A 0.00% 0 $0
Pump - Sand Pump SP-2B 0.00% 0 $0
Pump - Sand Pump SP-2C 0.00% 0 $0
Internal Plant Pumping
Pump - Plant Service Water Skid Pump #1 3.04% 61,477 $10,023
Pump - Plant Service Water Skid Pump #2 0.25% 5,105 $832
Lighting
Other kW Load - All Outdoor Lighting 0.97% 19,710 $3,213
Other kW Load - Control/Ozone Bldg Lighting 1.40% 28,382 $4,627
Other kW Load - Lab/Filter Bldg Lighting 0.24% 4,800 $783
Non Process HVAC
Other kW Load - Control/Ozone Bldg HVAC 0.66% 13,315 $2,171
Other kW Load - Lab/Filter Bldg HVAC 0.50% 10,074 $1,642
Sludge Handling
Pump - Wash Water Reclaim Pump PMP-3 1.85% 37,440 $6,104
Pump - Wash Water Reclaim Pump PMP-4 0.00% 0 $0
Estimated Annual Electric Use & Cost 2,019,942 $329,317
Actual Annual Electric Use & Cost 2,024,181 $330,008
Difference Between Billed and Identified -4,239 -$691
Percent of Site Electrical Energy Identified 99.79%
Packet Pg 50
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 22
4 ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES
4.1 Introduction
The Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) were developed through a combination of meetings and
interviews with on-site staff, field visits of facilities, analysis of utility and benchmark data, and energy and
economic analysis of potential ECM opportunities. A discussion of the existing conditions, identified
solutions, and estimated benefits for each ECM, or group of ECMs is presented in this section.
4.2 Discussion of ECMs
4.2.1 ECM-1 Hydro Power Generation at WTP
Existing Conditions
The Nacimiento Water Project (NWP) is a regional raw water transmission facility that delivers water from
Lake Nacimiento to communities in San Luis Obispo County. The City of San Luis Obispo has secured an
allocation of 5,482 acre-feet per year (AFY) of NWP water. NWP water is delivered to the City through a
pipeline that passes through the Cuesta Tunnel. The City also has water rights to the Salinas Reservoir,
the conveyance of which also passes through the Cuesta Tunnel. The NWP and Salinas Reservoir
pipelines extend from the tunnel to the City Water Treatment Plant (WTP), passing adjacent to the City
Reservoir No. 2 (Res-2).
Historically, the City operated a small Pelton Wheel hydropower facility associated with the Salinas
Reservoir pipeline. The utilization of this facility resulted in disruptions to plant operations caused by the
fluctuations in water delivery rates to the plant. Staff was able to minimize fluctuations by attenuating
flows through the forebay, but when the City switched to ozone disinfection in 1994, it became evident
that the ozone disinfection process could not tolerate variations in delivery rates. Coordinating deliveries
from the Salinas Booster Pump Station which delivers water from the Salinas Reservoir, surcharging the
Cuesta tunnel, and simultaneously meeting City demands became prohibitively complex and unreliable.
Additionally, power surges associated with electrical deliveries from the hydro-generator would frequently
disrupt the power and control systems at the WTP. For these reasons, the City discontinued use of this
hydro-generation equipment.
Measure Description
The objective of this ECM is to examine the feasibility of constructing a turbine-generator on the NWP
pipeline. The City is now receiving deliveries from the NWP, with an allocation of 5,482 AFY. Water from
the NWP is delivered to the WTP via a 12-inch diameter ductile iron pipe.
Packet Pg 51
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 23
Given that the turbine can be located “in-line” (water flowing through the turbine will exit into a pipe under
pressure), a Francis turbine or a pump-type turbine would be most appropriate for this application. The
Francis turbine can accommodate a greater range of flows and has higher efficiencies.
With consideration of the flow to be delivered to the plant via the NWP, the turbine could have an
estimated rated output of 125-300 kW, depending on the water delivery schedule. The turbine could be
located near the original hydro-generation equipment site (near Res-2), on City property at the WTP, or
potentially on property adjacent to the plant. To maximize power production, a constant flow rate may be
recommended so that the turbine can run at the best efficiency or at a fixed discharge rate. The length of
time each day that the turbine will run will be determined by optimization of water deliveries, hydraulic
limitations, plant staffing and operational strategies, and system demands. If there is more demand than
the turbine can accommodate, surplus flows will be conveyed via bypass valve into the forebay or storage
tank.
A number of alternatives to recovering energy from the City’s water supply sources were evaluated.
These alternatives included:
1- Reuse/Rehab Existing Pelton Wheel
2- Combine Salinas and NWP line, New Francis Turbine at WTP
3- Combine Salinas and NWP line at Res-2, Construct new dedicated fill to Res-2. Reuse or replace
existing pipeline as Res-2 fill line, New Francis Turbine at WTP
4- New Francis Turbine on NWP Line at WTP
The project team convened workshops to evaluate these alternatives and to identify the preferred solution
for further evaluation. Alternatives 1 through 3 were rejected due to a number of factors, including the
need to surcharge water in the gravity pipeline upstream of the facility, and potential disruption to plant
operations, and the unknown ability of the Salinas Reservoir pipeline to support the envisioned
operational change. It was determined that the risk of damage to the aged Salinas pipeline would be
significant if operated in the high-pressure conditions typical of the NWP line.
Based on minimizing risk of disruption to plant operations, and maximizing the generation potential,
Alternative 4 was identified as the preferred approach.
NWP Raw Water Turnout at WTP (T11)
Based on data obtained for this report, static pipeline pressure at the WTP exceeds 400 psi. Pressure is
currently being reduced through a pressure reducing valve. Figure 4.1 below presents the pressure
available at the WTP Raw Water Turnout as a function of flow.
Packet Pg 52
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 24
Figure 4.1 – T11 Turnout Pressure vs. Flow
Flow Considerations
The City has an allocation of up to 5,482 AFY from the NWP. In order to evaluate variable delivery rates
from the NWP and variable daily operational time, flow scenarios were developed to represent the most
feasible range of long-term deliveries. These flow scenarios were evaluated on their ability to maximize
deliveries from the NWP, meet City water demands, meet WTP current hours of operation and staffing
constraints, and operate within the hydraulic limitations of the NWP pipeline. For fiscal years 2016 and
2017, average annual delivery from the NWP was approximately 3,600 AFY. This annual average
delivery volume was selected as the basis for the hydropower calculations as it represents current
conditions (2016 was also a drought year). This delivery scenario also allows the City to operate below
the hydraulic limitations of the NWP pipeline assuming operation 335 days per year2, for a minimum
duration of 16 hours per day. The City WTP is currently staffed for approximately two shifts
(approximately 17 hours per day), with a single-shift shut down during nighttime hours. If future conditions
2 Since the NWP can be offline for up to one month per year for maintenance, it was assumed that the
flow from the NWP would be available 335 days per year.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
-500 500 1500 2500 3500 4500Pressure (psi)Flow (gpm)
Packet Pg 53
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 25
change, the City may elect to revise the balance of deliveries between the City’s raw water sources. A
summary of the delivery conditions can be seen in Table 4.1 below.
It is important to note that the existing NWP pipeline feeding the WTP (NWP Unit 1) has a maximum
instantaneous design flowrate of 5.4 MGD, or 3770 GPM. Under the 17-hour WTP staffing scenario (335
days per year), the maximum flowrate that the pipeline can deliver is 3,700 AFY (average) over a duration
of 17 hours per day.
Scenario
Annual
Delivery
(AFY)
NWP Flowrate During WTP
Operational Hours (Note 1)
Flow (MGD) Flow (GPM)
Instantaneous Design Max (Unit H1) 5.4 3,770
Maximum Annual NWP Allocation 5,480 8.0 5,223
FY 2016 3,841 5.6 3,664
FY 2017 3,372 4.9 3,205
Average 2016-2017 3,600 5.2 3,429
Note 1: 335 days per year, 17 hours per day
Table 4.1 – Scenarios and Hydraulic Conditions Summary
Utility Analysis
Detailed electrical usage data was obtained and analyzed from the electrical utility (PG&E). The data
indicates that on a demand basis, a hydro-generation system up to 400 kW could be warranted. For the
fiscal years 2014 -2017 analyzed, the average cost of electricity purchased was $0.165/kWh. This
average rate will be used in this analysis to determine the financial benefits associated with the turbine’s
energy production.
Equipment Sizing Based on Flow Options
Turbine equipment was evaluated using the average annual delivery of 3,600 AF, utilizing the three
scenarios developed for plant operating hours (12, 17, and 24-hour operation). Two vendors were
contacted to provide preliminary information on equipment: Canyon Hydro of Deming, WA, and Gilkes
North America of Tacoma, WA. Table 4.2 below summarizes the various alternatives.
Packet Pg 54
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 26
Table 4.2 – Summary of Alternatives
Review of Table 4.2 indicates that under the selected conditions, the Gilkes Francis Turbine has the
greatest potential power production at the WTP’s current operating schedule when compared to other
options. It can also be seen that the potential power production would only increase slightly with 24-hour
plant operation. The City will need to further evaluate the financial and non-financial issues associated
with 24-hour operation that may impact the decision.
Licensing and Permitting
Since the proposed project involves rehabilitation/replacement of existing hydro-generation infrastructure,
it is anticipated that the hydrogeneration project will be determined to be exempt from CEQA
requirements under Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Article 19, Section 15000. When a project is
Categorically Exempt, no permitting or filing of Notice of Exemption (NOE) is required. However, if an
NOE is filed with the State Clearinghouse, there is a shorter statute of limitations of 35 days (vs. 180
days) for any challenge to the agency decision.
A crucial element to moving forward with the project is the City’s ability to obtain an extension of the City’s
permits and licenses associated with the existing facilities. Under the Federal Power Act (FPA), The
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulates non-federal hydropower resources. FERC
issues three types of development authorizations: conduit exemptions, 10-megawatt (MW) exemptions,
and licenses. FERC approval is required to construct and operate small/low-impact projects while
assuring adequate protection of environmental resources. The FERC Small/Low-Impact Hydropower
Projects program is intended for small projects that would result in minor environmental effects (e.g.,
projects that involve little change to water flow and use and are unlikely to affect threatened and
Equipment
NWP
Annual
Delivery
Hours of
Operation
Flowrate
During
Operational
Hours
(Note 1)
Head
Required
after
Hydro.
Available
Head
Output
Power
Annual
Power
Generation
Annual
Utility
Savings
AF (hr/day) (gpm) (psi) (ft) (ft) (ft) (kW) kWh $
Canyon Hydro 3600 12 4858
(2x) 5TR3 17 3429 250 578 80 498 180 951,030 143,457$
5TR4 24 2429 340 785 80 705 125 1,001,875 124,576$
Gilkes 3600 12 4858
230G100 17 3429 250 578 80 498 250 1,320,875 203,502$
230G100 24 2429 340 785 80 705 200 1,603,000 206,431$
Note 1: 335 days per year
Head at
WTP
EXCEEDS PIPELINE HYDRAULIC CAPACITY
EXCEEDS PIPELINE HYDRAULIC CAPACITY
Packet Pg 55
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 27
endangered species). To meet the City’s financial and construction deadlines, an extension of the existing
license is required for the hydrogeneration project to be viable.
Recommendations
Based on this preliminary analysis, the potential to avoid up to $200,000 per year in electrical costs exists
(based on the historical average electrical cost of $0.165/kWh and without changing WTP operational
hours). To maximize electrical production even further, the City would need to receive higher annual
volumes from the NWP, which would require the City to change its operating hours to avoid hydraulic
limitation of the NWP pipeline. With the data that has presented itself during this preliminary analysis, and
based on input from staff, we would recommend further evaluation of the Gilkes 250 kW option operated
within the City’s current operating and staffing schedule, and receiving 3,600 AF annually from the NWP.
During the IGA process the SST team will continue working with turbine manufacturers to further refine
the selected equipment, and to optimize the water delivery schedule.
Prior to further design, it is recommended that the City obtain confirmation that the FERC licensing and
permitting associated with the existing facility can be extended and applied to the proposed new
equipment. Alternatively, it is recommended that FERC be consulted to determine if the project would
qualify for a Conduit Exemption. Our initial investigation into applicable FERC filing and licensing fees for
a 250 kW hydropower project under the Small/Low-Impact Hydropower Projects program found that there
are no filing fees and no annual fees for projects less than 1.5MW. See the table below which is an
excerpt from the Project Comparison Chart on FERC’s website (found at the following web address):
https://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/gen-info/licensing/small-low-impact/get-started/exemp-
licens/project-comparison.asp
Qualifying Conduit
Hydropower
Facility
Conduit Exemption 10-MW Exemption License
Installed
Capacity
Limitations
5 MW or less 40 MW or less 10 MW or less Unlimited
Filing Fees None None None None
Annual
Charges Not Applicable
Currently projects up
to 1.5 MW not
charged
Currently projects up
to 1.5 MW not
charged
Currently projects up
to 1.5 MW not
charged
Packet Pg 56
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 28
Benefits
The expected benefits of this ECM include:
· Significant reduction of electric utility costs and return on investment resulting from self-
generation of energy.
· Beneficial utilization of a renewable energy source that is currently wasted.
· Significant reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from the City’s operations.
· Contribution to the City’s sustainability goals and advancement toward Zero Net Energy (ZNE).
4.2.2 ECM-2 Water Treatment Plant (WTP) Ozone System Upgrade
Existing Conditions
The WTP treats raw water from the Whale Rock Reservoir, the Salinas Reservoir (Santa Margarita Lake),
and the NWP. The existing treatment process includes pre-ozonation, coagulation, ballasted flocculation,
and filtration through a process, followed by disinfection with hypochlorite for inactivation of 3 log for
Giardia and 4 log for virus. For 2016, the average daily production was 4.4 MGD. The design treatment
capacity of the plant is 16 MGD.
Previous pilot testing and operational experience has shown that ozonation is a very effective disinfectant
and oxidant for the City. The ozonation process has allowed the City to meet primary disinfection and
minimize formation of regulated disinfection byproducts, while providing taste and odor control, color
reduction, and enhanced filtration performance. Other disinfectants such as chlorine, chloramines, and
chlorine dioxide were considered in the past; however, ozonation was deemed the best alternative. UV
disinfection has been considered as a viable alternative because of its effectiveness for inactivation of
Giardia and Cryptosporidium, but it does not provide the other process and water quality benefits that
ozonation provides. Therefore, ozonation is preferred by the WTP operators.
The existing ozonation system, which consists of air-preparation, generation, addition, and destruction,
was installed in 1994. The air-preparation system is made up of air-fed compressors, aftercoolers, and
dryers.
The ozonation, air-preparation and ozone destruction equipment is
over 23 years old, which is causing increased need for investment
in service and repair. This is reflected in the City’s 2017-2019
financial plan where at least $133,000 per year has been budgeted
for maintenance of the ozone and air-preparation systems in fiscal
years 2017-18 through 2021-22. Additionally, the City has
budgeted for the replacement of one air compressor in the 2017-
Figure 4.1 Ozone Generator and
Power Supply Unit
Packet Pg 57
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 29
2018 fiscal year to address the aging compressors. The most challenging and costly maintenance is for
the ozone generators (OGs) since the supplier (Emery-Trailigaz) is no longer in the municipal drinking
water market, the OGs are obsolete products, replacement parts are scarce, and the pool of qualified and
experienced service providers is very limited.
The basic design parameters for the existing ozonation facilities are summarized below.
Parameter Design
Maximum flow, MGD 16
Design ozone dose (transferred), mg/L 3.4
Max dosage, mg/L 4.0
Design contact time, minutes 11.4
Air compressors, each 3
Air compressor capacity, CFM, each 236
Aftercoolers, each 2
Aftercooler capacity, SCFM, each 480
Air receivers, each 2
Air receiver capacity, gallons, each 650
Compressed air dryers, each 2
Dryer capacity, SCFM, each 480
Generators, each 3
Generator capacity, ppd 250
Total generator capacity, ppd 750
Contact basin diffuser type Ceramic disc
Off-gas destruct 2
Off-gas destruct capacity, SCFM 231
Table 4.3 – Existing Ozone System
Packet Pg 58
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 30
Variability of Ozone Demand
In 1994, ozone was incorporated as the primary disinfectant at the WTP to minimize the formation of
disinfection byproducts during the treatment process. At the time, the WTP treated water from two
sources: Whale Rock Reservoir (WR) and the Salinas Reservoir. In 2007, prior to the introduction of
water from the NWP, the City performed an evaluation of ozone demand as a function of various blend
ratios of the two water sources. Data from the months of February, May, and August (2001 to 2006) were
selected to represent the periods when the WTP operated with the Salinas supply only, Whale Rock (WR)
supply only, or with a combination of the two supplies. The ozone demand was calculated based on the
gas flow rate, ozone weight percent, and plant influent flow rate.
Since the WTP was operated as a blended system between raw water supplies, the ozone dose generally
varied as the source rates varied. For example, the required ozone dose generally increased as the flow
rate from the Salinas Reservoir increased. The ozone dose was lowest when only water from the WR
Reservoir was used. Figure 4.6 below shows the historical ozone dose as a function of the WR Reservoir
flow contribution, and is shown to demonstrate the variability in ozone demand.
Figure 4.6 – Historic Ozone Dose
Packet Pg 59
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 31
Review of Figure 4.6 indicates that when the WR Reservoir contribution was 31 to 40% and the Salinas
Reservoir contribution is 60 to 69%, the required average ozone dose was 3.7 mg/L. When the flow
contributions were reversed and the WR Reservoir contribution was 75% and the Salinas Reservoir
contribution was 25%, the required average ozone dose was 3.58 mg/L.
The historical data shows that there is not a strong correlation between ozone dose and source water
blend when blending two source waters. This demonstrates the need to obtain additional data to establish
this correlation now that the City relies on a blend of three source waters. A comprehensive ozone dose
piloting program is recommended to determine required ozone dose under various blending conditions,
and to assist in selection of replacement ozone equipment.
Ozone Piloting
Obtaining additional ozone dosing data from full-scale operation of the WTP is difficult, since the WTP
must remain in continuous operation and the source blend is variable. Obtaining data at various blends
would be best accomplished by operating a pilot ozonation system at low flow rates. The blending ratio
could then be easily changed without affecting overall WTP operation.
The primary objective of the ozonation pilot would be to identify maximum ozone demand for various
blend ratios of the three primary water sources supplying the WTP to assist in proper equipment sizing.
The pilot would operate at low flow rates (e.g. approximately 10 GPM), with a target ozone dose of 3-5
mg/L. This is equivalent to ozone production of approximately 11.4 grams/hr (0.6 lb/day) at 5 mg/L. Pilot
ozone systems of this capacity are available from multiple vendors.
While a full pilot protocol is beyond the scope of this document, the pilot program could be expected to
consist of:
1. Design the pilot facilities, including contact chamber, residence chamber, and ozone destruct
system. Typical pilot systems would require less than 10 GPM water feed. Water supply to the
pilot system should be taken from the various sources prior to any treatment at the WTP. Effluent
from the pilot test should be returned to the filter washwater treatment system for reuse.
2. Procure pilot test from one or more vendors. Provide online ozone analysis after the contact
chamber to allow automated data collection during the pilot test.
3. Install and test the pilot system(s) at varying blend rates. These should include:
a. Single-source test for each of the water sources
b. Binary blends for all three combinations, at prescribed increments
c. Trinary blends at prescribed increments
4. Each blend rate should be maintained for a duration sufficient for determining the ozone residual.
If automatic ozone analysis is provided, record effluent ozone concentration at 10-minute
Packet Pg 60
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 32
intervals. If not, perform manual ozone analyses at the maximum practical rate. The data from the
pilot system should be compared with the parallel data from the existing plant to evaluate
correlation.
5. Determine the optimal ozonation rates to achieve 0.5 log inactivation of giardia for each of the
blending rates, and verify sufficient data is available to predict ozonation concentrations. If not,
repeat any test runs necessary to fill in data gaps.
6. Receive pilot report, with recommendations for ozone system configuration and operation.
The pilot system should be designed to mimic the existing ozone contact basin as much as possible. At
current typical flows, the existing process achieves the required contact time (CT) from contact cells #1
and #2. It may be possible to achieve the target CT in cell #1 alone. The pilot should be designed to
evaluate a variety of dosing concentrations and a variety of contact durations to identify the best
approach to meeting the target log inactivation for the ozone pretreatment process.
Measure Description
The focus of this measure is to replace the existing ozone system with a new system that is appropriately
sized, reliable, maintainable, and uses less energy to operate when compared to the existing system. As
part of this ECM, a variety of replacement alternatives will be evaluated to identify the preferred approach.
Scope of Work
· Develop and perform an Ozone Pilot study to determine the ozone demand of a variety of source
water blends. The pilot study will evaluate the best use of the existing contact basins to inform the
selection of generator capacity for best efficiency and permit compliance.
· Evaluate feed gas options including Liquid Oxygen and ambient air. Evaluation criteria may
include energy consumption, lifecycle costs, capital expense, maintainability, etc.
· Develop recommendations for ozone production capacity to meet variable ozone demands.
· Develop recommendations for number of generators to meet maximum and variable ozone
demands, while providing sufficient redundancy.
· Coordinate ozone generator selection with Division Drinking Water permit requirements and
evaluate approaches to meeting CT compliance (e.g. Meeting CT in cell 1 alone vs. several
cells).
· Develop cost estimates for construction, operation, and maintenance. Utilize these costs to
estimate lifecycle costs.
Packet Pg 61
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 33
Benefits
The expected benefits of this ECM include:
· Reduced energy consumption.
· Replacement of aging, obsolete ozone equipment and components.
· Improved ability to perform maintenance.
· Potential improvement in achieving permit compliance.
· Increased reliability and redundancy.
· Reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from the City’s operations.
· Contribution to the City’s sustainability goals and advancement toward Zero Net Energy (ZNE).
4.2.3 ECM-3 WTP Transfer Pump Station Backup Power
Existing Conditions
The existing Transfer Pump Station (TPS) located at the South end of the Stenner Creek Road facility is a
purpose-built cinder block structure which houses four 75hp pumps that transfer treated water from the
plant Clearwell to Res-2 which in turn provides water to the high-pressure distribution system throughout
the city. To serve the electrical loads, the TPS is equipped with a 600 amp motor control center (MCC-6)
that distributes power to the four existing pumps as well as building lighting, ventilation, and control
systems. This motor control center is equipped with a manual transfer switch, which in the event of a
power outage, allows the facility operators to connect a portable generator to run one of the four booster
pumps. When this happens, a generator must be retrieved and transported from an offsite location,
connected to the MCC, manually operated and eventually brought back to its offsite location. It should be
noted that Res-2 has two to three days of storage capacity to meet the city’s high-pressure zone
demands. This gives the plant staff ample time to arrange for a backup generator if it may be needed.
The future plans for the plant may include Res-2 being taken offline for an extended period of time for
rebuilding or replacement. The existing configuration will not provide proper emergency back up to serve
the high-pressure zones.
Measure Description
We recommend the City consider augmenting the TPS electrical infrastructure by installing a new
permanent diesel or propane fueled backup power generator and the addition of a new auto transfer
switch (ATS) to automatically provide power to MCC-6 during a loss of power.
Scope of Work
· Provide a new 300kW/375kVA backup generator located on the North-West side of the existing
TPS building.
Packet Pg 62
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 34
· Replace the existing manual transfer switch with a new auto transfer switch.
· Provide all infrastructure necessary to integrate the new generator/ATS system in the existing
power distribution system.
· Provide interface with the existing SCADA system for remote generator status and alarm
monitoring.
Benefits
The expected benefits of this ECM include:
· Allow for the operation of all four Transfer pumps during a power loss.
· Provides water supply security for the city’s high-pressure service.
· Provide for fire protection needs during a power loss.
· Reduce health /safety concerns during power outage by providing continuous positive pressure in
the high-pressure system.
· Reduced maintenance efforts and cost related to back up electrical service needs.
· Provides water supply security and flexibility during Res-2 construction.
4.2.4 ECM-4 WTP Transfer Pump Station Upgrades
Existing Conditions
As discussed above, the TPS houses four (4) transfer pumps that ultimately
provide treated water to the city’s high-pressure distribution system. This is
accomplished by pumping water from Clearwell #1 to Res-2 which in turn
gravity feeds the high-pressure system. The high-pressure system can be
directly served from the transfer pumps in the event Res-2 is taken offline.
The only event in which the high-pressure system would be directly
pumped is if Res-2 would be taken offline for maintenance or to be rebuilt
as recommended in the city’s 2015 Water Master Plan. If the high-pressure system is directly fed and
demand is fluctuating, there is no way to regulate the system flow other than manually turning system
pumps on and off.
For system control, the TPS building is currently equipped with a Bristol Babcock 3300 Distributed
Process Controller (DPC) that is integrated into the facility wide SCADA system. For operation and
monitoring of the four transfer pumps, each is currently set up for remote starting, and alarm monitoring
via the SCADA system. In addition to pump control and monitoring, the system supply pressure and flow
is monitored by the SCADA system. Because Res-2 has a storage capacity to serve the City’s high-
pressure system for 2 to 3 days (depending on demand) there is currently not an automated process
Figure 4.2 TPS Controller (CSP)
Packet Pg 63
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 35
utilized through the SCADA system to operate the Transfer pumps. On average three pumps are
operated manually by the plant operators based on when the plant is in operation which averages 16
hours a day.
Measure Description
As the City’s primary mission in the operation of the plant is providing reliable safe water service, careful
consideration should be given to determine the most effective approach to modifying and controlling the
TPS. The primary options under consideration for evaluation and inclusion in this program are: the
addition of Variable Frequency Drives (VFD) to each of the four existing transfer pumps and improved
pump sequencing – the combination of which is expected to improve overall system efficiency.
The two primary benefits include the ability to slowly ramp up each pump when they are brought online to
eliminate pressure spikes and the ability to continually modulate the pump speed to meet varied demands
of the high-pressure system.
Another recommendation to manage the operational costs of the TPS is to integrate level sensing at
Clearwell #1 and pump sequencing to minimize the energy consumption related to serving Res-2. This
would include the strategic operation of pumps based on energy usage, energy rates, and tank levels.
Scope of Work
· Add VFDs to each of the four existing transfer pumps and integrate into the existing SCADA
system.
· Add a remote pressure sensor or tank level sensor at Bishop Storage tank to monitor the high-
pressure system.
· Add sequence of operation in the SCADA system to allow for automatic operation of the Transfer
pumps to directly serve the high-pressure system.
· Add programming to the TPS control system with logic to optimize the operation of the pumps
when serving Res-2 based on Clearwell Levels, Res-2 levels and Time-of-Use (TOU) electric
rates.
Benefits
The expected benefits of this ECM include:
· Optimized system sequencing and function with or without Res-2 online.
· Reduced staff requirements for manual operation.
· Reduced electrical use, demand, and related costs.
· Provide the ability to reduce disinfection by-products related to water age issues in the Water
Distribution System.
Packet Pg 64
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 36
4.2.5 ECM-5 WTP Photovoltaic Power Generation
Existing Conditions
The WTP currently does not utilize renewable energy resources to displace grid supplied energy and
reduce the WTP’s utility costs.
Measure Description
The focus of this energy conservation measure is to reduce the City’s consumption of energy from its
utility provider and the related costs by installing photovoltaic (PV) generation systems at the WTP.
The initial solution considered for this site is the installation of two ground-mount PV arrays, one 100
kW DC array to the northwest of the forebay and a second 130 kW DC array between the forebay and the
idle sedimentation basin. This system will be able to produce approximately 341,000 kWh annually which
will offset approximately 16% of the WTP’s current consumption. Since this and the other proposed PV
systems would generate more than 15% of the WTP’s current consumption it would enable the use of
Option R for Solar in the PG&E E-19 time-of-use tariff for the WTP. This optional rate reduces demand
rates in exchange for higher energy rates and is typically economically beneficial for sites with PV. The
initial evaluation of Option R for the WTP after implementation of the SST project shows that it will reduce
utility costs compared to E-19 without Option R.
One of the challenges for locating PV systems at the WTP is dedicating the site’s limited land to PV
systems so as to not interfere with WTP operations or future plant modifications. Close coordination with
WTP staff will be required to identify areas that are suitable to plant operations while providing good PV
system performance and cost-effective system installation.
Additional Considerations
· Potential locations for several additional PV arrays have been identified and are described below.
If all of the additional arrays are able to be installed, that would increase the PV capacity by 260
to 320 KWDC and generate an additional 400,000 – 495,000 kWh annually (approximately 20-25%
of the WTP’s current use).
o Two additional small arrays of roughly 20 kW DC each might be located along the fence
line near the wash water tanks (Arrays #3 and 4 shown in Figure 4.3 below).
o The rooftops of the Control, Lab, and Chemical buildings might accommodate small PV
systems totaling 70-80 kW DC (Arrays #7, 8 and 10 shown in Figure 4.3 below).
o A PV system could also be located on the land being considered for the hydrogeneration
system (to the southeast of Clearwell #2 and the Transfer Pump Station). If the entire pie-
Packet Pg 65
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 37
wedge shaped area is available to the City, this area could accommodate a PV system of
150-200 kW DC (Array #9 shown in Figure 4.3 below).
· PG&E has proposed changes to its time-of-use (TOU) structure and rates, including E-19, that
will ultimately reduce utility cost savings for PV systems relative to the existing rates. On
October 26, 2017 the CPUC approved Decision 17-01-006 that provides “grandfathering” of the
current TOU rate periods for public agencies who submit a solar PV interconnection application
(IA) prior to December 31, 2017. The grandfathering extends the current TOU periods to July 31,
2027. In order to secure TOU grandfathering for PV at the WTP, Southland submitted an IA to
PG&E on behalf of the City on December 22, 2017 for PV systems with a total capacity of 624
kWAC (approximately 780 kWDC). This application also covers the PV systems discussed in ECM-
6.
· Energy generated by PV systems directly connected to the WTP has the best economic value
($/kWh) versus utilizing bill credit transfers (BCT) from excess generation at another of the City’s
sites.
· The WTP experiences periodic power quality type issues that affect systems in the WTP and
could affect the electronics in PV system inverters. Further investigation to understand and
characterize the issues will be required.
· Investigate the benefits and costs of utilizing a battery storage system with the PV systems in the
IGA.
Benefits
The expected benefits of this ECM include:
· Significant reduction in electric utility costs.
· Renewable generation of up to 41% of the WTP’s current consumption if all identified arrays are
installed.
· Contribution to the City’s sustainability goals and advancement toward Zero Net Energy (ZNE).
· Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) resulting from the City’s operations.
Packet Pg 66
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 38 Figure 4.3 - Water Treatment Plant Potential PV Locations Packet Pg 671
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 39
4.2.6 ECM-6 WTP Photovoltaic Shade Canopy for Actiflo and Filter Basins
Existing Conditions
The WTP currently does not utilize renewable energy resources to displace grid supplied energy and
reduce the WTP’s utility costs. Additionally, the Actiflo and filter basins are exposed to the sun for most
daylight hours which can promote algae growth in these systems.
Measure Description
The focus of this energy conservation measure is to reduce the City’s consumption of energy from the
utility and the related costs by installing photovoltaic (PV) generation systems at the WTP. An additional
goal of this measure is to reduce exposure of the Actiflo basins and filters to the sun to reduce conditions
for algae growth and algae related disinfection byproducts in these areas of the process.
The initial envisioned solution is the installation of two canopy mounted PV arrays, one 30 kWDC array
over the Actiflo basins and a second 35 kWDC array over the Filters (see PV arrays #5 and #6 shown in
Figure 4.3 in ECM-5 above). This system will be able to produce approximately 100,000 kWh annually
which will offset approximately 4.7% of the WTP’s current consumption.
Additional Considerations
· Energy generated by PV systems directly connected to the WTP has the best economic value
($/kWh) versus utilizing bill credit transfers (BCT) from excess generation at another of the City’s sites.
· The WTP experiences periodic power quality type issues that affect systems in the WTP and
could affect the electronics in PV system inverters. Further investigation to understand and
characterize the issues will be required.
Benefits
The expected benefits of this ECM include:
· Reduced electric utility costs.
· Renewable generation of 4.7% of the WTP’s current consumption.
· Improved water quality and human health due to reducing the potential for algae growth.
· Contribution to the City’s sustainability goals and advancement toward Zero Net Energy (ZNE).
· Reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from the City’s operations.
Packet Pg 68
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 40
4.2.7 ECM-7 WTP Lighting Improvements
Existing Conditions
Our brief site visits and examination of the site’s drawings indicate that the interior spaces throughout the
WTP are equipped primarily with linear fluorescent light fixtures utilizing T8 lamps. There are a variety of
exterior fixture types (wall mount and pole mount) and technologies (high pressure sodium (HPS),
induction, metal halide (MH)).
Measure Description
The focus of this energy conservation measure is to reduce the energy consumption of the WTP’s indoor
and exterior lighting systems, improve their efficiency and life-cycle costs, and standardize the
components of these systems as much as is reasonable within the goals and constraints of the project.
In general, the indoor lighting systems will be improved through application of LED technology. The
envisioned solutions include:
· Linear fluorescent to LED upgrade by modifying existing fixtures with LED retrofit kits. The
existing lamps and ballasts will be removed and replaced with new tubular LED lamps and a LED
driver to power the lamps. The existing fixture housing and power wiring to the fixture will remain
in place.
· In situations where the existing fixture housings are in poor condition or otherwise not suitable for
a retrofit solution, the luminaire will be replaced with a new LED luminaire.
· Install new lighting controls (such as occupancy sensors) where required to comply with Title-24.
· Conversion of the fluorescent systems to LED typically reduces energy consumption by at least
50%.
In general, the outdoor lighting systems will be improved through application of LED technology. The
envisioned solutions include:
· Replacement of existing exterior luminaires with new high-efficiency LED luminaires. The
applications at the City’s facilities typically include parking area lights, building wall packs, pole-
mounted area lights, and flood lights.
· A retrofit solution of removing the ballast and installing a LED lamp and driver may be proposed
in situations where the existing fixture housing is in good condition and suitable for the retrofit
solution.
· Installation of Title-24 compliant controls for the new exterior lighting systems as required.
· Conversion of HPS and MH fixtures to LED typically reduces energy consumption 60%-70%.
Packet Pg 69
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 41
Benefits
The expected benefits of this ECM include:
· Reduced electric utility costs.
· Reduced maintenance efforts for the lighting systems resulting from the longer operating life of
the LED fixtures.
· Enhanced safety in exterior areas resulting from improved color rendering delivered by LED
fixtures.
· Contribution to the City’s sustainability goals and advancement toward Zero Net Energy (ZNE).
· Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the City’s operations.
4.2.8 ECM-8 WTP HVAC and HVAC Control Improvements
Existing Conditions
The primary HVAC systems at the WTP consist of the following:
· A 3-ton packaged rooftop heating and cooling system with programmable thermostat for the
control room in the Control Building.
· A 5-ton packaged rooftop heating and cooling system with programmable thermostat for the
offices, Facility Room, and common areas on the second floor of the Control Building.
· A 5-ton packaged heating and cooling system (heat pump) with programmable thermostat for the
lab and office areas in the Lab Building.
· Exhaust systems for the ozone air preparation room and the ozone generator room in the Control
Building.
· Exhaust systems with fractional horsepower exhaust fans for the Transfer Pump Station building,
Chemical Building, and Pretreatment Building.
Due to the relatively small size of the WTP’s HVAC systems and San Luis Obispo’s mild climate, the
estimated annual electric energy use for the WTP’s HVAC systems is small at 37,600 kWh (about 1.8% of
the WTP’s use) and the resulting cost is roughly $6,200/year.
Based on our understanding of the configuration and operation of these systems, the opportunity to
meaningfully and cost effectively reduce the energy use of these systems is small, and additional study of
these systems is not recommended.
Packet Pg 70
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 42
4.2.9 ECM-9 WTP Plant Service Water System Upgrades
Existing Conditions
The Plant Service Water System (PSWS) provides treated water to a number of processes and uses in
the WTP including cooling water for equipment, plant water, irrigation, fire hydrants, and fire suppression.
The PSWS consists of a Flowtronex packaged booster pump system (BPS) located in the Pump Station
building near Clearwell #1, a network of distribution piping in the WTP downstream of the booster pump
system, and an 8” pipe connection to the High-Pressure Zone that is the source of treated water to the
system. The Flowtronex BPS is designed to deliver 550 GPM at a discharge pressure of 90 psig and
includes a skid with two constant speed 30HP end-suction centrifugal pumps, a constant speed 3HP
vertical turbine pump (“jockey” pump), suction and discharge piping, pump discharge pressure control
valves, electric power control components, and instrumentation and controls.
The predominant service water use appears to be the cooling water (CW) system that provides cooling for
the ozone generators (OG), ozone power supply units (PSUs), air compressors for the ozone system
(AC), and compressed air aftercoolers (AFC). When equipment connected to the CW system is operating,
its CW valve is opened allowing CW to flow from the CW supply piping through operating equipment,
removing heat. The equipment’s CW valve is closed when the equipment is off. The CW leaving the
equipment flows into the CW return piping and is ultimately sent to the plant for re-treatment via
connection to the filter inlet channel.
Typically, one 30 HP pump operates during normal plant operation and the
“jockey” pump operates when service water demands are low (usually when
the water treatment process is off). The operator’s logs for January 2017
through October 2017 show the service water flow rate averages roughly 280
GPM during plant operation and the average suction pressure at the pump
skid is approximately 65 psig. Based on the pump curve for the main pumps,
one of the main pumps will produce 152 feet of head (65.8 psi) at 280 GPM
which results in a pump discharge pressure of 130.8 psig. This is significantly
more than the 90 psig PSWS pressure set-point that the booster pump
package is attempting to satisfy. As a result, the excess 40.8 psi of pressure
is throttled (wasted) down to the set-point by the pump’s discharge pressure
control valve. That generation of excess pressure wastes of 62% of the
energy used by the pump. The estimated power draw for a main pump at the
280 GPM operating condition is 10.2 kW and its resulting annual electric use
is 61,434 kWh.
Figure 4.4 Plant Service Water
System Booster Pumps
Packet Pg 71
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 43
An ongoing problem with the BPS is an electric “phase fault” that causes the booster pump system to
shut down approximately 10-12 times per year. This failure causes the loss of cooling water to key ozone
system equipment that usually results in shut down of the ozone system, and ultimately the water
treatment process. The phase fault is internal to the BPS controls and utilizes a 3-phase voltage sensor to
monitor multiple aspects of the voltage to the BPS. If conditions are outside the set-points in the monitor,
the monitor provides a single contact output to the BPS controller that in turn generates the fault and
shuts down the system. The specific electrical condition that triggers the phase fault is not yet known.
Measure Description
The focus of this energy conservation measure is to reduce the energy consumption of the main PSWS
pumps and to eliminate the phase faults that cause the BPS and the WTP to shut down. The energy
reduction will be achieved by installing a variable frequency drive (VFD) for each of the two main pumps,
eliminating the discharge pressure control valves for the main pumps, and implementing controls that will
control the speed of the pumps to maintain the pump discharge pressure at the 90 psig set-point required
for the PSWS. This will minimize generation and throttling of excess pressure by the pumps and is
expected to reduce the BPS energy use by approximately 60%.
The solution for eliminating the phase faults will require additional study during the IGA to understand the
specific condition causing the fault and the root cause of that condition.
Benefits
The expected benefits of this ECM include:
· Reduced electrical use, demand, and related costs.
· Increased operational reliability of the WTP.
· Reduced maintenance efforts resulting from eliminating the pump discharge pressure control
valves (Cla-Val valves).
· Contribution to the City’s sustainability goals and advancement toward Zero Net Energy (ZNE).
· Reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from the City’s operations.
Packet Pg 72
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 44
4.2.10 ECM-10 WTP Filter Backwash Tank Filling Improvements
Existing Conditions
The WTP’s filters are backwashed periodically each
day to clean the media to maintain their
effectiveness. The Wash Water System (WWS)
utilizes treated water to backwash the WTP’s filters
and consists of two atmospheric wash water tanks
to the northwest of the Chemical Building, wash
water piping between the filters and the tanks,
wash water drain piping from the filters to the wash
water reclamation basins, automated valves and
controls for controlling backwash operations, and treated water piping (supply) from the Plant Pump
House (PPH) to a connection on the wash water piping between the tanks and filters that is used to fill the
tanks. When a tank needs to be filled, an automated valve is opened in the PPH and treated water flows
from the High-Pressure Zone through an 8” line to the Pump House (same pipe that supplies the plant
Service Water System) to the wash water supply piping.
Prior to the 2006 WTP upgrade project, there were dedicated wash water pumps in the Pump House that
drew treated water from the storage tank where Clearwell #1 is now located. During a site visit, it was
confirmed that the piping between Clearwell #1 and the Pump House is no longer in place.
The current tank filling method from the High-Pressure Zone is simple and effective, but utilizes more
energy than would be required to fill the wash water tanks by directly pumping water from Clearwell #1.
The excess energy results from using the high-pressure water created by the transfer pumps (requiring
approximately 141 feet of pump head) compared to the estimated pump head of 60 feet needed to fill a
wash water tank from Clearwell #1. If the typical time to fill a 75,000 gallon wash water tank is 60 minutes,
the resulting flowrate is 1,250 GPM and the estimated transfer pump motor power draw for that flow is
37.7 kW. On average, the backwash tanks are filled twice per day and the resulting annual electric use is
27,533 kWh.
Measure Description
The concept of this energy conservation measure is reducing the energy used to fill the backwash tanks
by only creating the head needed to fill the backwash tanks from Clearwell #1 versus throttling of the
excess pressure generated by the transfer pumps. Filling the tank from Clearwell #1 at 1,250 GPM using
a pump developing 60 feet of head would result in an estimated motor power draw of 17.8 kW, and
annual energy use of 12,988 kWh (a 52% reduction).
Figure 4.5 Wash Water Tanks
Packet Pg 73
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 45
This measure requires the installation of a new pump (in or near the Pump House) for filling the wash
water tanks, power for the pump, suction and discharge piping, controls, and piping connection to
Clearwell #1. The existing method of filling the tanks from the High-Pressure Zone can remain as a back
up to the pump, and allows wash water tank filling if Clearwell #1 is offline.
Since a suitable piping connection does not exist between Clearwell #1 and the Pump House, and is
expected to be costly to install, it is our opinion that the cost to implement this measure makes it
economically unattractive.
Benefits
The expected benefits of this ECM include:
· Reduced electrical use, demand, and related costs.
· Contribution to the City’s sustainability goals and advancement toward Zero Net Energy (ZNE).
· Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) resulting from the City’s operations.
4.2.11 ECM-11 WTP SCADA/Controls Upgrades
Existing Conditions
The WTP is equipped with an existing SCADA system which is utilized by the City’s staff to monitor and
control key equipment and processes at the WTP. This system is equipped with 10 Control System
Processors (CPS) which are Bristol Babcock DPC RTU controllers of varying vintage (1994–2008). These
controllers located at multiple locations around the plant are networked back to operator workstations in
the WTP’s control room via Cat-5 or Fiber optic cabling. The main operator workstation is equipped with
iFIX interface software as well as historian for trending and archiving key parameters needed for system
operation and regulatory compliance.
The existing system as described above is confined to the WTP at Stenner Creek Road and currently has
no capability for remote access or interface with systems outside of the plant. In addition, the existing
Bristol Babcock system controllers are an aging platform with limited availability of spare parts and
service providers which is accompanied with rising maintenance costs.
The City is currently moving forward on a project to upgrade the SCADA control components associated
with the Water Distribution System (WDS), which is fed from the WTP, to an Allen Bradley family of
controllers. After the project is complete, the entire WDS will have the ability to be monitored and
controlled systematically on a unified platform. The WTP is not part of this migration and will not have the
ability to send or receive information on the system as a whole.
Packet Pg 74
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 46
Measure Description
The objective of this measure is to improve the existing SCADA system at the WTP by upgrading the
existing controllers to a platform that is compatible with the system being installed for the WDS. This
would provide the ability to monitor the connected systems that make up the WDS, which will provide the
ability to monitor and optimize the control of the WTP and WDS as a system.
Scope of Work
We recommend the City consider the replacement of the existing Bristol Babcock controllers with
CompactLogix and/or ControlLogix PLCs by Allen-Bradley. Compact Logix and Control Logix represent
small and large PLCs from the same family. They are fully compatible with each other and use the same
programming software. The description of the system replacements/upgrades is described below.
· At the Ozone building CSP-1 and CSP-7: replace with new PLC in the existing cabinet and
location.
· At the Ozone contact basin CSP-2: replace with new PLC in new cabinet at or near the existing
location.
· At the Filter Building CSP–3 and CSP-4: replace with new PLCs in the existing cabinets and
location.
· At the Chemical Building CSP-5: replace with new PLC in the existing cabinet and location.
· At the Plant Water Service Pump Station CSP-6: replace with new PLC in the existing cabinet
and location.
· At the Transfer Pump Station CSP-8: replace with new PLC in the existing cabinet and location.
· All of the upgraded PLCs will be reprogrammed to optimize system operation.
· All of the upgraded PLCs will interface with the site wide SCADA system.
As the existing Actiflo System controllers CSP 9 and CSP10 are the newest and were provided and
programmed by the manufacturer as a system package, it is recommended that these remain in place. A
small number of interface points on this system were integrated into the SCADA system at CSP-3 from
the Actiflo system. These interface points would be re-established as part of the CSP-3 upgrade.
Benefits
The expected benefits of this ECM include:
· Providing a robust SCADA system that utilizes a centralized communication and control protocol
will provide the City the ability to monitor the potable water system (treatment and distribution)
and optimize operation as a connected system.
· Providing critical process information of connected systems to evaluate and improve process
operations and efficiency.
Packet Pg 75
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 47
· Providing a PLC and associated communication specification for future upgrades or expansion
which will avoid the costs associated with integrating mismatched systems.
· Allowing the City to consider PLC related services from multiple vendors as the Allan Bradley
product is one of the most common in the industry.
4.2.12 ECM-13 Install VFDs for Ferrini Pumps and Eliminate Fel Mar Pump Station
Existing Conditions
In 2010, the City removed the Highland Tank and replaced the Rosemont Pump Station. The following
additional projects were recommended for improving fire protection, system pressures, reliability, and
redundancy:
· Raise operating level in Ferrini Tank to one foot from the overflow elevation.
· Reverse Patricia Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV) to flow from Ferrini to Highland.
· Abandon the Fel Mar Pump Station and rely on Patricia and Skyline/Mira Sol PRVs to provide
water to Highland Zone.
· Combine the Highland and Ferrini Pressure Zones.
The City also planned to modify the Ferrini Pump Station to allow the pump station to provide service to
the combined Highland/Ferrini Zone when the Ferrini Tank is out of service. These modifications were
anticipated to include a pressure relief valve and bypass piping located within the Ferrini Pump Station.
The Fel Mar pump station was scheduled for removal once the Highland tank was removed. During
hydrant tests performed by City staff on September 19, 2008, it was found that the Fel Mar pump station
(rated at 600 GPM at 170’ TDH) contributes slightly to the fire flows available at the Rosemont pump
station. It was estimated that the Fel Mar pump station contributes approximately an additional 100 GPM
to the Rosemont pump station. However, since the Fel Mar pump station pumps directly into the Highland
zone, it was found that the pressure provided by the Fel Mar pump station causes the PRVs at Patricia
and Skyline to close, thereby eliminating the benefit of the Ferrini tank and pump station in an emergency
(Fel Mar pumps from the Patricia zone which is supplied by the small Serrano tank). Several strategies
involving the Fel Mar pump station were considered such as leaving it in service as backup to the Ferrini
tank to supply the Highland zone, or as a future dedicated booster pump station to provide fire flow to the
Rosemont pump station. Ultimately, the Fel Mar pump station was taken out of service.
Subsequently, the 2015 Water Master Plan recommended that a new Rosemont Pump Station be
eliminated, and a new Fel Mar Pump Station be constructed, and fitted with a new fire pump and backup
generator. The recommendation was based on a stated requirement to fill a future Rosemont Tank in
Packet Pg 76
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 48
eight hours, and “low suction pressures at Rosemont Pump Station that impact the ability to meet fire flow
requirements in the Highland Zone.” Additional pipeline upgrades were also recommended.
Measure Description
The focus of this measure is to evaluate the benefit of modifications to the distribution system to improve
operations and reduce planned CIPs. Specifically, the ECM will evaluate the potential to install VFDs at
the Ferrini Pump Station, and an altitude valve at the Ferrini Tank. With VFDs integrated into the new
SCADA system, the Ferrini Pump Station could potentially be used to increase the hydraulic grade at the
Rosemont BPS, thus eliminating the need to construct a new Fel Mar pump station.
Additionally, based on utility records from 2015-2017, the electrical costs associated with the Ferrini
Pump Station have increased 140%, though the energy use (kWh) has remained nearly identical. This
increase appears to be due to the change in rate tariff from A1 to A10 (Effective November 1, 2012,
Schedule A-1 is closed to customers with a maximum demand of 75 kW or greater for three consecutive
months in the most recent twelve months). The peak demand at Ferrini was at 79-81 kW for a number of
months, which initiated the A-10 Tariff. For the period of late 2016 thru most of 2017, the peak demand
has been 48-49 kW. For this ECM, VFDs and other instrumentation/controls will be evaluated to control
the pumps in a way to keep the demand below the 75-kW threshold and maintain the A-1 tariff.
Benefits
The expected benefits of this ECM include:
· Elimination of new Pump Station and Pipeline CIPs.
· Reduced pumping costs through VFD control, and reduced “double pumping.”
· Reduced pumping costs through maintaining a lower tariff.
· Retaining full life-expectancy of existing Rosemont Pump Station (built in 2010) resulting in
avoided capital costs of $745,000.
· Improving fire protection.
· Reduced operations and maintenance (O&M) by consolidating existing facilities, resulting in
reduced O&M costs of $8,000 per year.
4.2.13 ECM-15 Reservoir No.1 Photovoltaic Energy Generation
Existing Conditions
The City’s Water Distribution System (WDS) facilities currently do not utilize renewable energy resources to
displace grid supplied energy and reduce the Utilities Department’s utility costs. The Reservoir No.1 site has
a large amount of open area surrounding the reservoir that could be utilized for a solar photovoltaic system.
Packet Pg 77
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 49
Measure Description
The focus of this energy conservation measure is to reduce the City’s consumption of energy from the
utility and the related costs by installing a photovoltaic (PV) generation system at Reservoir-1.
The initial solution explored for this site is the installation of a large, 1,200 kWDC, ground-mount PV array
in the open area to the north and east of the reservoir (see Figure 4.6 below). This system will be able to
produce approximately 1,860,000 kWh annually which is significantly more than the 10,800 kWh that is
consumed at Reservoir-1. The excess (exported) energy generation will be used to reduce electric utility
costs at other Utilities Department and City facilities through PG&E’s Renewable Energy Self-Generation
Bill Credit Transfer (RES-BCT) rate schedule for local government. The output from this PV system will
offset approximately 58.5% of the total electric consumption for all of the Water Utility’s facilities (water
supply, treatment and distribution).
Additional Considerations
PG&E has proposed changes to its time-of-use (TOU) structure and rates, including A-1 that applies to
Res-1, that will ultimately reduce utility cost savings for PV systems relative to the existing rates. On
October 26, 2017 the CPUC approved Decision 17-01-006 that provides “grandfathering” of the current
TOU rate periods for public agencies who submit a solar PV interconnection application (IA) prior to
December 31, 2017. The grandfathering extends the current TOU periods to July 31, 2027. In order to
secure TOU grandfathering for PV at Reservoir No. 1, Southland submitted an IA to PG&E on behalf of
the City on December 22, 2017 for PV systems with a total capacity of 960 kW AC (1,200 kWDC).
Benefits
The expected benefits of this ECM include:
· Significant reduction in electric utility costs.
· Renewable generation that replaces approximately 58.5% of the total electric consumption for all
of the Water Utility’s sites.
· Significant contribution to the City’s sustainability goals and significant advancement toward Zero
Net Energy (ZNE).
· Reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from the City’s operations.
Packet Pg 78
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 50 Figure 4.6 Reservoir-1 PV Site Plan Packet Pg 791
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 51
4.2.14 ECM-16 Whale Rock Pump Station Upgrades
Existing Conditions
One of the raw water sources for the WTP is Whale Rock Reservoir (WRR). WRR is located on Old
Creek Road approximately one-half mile east of the community of Cayucos. The project was planned,
designed, and constructed under the supervision of the State Department of Water Resources.
Construction took place between October 1958 and April 1961. The reservoir is jointly owned by the City,
the California Men's Colony (CMC), and the California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo
(Cal Poly). These three agencies form the Whale Rock Commission which is responsible for operational
policy and administration of the reservoir. Day-to-day operation is provided by the City of San Luis
Obispo.
The conveyance system delivers water from the reservoir to the Whale Rock Commission member
agencies located between the reservoir and the WTP. Outlets from the pipeline exist for water deliveries
to Chorro Reservoir and water treatment plant (operated by the California Men's Colony), Cal Poly State
University, the Cayucos water treatment facility and the City's Water Treatment Plant. In addition, water
can be delivered to the Dairy Creek Golf Course under terms of an agreement between the California
Men’s Colony and the County of San Luis Obispo. Currently, deliveries are regularly made to Cayucos,
the CMC, Cal Poly, and the City’s WTP.
The Whale Rock (WR) pipeline is approximately 17 miles long, connecting the reservoir to the member
agencies, and terminates at the City's WTP. The design capacity of the pipeline is 18.94 cubic feet per
second (approximately 8,500 gallons per minute). The line consists of modified prestressed concrete
cylinder pipe at most locations. Cement mortar lined steel pipe is used at creek crossings and junctions.
The pipeline has surge protection consisting of eight-inch, globe type, diaphragm-actuated pressure relief
valves which protect the line from excessive pressures.
Two pump stations, arranged in series, move the water through the pipeline to the delivery points. The
first pump station (Pump Station A) is located in Cayucos at Chaney Avenue. The second (Pump Station
B) is located near Camp San Luis Obispo, approximately six miles southeast of Morro Bay. Each station
has five, parallel, constant speed 200 horsepower pumps. Upgrades to both pump stations, including the
addition of two pumps at each station, were completed in August 1993. Six pumps and motors were
replaced in 2004.3 (Note – the two pumps installed at each station in 1993 are equipped with VFDs, but
the VFDs are not used, and is not yet clear if they are operable). The SCADA system for the pump
3 City of San Luis Obispo 2010 Urban Water Management Plan
Packet Pg 80
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 52
stations is in the process of being upgraded, including new networked communications, as part of broader
City SCADA upgrade project.
When deliveries are made to member agencies, both pump stations operate simultaneously utilizing the
same quantity of pumps in each pump station. A single pump, or multiple pumps at each station may be
operated depending on the flow required to satisfy the requested deliveries.
The CMC typically requests deliveries daily and requires a flowrate of approximately 2,200 GPM for four
to six hours. This flowrate can be satisfied by operating one pump at each station (a pump set). However,
the capacity of one pump set exceeds the flow taken by the CMC during CMC only deliveries, and since
the WTP cannot control or limit the flow from the WR pipeline, the excess flow is delivered to the WTP.
Recent measurements at the WTP have determined that approximately 650 GPM is delivered to the WTP
during CMC deliveries. When WR water is not desired at the WTP during CMC deliveries, the pump
energy associated with the extra flow is wasted and the City is forced to receive water from its storage in
WR reservoir.
Measure Description
The focus of this measure is to reduce energy use and improve the operation of the WTP by minimizing
or eliminating unneeded WR water deliveries to the WTP during CMC deliveries, and provide the control
of the flow to the WTP during specified WTP deliveries. The envisioned solution includes:
· Replacement of the two pump VFDs at each pump station, integration of the VFDs to the new
SCADA system at the pump stations, and implementation of new control logic/programming for
control of the pumps.
· Installation of a control valve in the 30” WR pipeline at the WTP, upstream of the connection to
the forebay. The new control valve will give the WTP the ability to prevent deliveries from the WR
pipeline when desired and control the WR delivery flowrate when deliveries are desired.
· Integration of the new control valve with the WTP’s SCADA system and implementation of new
control logic/programming for control of the valve. Ideally, key status points for the valve would be
visible to the WR SCADA system for coordination of pump operation with the valve.
Benefits
The expected benefits of this ECM include:
· Reduces or eliminates unneeded WR deliveries at the WTP during CMC operation.
· Allows the WTP to specify a desired WR delivery flowrate that is less than the capacity of a whole
pump set.
Packet Pg 81
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 53
· Reduced electrical use, demand, and related costs resulting from eliminating unneeded flow and
controlling the pumps to only produce the head needed for a given flowrate.
· Contribution to the City’s sustainability goals and advancement toward Zero Net Energy (ZNE).
· Reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from the City’s operations.
4.2.15 ECM-17 Whale Rock Renewable Energy Generation
The WR facilities currently do not utilize renewable energy resources to displace grid supplied energy and
reduce the Whale Rock Commission member agencies’ utility costs. A factor that likely contributes to this
condition is that the WR sites that use the most energy (Pumps Stations A and B) are small and do not have
the space to accommodate a meaningfully sized renewable energy system.
The opposite condition exists at Whale Rock Reservoir (WRR), (which is the
water source for the WR conveyance system), where there is very little if
any energy use, but the reservoir’s large water surface might be utilized
(conceptually) for a large floating solar photovoltaic (FPV) system, or
“Floatovoltaic” system. Since there is very little or no electric use at WRR for
a FPV system to offset, excess (exported) energy generation could be used
to reduce electric utility costs at other WR facilities through PG&E’s
Renewable Energy Self-Generation Bill Credit Transfer (RES-BCT) rate
schedule for local government.
Figure 4.7 Whale Rock Reservoir
Packet Pg 82
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 54
5 SST PROGRAM OVERVIEW
For over 40 years, PG&E and our fellow California utilities
have been recognized leaders in the advancement of
energy efficiency programs and technologies. In
collaboration with the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) and the Governor’s office, California
utilities have been able to maintain pre-1980’s per capita
energy consumption in the face of unprecedented
population and economic growth. More recently, we have
risen to the challenge of increasing generation from
renewable sources in our energy portfolio. As a result of
this historic collaboration, PG&E customers enjoy one of
the cleanest energy supplies in the country.
While we are proud of our collective successes, the
State, PG&E and our customers are facing a new set of
challenges arising from the interrelated effects of Climate
Change, severe drought, and worldwide goals to reduce
the carbon impact of everything we do. Addressing these
most pressing challenges in a timely and viable way calls
for creative thinking and an innovative response.
PG&E’s Utility Energy Services Contract (UESC) is a
prime example of doing things differently through
collaboration and creativity. Through a Public-Private Partnership with the United States Department of
Energy (DoE), UESC authorizes both civilian and military branches of the Federal government to engage
their local serving utility for the turnkey delivery of energy-related projects. Through this program, PG&E
provides all of the services required to identify and complete comprehensive energy projects, including
assessment, development, financial analysis, design, construction, commissioning and acceptance/turn-
over. Since the goal of these projects is to reduce energy and water consumption (and the related
operating cost), the capital cost of UESC projects is funded from the savings generated – either through
financing, incentives, grants or a combination thereof. PG&E provides end-to-end implementation
including all elements of assessment, development, design and construction for projects. Since its
PG&E’s Unique Qualifications
− PROVEN TRACK RECORD. PG&E has
successfully administered, developed,
and executed hundreds of millions of
dollars’ worth of energy efficiency
projects.
− LOCAL PRESENCE & LONG-TERM
PARTNER. With over 150 years’
experience serving Northern and
Central California, PG&E has
extensive local resources that will
support the project’s development,
engineering, implementation, and
service requirements
− VENDOR NEUTRAL. PG&E does not
make or sell equipment. Our project
development and solutions are guided
exclusively by the unique needs of
each individual customer.
− INDUSTRY-LEADING PROJECT
RESOURCES. PG&E assembles a
qualified and experienced team of
best-in-class energy, design and
construction professionals for each
customer project.
Packet Pg 83
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 55
inception, the UESC program has delivered an impressive scorecard of results for Federal facilities
across our service territory including NASA, FAA, US Army, GSA, IRS and VA.
Building on the success of the Federal UESC program, PG&E developed the Sustainable Solution
Turnkey (SST) Program to offer non-Federal customers the same ability to engage PG&E for the
implementation of comprehensive efficiency and renewable energy projects across their facilities.
Modeled on the rigorous development and accounting requirements of UESC, the SST Program provides
customers the same transparency, open-book cost development, and warranties offered to our largest
most discriminating customer.
PG&E strongly encourages customers to take a comprehensive and strategic approach to energy
planning, sustainability initiatives, and related project implementation. The SST Program defines and
supports a process that considers a design-build approach, takes advantage of streamlined procurement
through California Government Code Section 4217 and properly prioritizes and bundles deep energy-
saving retrofits, with renewable generation to achieve overall energy, sustainability, operational, and
financial goals.
Importantly, the SST methodology, described below, is designed to support the customer’s decision-
making process and is comprised of several steps to ensure that projects meets the customer’s unique
priorities and needs.
1) Preliminary Energy Assessment: Establish customer goals and objectives. Identify opportunities
and project viability through data analysis, interviews and benchmarking. Determine key opportunities
based on customer goals and define the associated technical and financial components:
a) Advance customer’s sustainability & climate action goals
b) Assess current baseline and opportunities for improvement
c) Reduce utility and operating costs
d) Address aging building systems or facility infrastructure
e) Demonstrate a potential project size that fits the SST program
f) Determine potential GHG savings and environmental impact
g) Produce recurring annual savings to support financing
2) Investment Grade Audit: Finalize technical solution and financial details
a) Detailed Audit
b) Engineering and Economic Analysis
Packet Pg 84
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 56
c) Project Pricing and Financing Plan
d) Monitoring and Verification Plan
e) Equipment specification and subcontractor bid packages
f) IGA Report Preparation
g) Firm, fixed “not to exceed” construction cost/project proposal
3) Implementation: Deliver complete design/build construction of project, start-up and testing and final
commissioning.
4) Acceptance, Turnover and Closeout: O&M manuals, training, incentive/rebate procurement and
M&V.
It is noteworthy that the first SST Project was developed and completed through a Public-Private-
Partnership with the City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department. The SST project at the Water Resource
Recovery Facility (WRRF) successfully delivered needed improvements at the facility that, while reducing
energy consumption, also enhanced operations, reduced O&M burdens, ensured permit requirements,
provided co-generation of heat and electricity from digester gas, and reduced GHG emissions.
Extending the Public Private Partnership, PG&E and City of San Luis Obispo Public Works collaborated
to replace all of the city-owned High-Pressure Sodium (HPS) cobrahead street lights with energy efficient
LED fixtures. As street light energy represents nearly a third of all electricity consumed in a city, replacing
the incumbent technology with state-of-the art LED fixtures can deliver energy savings exceeding 50%.
The City of San Luis Obispo project replaced over 2,100 cobrahead street lights, delivering annual energy
cost savings right at $100,000 (~ 66% savings) and reducing CO2 equivalents by approximately 400,000
pounds per year. Working together, the City and PG&E were able to secure a low-interest energy
efficiency loan from the California Energy Commission (CEC) and electric utility rebates of nearly
$150,000 which together covered the entire capital cost of the project requiring no City capital or
operating funds.
Since the inception of our Turnkey Programs, PG&E has completed projects with government and
commercial customers throughout our service territory – many leveraging multiple phases as done in San
Luis Obispo.
Packet Pg 85
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 57
APPENDIX
Packet Pg 86
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 58 APPENDIX A – WTP ENERGY ALLOCATION DETAILS EPA Energy Use Assessment Tool for Drinking Water SystemsEquipment Electrical Energy InventorySystem TypeEquipment Type Equipment DescriptionMotor Size (hp)Motor Efficiency (%)Motor Full Load Amperage (FLA)Operating Hours (Hrs/Yr)Average Load Factor (%)Average Electric Load (kW)Estimated Annual Energy Use (kWh/yr)Estimated Percent of Site Electric Use (%)Distribution Pumping PumpTransfer Pump 175 94.0 % 965,201 80.00% 47.62 247,668 12.24%Distribution Pumping PumpTransfer Pump 275 94.0 % 965,201 80.00% 47.62 247,668 12.24%Distribution Pumping PumpTransfer Pump 375 94.0 % 965,201 80.00% 47.62 247,668 12.24%Distribution Pumping PumpTransfer Pump 475 94.0 % 960 75.00% 44.640 0.00%DisinfectionOther kW Load Ozone Gen-1/PSUN/A N/A N/A 6,023 55.00% 43.90 264,363 13.06%DisinfectionOther kW Load Ozone Gen-2/PSUN/A N/A N/A 6,023 55.00% 43.90 264,363 13.06%DisinfectionOther kW Load Ozone Gen-3/PSUN/A N/A N/A0 100.00% 79.810 0.00%DisinfectionCompressor AC-175 94.0 % 966,023 65.00% 38.69 233,003 11.51%DisinfectionCompressor AC-275 94.0 % 963,011 65.00% 38.69 116,502 5.76%DisinfectionCompressor AC-375 94.0 % 962,738 25.00% 14.88 40,735 2.01%Flocculation / Sedimentation MixerCoagulation Basin Mixer CMX-1 10 90.0 % 146,023 50.00% 4.14 24,960 1.23%Flocculation / Sedimentation MixerCoagulation Basin Mixer CMX-2 10 90.0 % 140 50.00% 4.140 0.00%Flocculation / Sedimentation MixerInjection Basin Mixer IMX-1 10 90.0 % 146,023 50.00% 4.14 24,960 1.23%Flocculation / Sedimentation MixerInjection Basin Mixer IMX-1 10 90.0 % 140 50.00% 4.140 0.00%Flocculation / Sedimentation MixerMaturation Basin Mixer MMX-1 7.5 90.0 % 116,023 45.45% 2.83 17,018 0.84%Flocculation / Sedimentation MixerMaturation Basin Mixer MMX-2 7.5 90.0 % 110 45.45% 2.830 0.00%Flocculation / Sedimentation PumpSand Pump SP-1A15 90.0 % 216,023 50.00% 6.22 37,440 1.85%Flocculation / Sedimentation PumpSand Pump SP-1B15 90.0 % 216,023 50.00% 6.22 37,440 1.85%Flocculation / Sedimentation PumpSand Pump SP-1C15 90.0 % 210 50.00% 6.220 0.00%Flocculation / Sedimentation PumpSand Pump SP-2A15 90.0 % 210 50.00% 6.220 0.00%Flocculation / Sedimentation PumpSand Pump SP-2B15 90.0 % 210 50.00% 6.220 0.00%Flocculation / Sedimentation PumpSand Pump SP-2C15 90.0 % 210 50.00% 6.220 0.00%Internal Plant Pumping PumpPlant Service Water Skid Pump #1 30 94.0 % 406,023 42.88% 10.21 61,477 3.04%Internal Plant Pumping PumpPlant Service Water Skid Pump #2 3 90.0 % 4.8 2,738 75.00% 1.87 5,105 0.25%Sludge HandlingPumpWash Water Reclaim Pump PMP-3 15 90.0 % 216,023 50.00% 6.22 37,440 1.85%Sludge HandlingPumpWash Water Reclaim Pump PMP-4 15 90.0 % 210 50.00% 6.220 0.00%LightingOther kW Load Control/Ozone Bldg Lighting N/A N/A N/A 5,840 100.00% 4.86 28,382 1.40%Non Process HVACOther kW Load Control/Ozone Bldg HVACN/A N/A N/A 5,840 30.00% 2.28 13,315 0.66%LightingOther kW Load Lab/Filter Bldg LightingN/A N/A N/A 2,400 100.00% 2.00 4,800 0.24%Non Process HVACOther kW Load Lab/Filter Bldg HVACN/A N/A N/A 5,840 30.00% 1.73 10,074 0.50%LightingOther kW Load All Outdoor LightingN/A N/A N/A 4,380 100.00% 4.50 19,710 0.97%Flocculation / Sedimentation MixerFlash Mixer #110 90.0 % 146,023 50.00% 4.14 24,960 1.23%Flocculation / Sedimentation MixerFlash Mixer #210 90.0 % 140 50.00% 4.140 0.00%DisinfectionBlowerOzone Destruction Unit #13 90.0 % 4.8 8,760 50.00% 1.24 10,892 0.54%DisinfectionBlowerOzone Destruction Unit #23 90.0 % 4.80 50.00% 1.240 0.00%2,019,942 99.79%2,100,124Total ==>Total from Utility Data ==>Packet Pg 871
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Business Development
245 Market Street
Mail Code N10D
San Francisco, CA 04105
March 7, 2018
Mr. Aaron Floyd
Deputy Director – Water
Utilities Department
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
879 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: Water Energy Efficiency Project – (DRAFT) Proposal for Investment Grade Audit
Aaron:
On behalf of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), I am pleased to provide The City of
San Luis Obispo with this proposal for professional consulting and engineering services
required to complete an Investment Grade Audit (IGA) of energy conservation and renewable
power generation opportunities at the City of San Luis Obispo’s (SLO) Water Division facilities.
The services as defined below are being offered through PG&E’s Sustainable Solutions Turnkey
(SST) Program and are intended to fully characterize opportunities within the subject facilities
that, when implemented, will significantly advance the City’s Zero Net Energy (ZNE) and
Sustainability goals. The proposed services reflect our current understanding of the City’s
facilities and goals as identified during the Preliminary Energy Assessment (PEA) phase of the
Program.
SCOPE OF WORK
PG&E will provide Investment Grade Audit (IGA) services for the City of San Luis Obispo (SLO)
as described below.
ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES (ECMs)
PG&E will evaluate the twelve (12) ECMs shown in the table below. These ECMs are described
in the 100% Preliminary Energy Assessment (PEA) Report titled: “Water Energy Efficiency
Project for the City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department” submitted on March 7, 2018.
ECM ID Facility ECM Description
ECM-1 Water Treatment Plant Hydro Power Generation
ECM-2 Water Treatment Plant Ozone System Upgrade
ECM-3 Water Treatment Plant Transfer Pump Station Backup Power
ECM-4 Water Treatment Plant Transfer Pump Station Upgrades
Packet Pg 88
1
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Business Development
245 Market Street
Mail Code N10D
San Francisco, CA 04105
ECM-5 Water Treatment Plant Photovoltaic Energy Generation (Solar)
ECM-6 Water Treatment Plant Photovoltaic Shade Canopy for Actiflo
and Filter Basins
ECM-7 Water Treatment Plant Lighting Improvements
ECM-9 Water Treatment Plant Plant Service Water System Upgrades
ECM-11 Water Treatment Plant SCADA/Controls Upgrades
ECM-13 Water Distribution
System
Install VFDs for Ferrini Pumps & Altitude
Valve for Ferrini Tank
ECM-15 Reservoir #1 Photovoltaic Energy Generation (Solar)
ECM-16 Whale Rock Whale Rock Pump Station Upgrades
The deliverables associated with this effort are described below:
1. General IGA Planning, Management and Report Delivery
• Conduct meetings to discuss project goals, scope, process and schedule
• Conduct site activities necessary for evaluation of existing site conditions necessary in
developing final ECMs
• Conduct equipment selection and design workshops
• Conduct planning and coordination meetings with engineers, contractors, and the City
• Conduct site activities necessary in developing final ECMs costing, savings, and design
• Progress workshops at 50% and 90% to discuss the findings and recommendations in the IGA
• Final IGA report which will include
o Executive Summary
o Updated Utility Analysis
o Updated Energy Allocation Analysis
o Final detailed Energy Conservation Measures
o Cost Benefit Analysis
o Project Cost Estimates
o Project Design and Construction Schedule
o Environmental permitting evaluation
Cost Associated with this ECM ……………………………………..$120,000
2. ECM-1 Hydro Power Generation
• Environmental Permitting Constraints Analysis for CEQA report
• Topographical and Boundary Survey report for proposed site
• Geotech analysis of proposed site
• 30% Design effort sufficient for construction pricing
• Note: Easement acquisition and/or property valuation by others
Cost Associated with this ECM ……………………………………....$82,900
Packet Pg 89
1
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Business Development
245 Market Street
Mail Code N10D
San Francisco, CA 04105
3. ECM-2 Ozone System Upgrade
• Pilot test protocol development and collaboration review with City
• Pilot test performed by third party
• Pilot test observation and data evaluation report
• Contractor outreach
• Vendor coordination
• Develop construction sequence/coordination to maintain service during construction
• 30% Design effort sufficient for construction pricing
Cost Associated with this ECM ………………………..…………..$223,000
4. ECM-3 & 4 Transfer Pump Station Back Up Power and Transfer Pump Station
Upgrades
• Contractor outreach
• Vendor coordination
• Develop construction sequence/coordination to maintain service during construction
• 30% Design effort sufficient for construction pricing
Cost Associated with this ECM …………………..…..….…………..$66,000
5. ECM- 5 & 6 Photovoltaic Energy Generation and PV Shade Canopies (Solar) at WTP
• Environmental Permitting Constraints Analysis for CEQA
• Contractor outreach
• Vendor coordination
• Geotech analysis of proposed site
• 30% Design effort sufficient for construction pricing
• Pre-Interconnection coordination
Cost Associated with this ECM ……………………………………..$115,400
6. ECM-7 Lighting Improvements
• Contractor outreach
• Vendor coordination
• Design effort adequate for construction pricing
Cost Associated with this ECM ………………………………………..$6,300
7. ECM-9 Plant Service Water System Upgrades
• Contractor outreach
• Vendor coordination
• 30% Design effort sufficient for construction pricing
• Power Quality Study to mitigate equipment phase fault trips
Cost Associated with this ECM ……………………..………………..$67,400
Packet Pg 90
1
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Business Development
245 Market Street
Mail Code N10D
San Francisco, CA 04105
8. ECM-11 SCADA/Controls Upgrades
• Contractor outreach
• Vendor coordination
• 30% Design effort sufficient for construction pricing
Cost Associated with this ECM ………………………………………..$24,300
9. ECM-12 Install VFDs for Ferrini Pumps & Altitude Valve for Ferrini Tank
• Contractor outreach
• Vendor coordination
• 30% Design effort sufficient for construction pricing
Cost Associated with this ECM ………………………………………..$25,800
10. ECM- 15 Photovoltaic Energy Generation (Solar) at Reservoir #1
• Environmental Permitting Constraints Analysis for CEQA
• Contractor outreach
• Vendor coordination
• Geotech analysis of proposed site
• 30% Design effort sufficient for construction pricing
• Pre-Interconnection coordination
Cost Associated with this ECM …………………….…………………..$98,400
11. ECM- 16 Whale Rock Pump Station Upgrades
• Contractor outreach
• Vendor coordination
• 30% Design effort sufficient for construction pricing
Cost Associated with this ECM ..………………………………………..$30,500
The Total Cost for the Items Listed Above ..…………………….………………$860,000
ASSUMPTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS
The following assumptions and clarifications apply to the scope and costs presented in this
proposal.
• PG&E assumes that certain facility data/information will be made available in a timely
fashion including utility bills, facility construction drawings, equipment data, and
operations and maintenance data.
• PG&E will require close coordination with facility staff and other SLO personnel in order
to successfully complete the IGA.
• PG&E assumes that appropriate personnel will be available during the site visits and
meetings, and will also be available by email and telephone for follow-up consultations.
Packet Pg 91
1
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Business Development
245 Market Street
Mail Code N10D
San Francisco, CA 04105
• SLO will arrange and provide access for PG&E personnel to all facility areas and
equipment as needed to complete the work, including accompaniment by staff as
necessary.
SCHEDULE
PG&E is prepared to begin work immediately upon being provided a Notice to Proceed (NTP).
Upon receipt of the NTP we will provide a schedule for the IGA work and arrange the kick-off
meeting.
Thank you for the continued opportunity to be of service to the City of San Luis Obispo. We
look forward to working with you and the entire Utilities Team on this important project.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information.
Respectfully submitted
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
Brent
Brent Patera
Senior Business Development Manager
Packet Pg 92
1
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2018 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING A SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY PURSUANT TO
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 4217.10 ET SEQ., FOR THE CITY’S
WATER ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo desires to install certain energy efficiency
upgrades; and
WHEREAS, Section 907 of the City Charter exempts energy projects from the
requirements of Article IX of the City Charter; and
WHEREAS, the State of California Government Code 4217.12 authorizes local
municipalities to enter into energy services and financing agreements, outside of the adopted
procurement process, that the governing body finds best serves the public agency; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to use the California Government Code 4217.10 as
a basis to negotiate contracts and possible financing for certain energy efficiency upgrades and
to utilize programs offered by its energy provider Pacific Gas & Electric Company (“PG&E”);
and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the aforementioned contracts with PG&E at a
public hearing during a regularly scheduled meeting on April 3, 2018, public notice of which was
given at least two weeks in advance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings: Based upon the City’s Council Agenda Report, which included
projections for electrical energy rates from PG&E which provides electricity to the City of San
Luis Obispo, and other evidence presented at the public hearing, the Council hereby finds:
a) The Water Energy Efficiency Project is subject to Government Code
section 4217.10 et seq. and Article IX Section 907 of the City Charter
and provides unique and provide benefits to the public;
b) The anticipated cost to the City under the contract with PG&E will be less
than the anticipated marginal cost to the City for the electrical energy that
would have been consumed by the City in the absence of those purchases;
c) The project is exempt from Article IX Section 901 of the City Charter and is
allowed by Government Code section 4217.10 as an energy efficiency project.
Packet Pg 93
1
Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 2
R ______
SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The City Council hereby determines that the
Investment Grade Audit of the Water Energy Efficiency Project’s is statutorily exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) consistent with Section 15262, Feasibility and
Planning Studies. Once individual projects come forward, further environmental assessment will
be performed.
SECTION 3. The City approves the agreement substantially in the form attached as
Exhibit A.
SECTION 4. The City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute the Service
Agreement and the Work Order with PG&E for the Investment Grade Audit of the Water
Energy Efficiency Project, subject to the City Attorney’s approval as to the form of the
agreements.
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:
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
Acting City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
Packet Pg 94
1
Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 3
R ______
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
Acting City Clerk
Packet Pg 95
1
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg 96
1
Meeting Date: 4/3/2018
FROM: Deanna Cantrell, Police Chief
Prepared By: Jeff Smith, Police Captain
SUBJECT: POLICE DEPARTMENT 2016/2017 COMPARISON AND UPDATE
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file the 2016-2017 Police Department crime report.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
On April 3rd, a presentation will be made to the City Council regarding Police Department
updates for 2017. This update will provide Council with information regarding community
outreach, crime, police operations, homelessness, traffic, noise and downtown.
At the conclusion of 2017 the Police Department saw a 2% decrease in violent crime and a 14%
decrease in property crime, with a 13% decrease in crime overall. This is encouraging data
considering the City of San Luis Obispo experienced an unprecedented increase in crime since
2015 (21% from 2014 to 2015), and that trend continued in 2016 (11% from 2015 to 2016). This
report, and the presentation that will be presented on April 3rd, will highlight our success with
intelligence led policing efforts, discuss the Police Departments continued community outreach,
review noise related calls for service and briefly discuss some of the continued challenges we
face in 2018.
DISCUSSION
Community Outreach:
Policing has grown significantly more challenging with increases in crime in much of California,
tightening budgets, rapidly evolving technology, and decreasing trust in law enforcement
nationally. The San Luis Obispo Police Department (SLOPD) knows we must partner with the
community to resolve those challenges. We cannot reduce crime without a strong relationship
with our community who are willing to support our efforts and help us prevent crime by
reporting and engaging in neighborhood wellness. When relationships are damaged or strained,
the City needs a community that is willing to engage openly and honestly about issues. We are
incredibly fortunate to have a community in San Luis Obispo that understands this and whole-
heartedly partners with us in this effort. Our goals are to reduce harm. We reduce harm by
reducing crime and victimization, reducing traffic collisions and increasing multi -modal safety,
strengthening our regional partnerships, strengthening the health and well-being of our
employees, and strengthening our relationship with the community we serve.
To meet our goal of reducing harm by strengthening our community/police relationship, we
started the PACT (Police and Community Together) in January 2017. PACT represents a
committed and diverse group of community members/advocates that partner with law
enforcement to affect positive social change through dialogue, education and understanding.
Packet Pg 97
2
Currently, PACT has representation from major groups representing the Jewish, Black, Latino,
Muslim, LGBTQ, Interfaith, Student and Homeless/Mentally Ill communities. SLOPD has
officers that serve as liaisons to each of these groups, then report back monthly to each other
about what each group is working on. The liaisons connect with and learn about their respective
communities, then serve as a conduit between the police department and the community.
Additionally, the community works with law enforcement to develop training that is important
for law enforcement to experience, and we in turn, educate them about policing.
Also, in January 2017, the SLOPD launched a community program called PEACE (Policing
Education And Community Engagement). PEACE is fashioned after a citizen police academy
and is designed to engage the community in learning more about policing practices, policies and
what it takes to police a community. In 2017 four (4) PEACE presentations were provided at the
Copeland Health Education Pavilion, located at French Hospital. The presentation topics
included Policing a Community, Use of Force, Body Worn Cameras, and Mental Health: Police
and Community Resources.
In 2018, officers from SLOPD participated in several community forums to address concerns
surrounding immigration legislation and impacts within our community. Our goal during these
forums was to educate the public on current state and federal laws and to emphasize the
importance of providing service fairly and impartially to all individuals who reside within our
city, despite immigration status.
Coffee with a Cop was also launched in 2017. This program gives citizens the opportunity to
speak with officers in a casual setting with no agendas, speeches or distractions. In addition to
Coffee with a COP we also increased our Social Media presence by starting Twitter and growing
our Facebook presence. By utilizing Social Media it has allowed the Police Department to
highlight programs and services, engage the community in a unique way and request assistance
from the public when appropriate.
Lastly, police officers assigned to neighborhoods continued to attend neighborhood outreach
meetings to discuss current issues and neighborhood safety. Of course, outreach that was already
in place, such as the neighborhood officer program, neighborhood outreach and civility effort
and Cal Poly partnerships, have and will continue to grow.
Crime:
Overall, SLOPD has had significant success with intelligence led policing efforts. The City of
San Luis Obispo experienced an unprecedented increase in crime since 2015 (21% from 2014 to
2015), and that trend continued in 2016 (11% from 2015 to 2016). To effectively and efficiently
reverse the trend, the SLOPD hired a part time Public Safety Analyst or crime analyst. She has
focused on high-crime places and high-rate offenders to effectively reduce crime in the
community. The application of data-driven strategies, such as hotspot policing, problem-oriented
policing, and intelligence-led policing, work as we have witnessed in 2017. The analyst helps
SLOPD to understand when, where, and how to focus limited resources, as well as how to
evaluate the effectiveness of our strategies. Sound public safety analysis is paramount to our
success.
Packet Pg 98
2
By the end of 2017, SLO realized a 2% decrease in violent crime and a 14% decrease in property
crime, with a 13% decrease overall. Throughout 2017, SLOPD continued to receive complaints
regarding adverse homeless behavior in the downtown. Many of these behaviors can be
attributed to substance abuse, mental illness or a combination of both. Early in the year, SLOPD
began working with County Mental Health to add a full time mental health specialist to
compliment the Community Action Team (CAT). In 2018, the position was approved, and
Transitions Mental Health Association (TMHA) was awarded the contract. Currently SLOPD is
working with TMHA to fill the position, with a goal to have a civilian mental health profession
in place in April, of 2018. We are very excited to add the mental health position to our CAT
team and believe it will greatly assist our agency in addressing some of the needs within our
community.
At the conclusion of 2017, SLO downtown had a 3% increase over 2016 in calls for service and
a 1% decrease in officer-initiated activity downtown. The increase in calls for service and
decrease in officer- initiated activity can partially be attributed to officer vacancies during 2017.
While working on filling the vacant positions, our downtown bike officers and CAT officers
were often used to help cover our patrol minimums. The loss of the officer presence downtown
would be a contributing factor to the percentage changes.
It should be noted SLOPD had several unexpected vacancies in 2017 due to retirements,
resignations, and injuries. At the end of 2017, SLOPD had five vacant positions which were
briefly held because of Financial Health Response Planning. These positions are currently being
filled and recruitment efforts continue. The vacant positions workload was absorbed through the
temporary reassignment of officers in special assignments. Positions that were reassigned to
patrol in 2017 (either for the full year or partially), included the Narcotics Task Force, Special
Enforcement Team, Downtown Bikes, Traffic, and Community Action Team. Unfortunately, the
temporary reassignment of these positions had negative impacts in their respective assignments
in the loss of proactive policing and community engagement. Currently, we are operating with
one new officer in training, three cadets in the academy, one sworn vacancy, one sworn long
term worker’s comp officer on leave, and two communications vacancies.
Given staffing shortages and challenges, even with personnel moves, we have still been
operating short in patrol staffing. However, those shortages are filled through overtime when
necessary, as to not operate below minimums. Minimum staffing is monitored based on Ctiygate
and the International Association of Chiefs of Police recommendations regarding ideal police
departments patrol officers having 33% of their time available for proactive policing.
Hiring, for all agencies has reached a critical level. Like many law en forcement agencies, we are
having difficulty recruiting lateral employees. Hiring/retention continues to be a major challenge
for both sworn officers and civilian communications personnel. In 2017 and continuing in 2018,
SLOPD has focused some of our recruiting efforts on hiring police cadets. This is an
opportunity for a police agency, and city, to invest in an individual who has an interest in a
career in law enforcement but has not spent time at a prior police agency. Typically, these
candidates are local residents or even current employees, that are invested in the community.
Packet Pg 99
2
PART 1 CRIMES
Violent Crime Property Crime
2016 2017 2016 2017
1st Half % change 1st Half % change
Homicide 0 0 0% Commercial Burglary 39 32 -18%
Rape 19 15 -21% Residential Burglary 82 49 -40%
Robbery 9 7 -22% Theft from Vehicle 366 340 -7%
Agg. Assaut 78 62 -21% Stolen Vehicle 51 35 -31%
General Theft 549 478 -13%
Total 1st Half 106 84 -21%
Total 1st Half 1087 934 -14%
2nd Half % change
Homicide 0 0 0% 2nd Half % change
Rape 19 24 26% Commercial Burglary 52 37 -29%
Robbery 12 16 33% Residential Burglary 78 54 -31%
Agg. Assaut 40 49 23% Theft from Vehicle 307 226 -26%
Stolen Vehicle 44 59 34%
Total 2nd Half 71 89 25% General Theft 508 472 -7%
Total Year Violent 177 173 -2% Total 2nd Half 989 848 -14%
Total Part I Crime 2253 1955 -13% Total Year Property 2076 1782 -14%
Police Operations:
Records:
In the Records Division the number of reports processed went from 8,908 in 2016 to 8,073 in
2017 (10% decrease). The number of citations processed by Records had a slight increased from
7,049 in 2016 to 7,084 in 2017 (.5% increase). Records had increases in walk in reports, phone
calls received, public records requests and other areas.
Property:
In the Property Division, the number of evidence items booked in went from 7,542 in 2016 to
7,801 in 2017 (3% increase). Discovery Orders processed also increased from 716 in 2016 to
816 in 2017 (14% increase). As part of this increase there has been a significant increase for
video evidence. This evidence takes a great deal of time to produce. WatchGuard video recorded
went from 25,081 in 2016 to 62,815 in 2017 (150% increase). WatchGuard Video/Cases booked
Packet Pg 100
2
in as evidence went from 590 in 2016 to 1,043 in 2017 (77% increase). The numbers are by case
number, not by the number of videos in each case, which can be upwards of 10-15 videos per
case. To help offset this increase SLOPD hired a part time property clerk in 2017. The property
workload has continued to see an increase; therefore, we have been working to establish a full
time second position to help control the increase demand on property.
Dispatch:
In the Communications Center we saw an increase regarding the number of calls into the center.
The number of calls increased by almost 8% in 2017, from 94,771 in 2016 to 101,917 in 2017.
Calls for service increased in 2017 from 32,738 in 2016 to 39,514 in 2016 (1% increase).
Through much of 2017 dispatch operated with two to three vacancies. To keep dispatch fully
staffed, these vacancies were primarily filled through overtime. It has been particularly
challenging to maintain staffing in communications. SLOPD started utilizing dispatcher pre-
employment testing software called Criti-Call to increase our new hire success rate. This has
proven successful, however it is still new, we have limited staff to train new employees, and
retention remains a challenge.
Investigations:
In the Investigations Bureau, the number of cases assigned for follow up by an Investigator went
from 313 in 2016 to 335 in 2017 (7% increase). In 2017 the Investigations Bureau had more
cases forwarded to them from patrol which required additional follow up.
Homelessness:
SLOPD’ Downtown Bicycle Officers have continued to educate downtown businesses regarding
trespassing laws and have encouraged them to complete trespassing letters. These letters allow
the police department to take immediate action to mitigate trespassing problems at these
locations with the owner’s approval. Every six months these letters are reviewed to ensure the
SLOPD has all the current information to meet the DA’s office expectation for compliance.
This past year the police department responded to numerous complaints regarding the increase
transient occupancy in the Mission Amphitheater. The Downtown Bicycle Officers worked with
the Mission to address transient related issues within Mission Plaza and on Mission grounds.
Downtown Bicycle Officers, along with patrol, increased their presence throughout the day and
during the night to enforce violations committed in their presence. The challenge law
enforcement often faces is when there is no law or city code violation being committed. Being
homeless or being in a group of transients in a space open to the public is not a crime. We have
continued to educate and encourage the public and business owners to contact the police
department when they observe violations being committed.
In evaluating calls for service pertaining to the homeless population during 2017 (to include
contacts as suspects, victims or witnesses) these contacts increased by 785 for a total increase of
12% compared to 2016. In 2017 the police departments overall calls for service inc reased by a
total of 1%. Homeless related calls for service accounted for 19% of all calls for service
citywide compared to 17% last year. Some of the challenges the department faced this past year
was shortages in patrol, which had an impact on our downtown bike team and CAT. For much
of the year CAT has only been able to have one CAT officer and the downtown bike team has
Packet Pg 101
2
operated with only one bike officer during the day. This has limited some the effectiveness these
teams can have on many of the crimes and negative transient impacts within our downtown.
Traffic:
Vehicle collisions have increased 8%, with a 12% increase in pedestrian involved collisions, but
a decrease of 28% in collisions involving bicycles. This is newer information than what was
recently provided in the 2016 Traffic Safety Report. This decrease can be credited to an increase
in public outreach and education on bicycle safety. The traffic team also conducted special
enforcement related to primary collision factors in bicycle collisions. In 2017 SLOPD received a
grant through the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) which funded eight special enforcements to
address bicycle violations and three two-hour presentation on bicycle safety. Traffic and patrol
continue to collaborate with Public Works as we examine collision prone locations in our City to
provide education, enforcement and engineering efforts. In 2017 there was an 5% increase in
traffic citations issued and a 14% decrease in warnings. In 2017 there were 8,671 traffic stops
completed, compared to 2016 there were 11,705 a 26% decrease. DUI arrests from 2016 to 2017
decreased by 15%, which can be attributed to the loss of our DUI grant position. DUI’s will
continue to be a priority for our officers, especially with the legalization of Cannabis.
Packet Pg 102
2
Noise:
Party related noise complaints decreased by 6% in 2017. This decrease marks an all-time low in
party related noise complaints since tracking began in 1998. This decrease is attributed to a
variety of efforts made by the police department and building upon past initiatives and campus
partnerships. Police department staff continued to participate in summer orientation assemblies
for over 4,500 incoming Cal Poly Freshmen and parents. These presentations provide staff with
the opportunity to “front load” incoming students and their supporters with information on living
in SLO, city laws that are important to know and how to stay safe.
Neighborhood officers continue to be engaged in community outreach, providing education at
neighborhood meetings and conducting problem-oriented policing at locations before calls for
service are generated. Neighborhood officers also visit properties that have had multiple noise
violations to help educate residents and encourage wise social event planning. The pilot party
registration program which launched in May 2017 has also been a great option for residents.
Over 40 parties have been registered since the start of the program; only three events have
received warning phone calls and no citations have been issued. A wide variety of messaging
methods are used by the police department to reach residents: social media ads, doorhangers,
posters/flyers, e-blasts, in-person presentations, media releases and participation in the Student
Community Liaison Committee.
Lastly, the partnerships with Cal Poly and Cuesta College continue to provide many more
opportunities for the noise and neighborhood wellness messaging. Information shared is
dispersed through many different avenues: student government, housing, Greek life, athletics,
clubs and Off-Campus Programs. In addition, Off-Campus Programs at Cal Poly continues to
provide the Educated Renter Certificate Program which teaches students who are about to
transition to off-campus living situations the ins-and-outs of how to successfully reside in the
neighborhoods. Cal Poly continues to hold students accountable for off campus behavior.
Packet Pg 103
2
Unable to Locate (UTL) noise violations continued to decrease in 2017. SLOPD saw a 13%
decrease which is most likely due to the comprehensive education and outreach taking place
Packet Pg 104
2
throughout the year. Callers are doing a better job defining locations of violations and officers
are more acutely aware of the need to search and locate properties that are in violation of the
noise ordinance.
Downtown:
Downtown calls for service for daytime activity increased by 2% and nighttime activity
increased by 3%. As previously mentioned, we operated with several shortages in specialty units
throughout the year. Not being able to operate fully staffed throughout the year was a
contributing factor to the increase calls for service and the below decrease in officer-initiated
activity. Downtown will continue to be a priority for Bicycle officers CAT and all of patrol. In
2017 the department saw a 11% decrease in officer initiated calls in the downtown.
Downtown officers have been utilizing crime prevention through environmental design
techniques while partnering with Public Works and local businesses to improve conditions such
as lighting, landscape, building maintenance, fencing, programming and traffic flow. By
addressing some of these issues the city and local businesses can deter criminal activity.
Currently there are five public cameras placed in the downtown core. Two cameras monitor the
Globe and Mission area and the other three monitor the central core of downtown on Higuera.
Conclusion:
Our efforts are shown positively in many areas as demonstrated by the information above.
Crime will continue to be a major priority for SLOPD. After significant increases in crime in
2015, and the implementation of numerous crime reduction initiative and community programs,
San Luis Obispo has seen a 2% decrease in Part 1 crime over the last 2 years. The department’s
efforts in intelligence led policing has played a significant role in the 14% decrease in property
related crimes and a total reduction in crime of 13%. Property crime continues to be a significant
issue within the city, and throughout the state. Theft from unsecured vehicles continues to be the
number one issue for vehicle burglaries and we have seen an increase in the number of bicycles
being stolen. Continued education has helped with decreasing the trend, which we will continue
throughout 2018. These measures will include directed patrols targeted at problem locations,
utilization of stings and undercover operations to catch criminals engaged in or looking for
crimes of opportunity and using print media, social media and community meetings to educate
our citizens to reduce victimization and increase awareness.
CONCURRENCES
None.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The report is not a project as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
Packet Pg 105
2
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council could choose not to receive and file the report. This is not recommended as the
report provides a record of key crime related statistics and trends that are important for policy
makers and the public to be aware of in our community.
Packet Pg 106
2
San Luis Obispo Page 1
Monday, March 12, 2018
Special Meeting of the City Council
CALL TO ORDER
A Special Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was held on Monday, March 12, 2018 at
9:04 a.m. at 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 (9:07 a.m.), Vice
Mayor Carlyn Christianson, and Mayor Heidi Harmon.
Council Members
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Derek Johnson, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; and Teresa
Purrington, Acting 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---
CLOSED SESSION
A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6
Agency Negotiators: Monica Irons, Nickole Sutter, Rick Bolanos, Derek Johnson,
Christine Dietrick
Organizations: International Association of Firefighters Local 3523
Packet Pg 107
7
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of March 12, 2018 Page 2
B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION
Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Government Code § 54956.9; Name of case: Erik Baskin,
et al. v. City of San Luis Obispo; United States District Court, Central District of California
Case No. 2:16-cv-08876-DSF-JPR
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 a.m. The next Regular City Council Meeting scheduled for
Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 4:00 p.m., and 6:00 p.m., respectively, in the Council Hearing Room
and Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Dietrick stated that there was no reportable action for Closed Session Items A and
B.
__________________________
Teresa Purrington
Acting City Clerk
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2018
Packet Pg 108
7
San Luis Obispo Page 1
Tuesday, March 20, 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
20, 2018 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, by Mayor Harmon.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members 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 Teresa Purrington, Acting City Clerk; were
present at Roll Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to
questions as indicated in the minutes.
PRESENTATION
1. ADVISORY BODY RECOGNITION EVENT
The Mayor and City Council will recognize Advisory Body members for their service
followed by a reception in the Council Hearing Room.
RECESSED TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 20, 2018 TO BEGIN AT 6:00
PM IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER
Packet Pg 109
7
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of March 20, 2018 Page 2
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday March
20, 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
Deputy City Manager, and Teresa Purrington, Acting 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 Dan Rivoire led the Pledge of Allegiance.
INTRODUCTION
2. CHRIS READ - SUSTAINABILITY MANAGER
Interim Deputy Director Office of Sustainability Hill introduced new staff member Chris
Read as the Sustainability Manager.
APPOINTMENTS
3. 2018 APPOINTMENTS TO CITY ADVISORY BODIES
Acting City Clerk Purrington presented the report.
Public Comments:
None
---End of Public Comments---
Packet Pg 110
7
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of March 20, 2018 Page 3
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE MAYOR CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER PEASE, CARRIED 5-0 to:
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.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Nick Andre
Rosemary Wrenn
Sara Mikkelsen
Jermaine Washington
---End of Public Comment---
CONSENT AGENDA
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR
CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to approve Consent Calendar Items 4 thru 12.
4. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
CARRIED 5-0, to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.
5. MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS OF MARCH 6, 2018
CARRIED 5-0, to approve the minutes as presented.
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)
Council Member Pease reported her recusal of item due to a current business relationship
with the project applicant.
CARRIED 4-0-1 (COUNCIL MEMBER PEASE RECUSED), to:
Adopt a Resolution No. 10874 (2018 Series) 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 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)” Packet Pg 111
7
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of March 20, 2018 Page 4
7. SOLE SOURCE AUTHORIZATION FOR CERTAIN WATER RESOURCE
RECOVERY FACILITY (WRRF) PROJECT EQUIPMENT
CARRIED 5-0, to:
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
CARRIED 5-0, to:
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.
9. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR CANNABIS BUSINESS REGULATION
SUPPORT SERVICES (SPECIFICATION NO. 91660)
CARRIED 5-0, to:
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
CARRIED 5-0, to:
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.
11. ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS REGIONAL GRANT
CARRIED 5-0, to:
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.
Packet Pg 112
7
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of March 20, 2018 Page 5
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
CARRIED 3-2 (COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE NO AND COUNCIL MEMBER GOMEZ
NO), to:
Adopt Resolution No. 10875 (2018 Series) 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).”
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
Council Members Gomez, Rivoire, Pease, Vice Mayor Christianson and Mayor Harmon
reported having no Ex Parte Communications.
Community Development Director Codron and Planning Technician Van Leeuwen provided
an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions.
Public Comments:
Carol Florence, Applicant Representative
Applicant Brian Lacertosa, BCR Developments, LLC
Robert Spector
Cinda Fox
Didier Cop
Jamila Haseeb
---End of Public Comment---
Packet Pg 113
7
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of March 20, 2018 Page 6
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE MAYOR CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY
COUNCIL MEMBER GOMEZ, CARRIED 4-1 (COUNCIL MEMBER PEASE VOTING
NO) to:
Adopt Resolution No. 10876 (2018 Series) as amended entitled “A Resolution of the City
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, upholding 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 the following
conditions:
3. As part of the building permit application submittal, the applicant shall provide a
professional noise study, including recommendations for noise isolating tenant
improvements, to assure that noise levels associated with project activities are
maintained at or below 45 db as measured at the interior of any residential space or
across the residential property lines. Recommended tenant improvements shall be shown
on the project plans and constructed prior to occupancy, to the approval of the
Community Development Director.
4. No amplified sound beyond ambient level shall be included in the operation of the
business.
5. The security door that exits into the residential entryway shall be removed or
permanently secure to ensure that access by customers or employees to the residential
corridor is limited to the approval of the City Fire Marshall.
14. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF LABOR RELATIONS OBJECTIVES
Human Resources Director Irons and Human Resources Analyst Sutter provided an in-depth
staff report and responded to Council questions.
Public Comments:
None
---End of Public Comment---
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER PEASE, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0 to:
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
City Manager Johnson provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions.
Packet Pg 114
7
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of March 20, 2018 Page 7
Public Comments:
None
---End of Public Comment---
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, SECOND BY VICE
MAYOR CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to:
1. Receive an update on the status of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant closure settlement;
and
2. Adopt Resolution No. 10877 (2018 Series) 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.”
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND LIAISON REPORTS
Council Member Pease reported attending the Water Resources Advisory Commission meeting,
SCLC, and the press conference for Announcement of SB 1090.
Council Member Gomez reported attending the Climate Action Taskforce meeting, Plastic
Policy working group, and the California Downtown Association Conference.
Mayor Harmon reported attending the California Downtown Association Conference, the press
conference for the Announcement of SB1090, and visiting the Cal Poly preschool.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:04 p.m. 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 Utilities Department Conference Room,
located at 879 Morro 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.
__________________________
Teresa Purrington
Acting City Clerk
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2018
Packet Pg 115
7
San Luis Obispo Page 1
Wednesday, March 21, 2018
Special Meeting of the City Council
CALL TO ORDER
A Special Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was held on Wednesday, March 21,
2018 at 11:00 a.m. at in the Utilities Department Conference Room, located at 879 Morro Street,
San Luis Obispo, California, by Mayor Heidi 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: Heather Goodwin, Deputy City Clerk and Mary Egan and Andi Stanley of
Municipal Resource Group, were present at Roll Call.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
None.
---End of Public Comment---
CLOSED SESSION
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Pursuant to Government Code § 54957(b)(1)
Public Employees: City Manager, City Attorney
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6
Agency Negotiators: Mary Egan, Monica Irons
Unrepresented employee: City Manager, City Attorney
Packet Pg 116
7
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of March 21, 2018 Page 2
REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
There was no reportable action to report on Closed Session.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 p.m. to a Special Meeting to be held on Wednesday, March
21, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. in the Utilities Department Conference Room, located at 879
Morro Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of conducting closed sessions to
evaluate appointed officials.
The next Regular City Council Meeting 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, California.
__________________________
Teresa Purrington
Acting City Clerk
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2018
Packet Pg 117
7
San Luis Obispo Page 1
Wednesday, March 21, 2018
Special Meeting of the City Council
CALL TO ORDER
A Special Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was held on Wednesday, March 21,
2018 at 3:00 p.m. at in the Utilities Department Conference Room, located at 879 Morro Street,
San Luis Obispo, California, by Mayor Heidi 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: Christine Dietrick, City Attorney, Teresa Purrington, Acting City Clerk and Mary
Egan and Andi Stanley of Municipal Resource Group, were present at Roll Call.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
None.
---End of Public Comment---
CLOSED SESSION
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Pursuant to Government Code § 54957(b)(1)
Public Employees: City Attorney
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6
Agency Negotiators: Mary Egan, Monica Irons
Unrepresented employee: City Attorney
REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
There was no reportable action to report on Closed Session.
Packet Pg 118
7
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of March 21, 2018 Page 2
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 4:05 p.m. to a Special Meeting to be held on Wednesday, March
21, 2018 at 4:00 p.m. in the Utilities Department Conference Room, located at 879 Morro Street,
San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of conducting closed sessions to evaluate appointed
officials.
The next Regular City Council Meeting 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, California.
__________________________
Teresa Purrington
Acting City Clerk
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2018
Packet Pg 119
7
San Luis Obispo Page 1
Wednesday, March 21, 2018
Special Meeting of the City Council
CALL TO ORDER
A Special Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was held on Wednesday, March 21,
2018 at 4:05 p.m. at in the Utilities Department Conference Room, located at 879 Morro Street,
San Luis Obispo, California, by Mayor Heidi 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, Teresa Purrington, Acting City Clerk and Mary
Egan and Andi Stanley of Municipal Resource Group, were present at Roll Call.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
None.
---End of Public Comment---
CLOSED SESSION
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Pursuant to Government Code § 54957(b)(1)
Public Employees: City Manager
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6
Agency Negotiators: Mary Egan, Monica Irons
Unrepresented employee: City Manager
REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
There was no reportable action to report on Closed Session.
Packet Pg 120
7
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of March 21, 2018 Page 2
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m. The next Regular City Council Meeting 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, California.
.
__________________________
Teresa Purrington
Acting City Clerk
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2018
Packet Pg 121
7
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg 122
7
Meeting Date: 4/3/2018
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Cara Vereschagin, Planning Technician
SUBJECT: REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE 2017 GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL
REPORT
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission, accept the 2017 General Plan Annual Report.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
Each year, the City publishes an Annual Report on the status of its General Plan and actions
taken to implement it during the past year (Attachment A). The report is provided to help citizens
and City officials evaluate progress towards achieving the goals listed in the General Plan.
Development of the Annual Report also complies with Land Use Element Policy 11.3 and state
law, which says that “the planning agency shall … provide an annual report to the legislative
body on the status of the general plan and progress in its implementation, including the progress
in meeting its share of regional housing needs…” (California Government Code §65400).
DISCUSSION
The Long-Range Planning Division of the Community Development Department has the primary
responsibility for staff work involving the General Plan and has compiled data and information
provided by all City departments for inclusion in the 2017 General Plan Annual Report.
Significant progress was made by all City Departments towards implementing General Plan
policies in 2017.
Background
According to Land Use Element Policy 11.3 the City shall prepare an annual report on the status
of the General Plan, which is to include the following items:
A) A summary of private development activity and a brief analysis of how it helped meet
General Plan goals;
B) A summary of major public projects and a brief analysis of how they contributed to
meeting General Plan goals;
C) An overview of programs, and recommendations on any new approaches that may be
necessary;
D) A status report for each General Plan program scheduled to be worked on during that
year, including discussion of whether that program's realization is progressing on
schedule, and recommendations for how it could better be kept on schedule if it is
lagging;
E) A status report on how the City is progressing with implementing its open space
preservation policies and programs;
F) Updated population or other information deemed important for the plan.
Packet Pg 123
8
The General Plan Annual Report is an opportunity for the City to keep the General Plan current
by reflecting on how well the Plan continues to meet the City’s goals and objectives. It is also an
opportunity to review how well the programs identified in the Plan are being implemented and to
determine if programs are still relevant or if priorities should be reassigned.
In addition, assessment of the implementation of the General Plan informs the City Council
about the availability of resources and about programs and projects that might be initiated as the
City develops a new financial plan. During the budgeting process, the City Council reviews the
progress being made to implement the General Plan and decides whether or not to move forward
with additional work program items over the next two years.
Report Organization
The General Plan contains an array of policies and implementing programs covering most types
of City actions. The General Plan Annual Report touches on the major programs that saw activity
in 2017. The report is organized around the following key implementation areas:
1. Planning and Building Activity
2. Housing and Residential Growth
3. Nonresidential Growth
4. Specific Plan Implementation and Development
5. Water Supply
6. Historic Preservation
7. Circulation
8. Safety
9. Neighborhood Wellness
10. Open Space Protection
11. Parks and Recreation
In addition, the 2017 Annual Report includes a discussion of the following:
1. Community Development Department Organizational Assessment Implementation
2. Plans Under Development
3. Climate Action Plan Implementation
4. Economic Development
5. New Policy Initiatives
Report Highlights
In 2017, work continued implementing programs in the Land Use and Circulation Elements
(LUCE), including, but not limited to:
1. Downtown Concept Plan
2. Sign Regulations
3. Neighborhood Matching Grants
4. Mission Plaza Master Plan
5. Zoning Regulations Update
6. Specific Plans: Avila Ranch, San Luis Ranch, and Madonna on LOVR
Packet Pg 124
8
Additionally, the update of the Parks and Recreation Element began in 2017, when City Council
approved the Project Plan and Request for Proposals (RFP) in November.
Staff also worked to implement programs in the City’s Housing Element, which included
establishing a possible workforce housing affordability level, preliminary work on a workforce
housing ordinance, and further research of City-owned parcels for housing development.
In 2017 the City also began the process of updating the fees charged to new development for a
range of transportation, parks, general government, public safety, and water and sewer capit al
facilities and infrastructure that are important to the City’s future and quality of life. It is
anticipated that the update of those fee programs, in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act
(Assembly Bill 1600) will be completed in 2018.
Several new policy initiatives across a wide variety of subject areas were accomplished in 2017,
including:
1. Proposition 64: Adult Use of Marijuana
2. Beverage Straws Upon Request
3. Single-Use Plastic Bottles
Development activity remained strong in 2017, with a record high of Plan Check Application
submittals, as compared to the previous four years. Even though the total valuation decreased by
$43,885,935 from 2016, it is anticipated that with the increase of 28 Plan Check Application
Submittals, that development will prosper throughout 2018.
Based on the Community Development Department’s running total of residential construction
permits (as shown in Table 6 on page 20) the annual growth rate in 2017 was 0.53 percent, which
includes new single-family and multi-family market-rate residential construction. This is well
within the limit of the one percent annual residential growth rate identified in the Land Use
Element. The five-year average growth rate is very similar at 0.46 percent.
In comparison, based on final building permits issued, 53,518 square feet of net new non-
residential floor area was added to the City in 2017, but the annual non-residential growth rate
remained fairly consistent at was 0.46 percent (see Figure 4, page 26).
Overall, the Fiscal Year Major City Goals of both 2015-17 and 2017-19 resulted in significant
activities in these General Plan program areas, as detailed in the Annual Report.
Planning Commission Review
The Planning Commission reviewed the 2017 General Plan Annual Report on March 28, 2018
and unanimously recommended it be forwarded to Council with minor changes, the most
substantive of which was augmentation of information on the City’s work with Cal Poly on the
Master Plan and on the Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Report. A new co ver photo
was also selected.
CONCURRENCES
The Community Development Department prepares the General Plan Annual Report with
significant input from other City departments. Administration (including Natural Resources and
Economic Development divisions), Utilities, Public Works, Police, Fire, and Parks and
Packet Pg 125
8
Recreation Departments collaborated with the Community Development Department on this
report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The review of this General Plan Annual Report is exempt from environmental review per Section
15061 (b)(3) General Rule of the CEQA Guidelines.
FISCAL IMPACT
When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which
found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. The annual report does not change t he
General Plan and, therefore, has no fiscal impact.
ALTERNATIVE
Continue the item and direct staff to make revisions or include additional information.
Attachments:
a - General Plan Annual Report 2017
Packet Pg 126
8
2017
General Plan Annual Report
www.slocity.org
Packet Pg 127
8
2
Community Development Department
Our Mission Statement
Our mission is to serve all persons in a positive and courteous manner and help ensure that San
Luis Obispo continues to be a healthy, safe, attractive, and enjoyable place to live, work, or visit.
We help plan the City’s form and character, support community values, preserve the
environment, promote wise use of resources, and protect public health and safety.
Our Service Philosophy
The City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department (CDD) staff provides high
quality service when you need it. We will:
• Listen to understand your needs;
• Give clear, accurate and prompt answers to your questions;
• Explain how you can achieve your goals under the City’s rules;
• Help resolve problems in an open, objective manner;
• Maintain high ethical standards; and
• Work to improve our service.
Packet Pg 128
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
3
Acknowledgements
City Council
Heidi Harmon, Mayor
Dan Rivoire, Vice Mayor
Carlyn Christianson
Aaron Gomez
Andy Pease
Planning Commission
Chuck Stevenson, Chair
John Fowler, Vice Chair
Hemalata Dandekar
Nicholas Osterbur
Ronald Malak
Mike Wulkan
Derek Johnson, City Manager
Katie Lichtig, Former City Manager
Project Manager
Cara Vereschagin, Planning Technician, Long Range Planning
Staff Contributors
Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Xzandrea Fowler, Deputy Director, Long Range Planning
Doug Davidson, Deputy Director, Development Review
Adam Fukushima, Active Transportation Manager
Alexander Fuchs, Parking Services Supervisor
Andrew Collins, Facilities Maintenance Supervisor
Bob Hill, Interim Deputy Director, Office of Sustainability
Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
Cassia Cocina, Permit Services Coordinator
Chris Staley, Police Captain
Christine Wallace, Neighborhood Services
Devin Hyfield, Recreation Supervisor
Doug Carscaden, Recreation Supervisor
The 2017 General Plan
Annual Report was
prepared by the
Community Development
Department for review
by the Planning
Commission and
acceptance by the City
Council. The Community
Development
Department’s Long-
range Planning Division
often takes the lead for
staff work involving the
General Plan. However,
all City departments and
advisory bodies are
involved in General Plan
implementation and have
contributed to the 2017
General Plan Annual
Report.
Packet Pg 129
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
4
Freddy Otte, Biologist
Gamaliel Anguiano, Transit Manager
Garret Olson, Fire Chief
Greg Hermann, Interim Deputy City Manager
Hal Hannula, Supervising Civil Engineer
Ivana Medina, Administration Intern
John Mezzapesa, Code Enforcement Officer
Jeff Hendricks, Parks Maintenance Supervisor
Jennifer Metz, Utilities Project Manager
Jennifer Rice, Transportation Planner/Engineer II
Kip Morais, Planning Technician
Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
Kyle Van Leeuwen, Planning Technician
Melissa Mudgett, Recreation Manager
Molly Cano, Tourism Manager
Pam Ouellette, WRRF Chief Operator
Rodger Maggio, Fire Marshal
Shawna Scott, Associate Planner
Tyler Corey, Principal Planner
Vanessa Nichols, Permit Technician
Victoria Tonikian, Administrative Assistant
Packet Pg 130
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
5
Table of Contents
List of Figures and Tables .............................................................................................................................. 7
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 8
Background ................................................................................................................................................... 9
General Plan Element Updates ................................................................................................................... 11
Community Development Department ...................................................................................................... 13
Customer Service/Process Improvements ..................................................................................... 13
Coordination with Other Agencies ................................................................................................ 13
Planning and Building Activity..................................................................................................................... 15
Yearly Planning Application Trends ............................................................................................... 15
Monthly Planning Application Trends ............................................................................................ 15
Valuation of Construction .............................................................................................................. 18
Housing and Residential Growth ................................................................................................................ 19
Quantified Objectives .................................................................................................................... 21
Affordable Housing ........................................................................................................................ 22
Funding and Grant Programs ......................................................................................................... 24
Homeless Services Support ............................................................................................................ 25
Non-Residential Growth ............................................................................................................................. 26
Commercial and Industrial Growth Management ......................................................................... 28
Jobs-Housing Balance .................................................................................................................... 29
Specific Plan Implementation and Development ....................................................................................... 30
Margarita Area Specific Plan .......................................................................................................... 30
Orcutt Area Specific Plan ............................................................................................................... 30
Avila Ranch Development Plan ...................................................................................................... 31
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan .......................................................................................................... 32
Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan (Froom Ranch Specific Plan) ...................................................... 33
South Broad Street Area Plan ........................................................................................................ 34
Downtown Concept Plan Update .................................................................................................. 35
Plans Under Development .......................................................................................................................... 36
Mission Plaza Master Plan ............................................................................................................. 36
Zoning Regulations Update ............................................................................................................ 37
Sign Regulations Update ................................................................................................................ 38
Public Infrastructure Financing ...................................................................................................... 38
Climate Action Plan ..................................................................................................................................... 39
Municipal Actions .......................................................................................................................... 39
City and Community Partner Actions ............................................................................................. 40
Economic Development .............................................................................................................................. 42
Break Down Barriers to Job Creation ............................................................................................. 42
Actively Support Knowledge & Innovation .................................................................................... 43
Packet Pg 131
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
6
Promote and Enhance Quality of Life ............................................................................................ 43
Homestay Rentals .......................................................................................................................... 45
New Policy Initiatives .................................................................................................................................. 46
Proposition 64: Adult Use of Marijuana Act .................................................................................. 46
Sustainability Efforts ...................................................................................................................... 47
Historic Preservation ................................................................................................................................... 48
Historic Properties Mapping Information ...................................................................................... 48
Cultural Heritage Committee ......................................................................................................... 48
Water Supply ............................................................................................................................................... 49
Water Conservation ....................................................................................................................... 50
Circulation ................................................................................................................................................... 51
Transportation Improvements ....................................................................................................... 51
Neighborhood Traffic Management (NTM) ................................................................................... 53
Transit ............................................................................................................................................ 53
Parking Management ..................................................................................................................... 54
Safety ....................................................................................................................................................... 55
Emergency Preparedness and Response: Fire Department .......................................................... 55
Hazard Mitigation: Fire Department .............................................................................................. 56
Staff Training: Police Department .................................................................................................. 56
Staff Training: Fire Department ..................................................................................................... 57
Mutual and Automatic Aid: Police ................................................................................................. 57
Mutual and Automatic Aid: Fire ..................................................................................................... 58
Community Action Team (CAT) ...................................................................................................... 59
Multi-Dwelling Property Inspection Program ................................................................................ 59
Fire and Life Safety Inspections ..................................................................................................... 59
Hazardous Materials Inspections ................................................................................................... 59
Vegetation Management ............................................................................................................... 60
Critical Facilities Locations and Reducing Structural Hazards ........................................................ 60
Neighborhood Wellness .............................................................................................................................. 61
Neighborhood Matching Grants .................................................................................................... 61
Neighborhood Outreach – Police Department .............................................................................. 63
Open Space Protection ............................................................................................................................... 64
Parks & Recreation ...................................................................................................................................... 66
Collaborative Programs.................................................................................................................. 66
SLO Skate Park ............................................................................................................................... 68
Historic Jack House and Gardens ................................................................................................... 68
Volunteers & Training .................................................................................................................... 69
Open Space Maintenance .............................................................................................................. 69
Park Improvement Projects ........................................................................................................... 70
Public Art Program ......................................................................................................................... 72
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 73
Packet Pg 132
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
7
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Total Planning Applications Received per Calendar Year ............................................. 15
Figure 2 - Total Planning Applications Received Per Month by Calendar Year ............................ 16
Figure 3 - Housing Unit Construction Based on Permits Finaled .................................................. 21
Figure 4 - Net Annual Growth Rates of Non-Residential Sectors (2005–2017) ............................ 26
List of Tables
Table 1 - Building Permits Issued 2014-2017 Comparison ........................................................... 17
Table 2 - Building Division Project Statistics, 2014-2017 Comparison ......................................... 17
Table 3 - Valuation of Construction, 2014-2017 Comparison ...................................................... 18
Table 4 - Housing & Population .................................................................................................... 19
Table 5 - One Percent City Population Growth Projection (From LUE Table 3) ........................... 19
Table 6 - Residential Units Added to the City (01/01/08 – 12/31/17) ......................................... 20
Table 7 - Progress Towards Meeting Quantified Objectives (01/01/14 to 6/30/19) ................... 22
Table 8 - Affordable Housing Project Highlights from 2017 ......................................................... 23
Table 9 - 2017 Projects Under Review with Non-Residential Square Footage ............................. 26
Table 10 - Current Jobs/Housing Balance ..................................................................................... 29
Table 11 – City Water Resource Availability ................................................................................. 49
Packet Pg 133
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
8
Introduction
The General Plan is a comprehensive statement of the City’s goals and how those goals will be
achieved over the long-term. Policies and programs in the General Plan provide guidance to the
public, staff and decision-makers on development-related issues. The General Plan is adopted
and amended by the City Council, after considering recommendations by citizens, appointed
advisory bodies, other agencies, and City staff.
Each year, the City publishes an Annual Report on the status of its General Plan and provides an
overview of actions taken to implement the Plan during the past year, as provided by California
Government Code Section 65400. This report is provided to help citizens and City officials gauge
progress towards achieving the City’s stated goals and objectives. It is also an opportunity to
review how well the Plan’s programs are being implemented. The Annual Report fulfills the
requirements of State law, and the General Plan itself. According to Land Use Element Policy 11.3
the City shall prepare an annual report on the status of the General Plan, which is to include the
following items:
A) A summary of private development activity and a brief analysis of how it helped meet
General Plan goals;
B) A summary of major public projects and a brief analysis of how they contributed to
meeting General Plan goals;
C) An overview of programs, and recommendations on any new approaches that may be
necessary;
D) A status report for each General Plan program scheduled to be worked on during that
year, including discussion of whether that program's realization is progressing on
schedule, and recommendations for how it could better be kept on schedule if it is
lagging;
E) A status report on how the City is progressing with implementing its open space
preservation policies and programs;
F) Updated population or other information deemed important for the plan.
Packet Pg 134
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
9
Background
State law requires each city and county to adopt a general
plan that addresses seven topics, typically referred to as
“elements.” Additional topics, or general plan elements,
may be included. The law also requires general plans to be
comprehensive, internally consistent and provide a long-
term perspective. The Governor’s Office of Planning and
Research publishes General Plan Guidelines, which
includes the following general plan basics:
1. Geographic Comprehensiveness: The general plan
must cover all of the territory within the
jurisdiction’s boundaries.
2. Regionalism: The general plan must take into
account regional plans for transportation, air
quality and water quality, and must spell out
measures needed to meet federal or state
standards for the region.
3. Issue Comprehensiveness: General plans must
address the jurisdiction’s physical development
over the long term, but because the general plan is
the most comprehensive expression of the general
welfare, it should also recognize social and
economic concerns.
4. Internal Consistency: All of the general plan
elements must be internally consistent. Each
element’s data, analyses, goals, policies and
programs must be consistent and complement one
another. This includes consistency with area plans
and specific plans.
5. Long-Term Perspective: The general plan must
address the welfare of current and future
generations, although the time-frames may vary
among the different elements. The Housing
Element, for instance, must be updated every five
years.
City of
San Luis Obispo
General Plan
Elements
Land Use
Update Adopted
December 2014
Circulation
Update Adopted
December 2014
Housing
Update Adopted January
2015
Conservation and
Open Space
Revised 2014
Safety
Revised 2012
Parks and Recreation
Adopted 2001
Water and Wastewater
Revised 2016
Noise
Adopted 1996
Packet Pg 135
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
10
State law says a City’s general plan should be kept current. The City of San Luis Obispo does this
through this annual review process, comprehensive updates, and through amendments. Updates
to entire elements are done as needed and include a look at underlying conditions and
preferences. Amendments are typically smaller in scope and involve changing one part in a way
that fits within the overall framework. Consideration of amendments are triggered by private
applications or by direction from the City Council.
Changes to the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan require hearings by the Planning Commission
and by the City Council. The type of notice provided for the hearings depends on the type of
proposed change, but always includes a descriptive item on the meeting agenda, which is
published in the newspaper. The City’s website and public access television channel provide
additional information.
Packet Pg 136
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
11
General Plan Element Updates
Land Use and Circulation Elements
The update of the Land Use and Circulation Elements
(LUCE) of the General Plan was approved by the City
Council on December 9, 2014.
In 2017, work continued implementing programs in the
updated Land Use and Circulation Elements, such as the
Downtown Concept Plan, residential developments, the
Sign Regulations, Neighborhood Matching Grants, Mission
Plaza Master Plan, and the Zoning Regulations Update,
among many others.
Housing Element
On January 20, 2015, the City Council adopted an update
to the City’s Housing Element that will guide City housing
actions through 2019.
Throughout 2017, staff worked to implement programs
which included establishing a possible workforce housing
affordability level, preliminary work on a workforce
housing ordinance, further research of City-owned parcels
for housing development, and the continued use of
Federal, State and local funds for development and
rehabilitation of affordable housing.
Parks and Recreation Element Update
In 2017, the City Parks and Recreation and Community
Development Departments initiated the Parks and
Recreation Element and Master Plan Update. The Parks
and Recreation Commission reviewed and provided
feedback on the Project Plan for the Update on September
6th and October 4th and recommended the City Council
approve the Project Plan. On November 7, 2017, the City
Council approved the Project Plan and Request for
Proposals (RFP) for consultant services to assist staff with
the preparation of the Update, and authorized staff to
advertise for proposals. The RFP was released on
November 28 and proposals were received for review and
ranking by December 6, 2017.
This General Plan
Annual Report falls
between a transitional
Financial Plan period,
thus the Major City
Goals for both FY 2015-
17 and FY 2017-19
include:
FY 15-17 Major City
Goals:
Protect and maintain open
space.
Implement the Housing
Element, facilitate
workforce, affordable,
supportive and
transitional housing
option, including support
for needed infrastructure
within the City’s fair
share.
Prioritize implementation
of the Bicycle Master Plan
and improve and maintain
bicycle, pedestrian, and
transit facilities.
Packet Pg 137
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
12
The purpose of the update of the City’s Parks and
Recreation Element and Master Plan is to address current
and future needs for the City of San Luis Obispo’s parks,
recreation facilities, programs and services consistent with
the objectives outlined in the adopted 2017-2019 financial
plan. The program of work will include a Community
Needs Assessment, illustrative maps, and a prioritized
action plan to ensure the most effective use of future
community resources. The public will be engaged in a
positive and creative way so that the results are
representative of community values, desires, and needs.
FY 17-19 Major City
Goals:
Housing – Facilitate
increased production of
all housing types designed
to be economically
accessible to the area
workforce and low and
very low-income
residents, through
increased density and
proximity to
transportation corridors
in alignment with the
Climate Action Plan.
Multi-Modal
Transportation –
Prioritize implementation
of the Bicycle Master
Plan, pedestrian safety,
and the Short-Range
Transit Plan.
Climate Action –
Implement Climate Action
Plan, assess requirements
to achieve a “net-zero
carbon City” target, and
implement cost-effective
measures, including
implementation of a
Sustainability
Coordinator and
formation of a Green
Team.
Fiscal Sustainability and
Responsibility - Continue
to implement the City’s
Fiscal Responsibility
Philosophy with a focus
on economic development
and responsiveness,
unfunded liabilities, and
infrastructure financing.
Packet Pg 138
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
13
Community Development Department
Customer Service/Process Improvements
The Community Development Department continued to implement its Organizational
Assessment focusing on monitoring the effectiveness of process improvements and performance
tracking. Staff prepared and implemented a development review process improvement plan to
improve the efficiency and reduce the amount of time and resources required from other City
departments during the entitlement phase of development review. For example, minor planning
applications are not initially sent to
other departments for review at intake.
For these minor applications Planning
staff is screening these applications for
routing at our internal staff meetings,
significantly reducing the number of
applications that get routed to other
departments while also reducing by
half our initial project completeness
review timeframes. Other upcoming
related tasks to improve customer
service and the development review
process include utilizing “dashboards”
to display the status of projects and
finalizing our Key Performance
Indicators (KPI’s), which will be posted
on the City’s website.
Improving customer service and the development review process are helping to carry out one of
the major goals of the City Economic Development Strategic Plan: streamlining the process and
removing barriers to job creation. The Developers Roundtable – a cross-representation of local
architects, engineers, planners, and project representatives – has been a valuable partner in
reviewing process improvements. The Council’s Major City Goal of Housing for the 2015-17
Financial Plan further places emphasis on the need to be effective and efficient in the review of
engineering, planning, and building permit applications.
Coordination with Other Agencies
In addition to City-initiated efforts to implement the General Plan, City staff responded to
development plans and applications from other agencies in 2017 and coordinated with other
agencies on General Plan priorities. Some examples include:
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments: In 2017, San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
(SLOCOG) began a multi-year process to concurrently prepare the 2019 Regional Transportation
Plan (RTP), the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), and the Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA). In the Summer of 2017, SLOCOG formed a multi-jurisdictional Regional
Packet Pg 139
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
14
Housing Needs Allocation Working Group (RHNA WG). Through the Summer and Fall of 2017 the
City participated in the RHNA WG and provided SLOCOG with updated data regarding
development projects, transportation projects, accessory dwelling units, and progress towards
meeting the City’s current RHNA targets. The City’s participation in this work effort will continue
through 2019 and will ultimately lead to the update of the City’s Housing Element in 2020.
City staff conducted an exhaustive review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for
the Cal Poly Master Plan Update and the Slack and Grand Residential Neighborhood Project. City
staff comments culminated in a comprehensive letter to Cal Poly, touching on concerns with the
impact of the planned growth on City services, and potential fiscal impacts on City operations.
Cal Poly Master Plan 2035 & Slack and Grand
Residential Neighborhood Project: City staff
conducted an exhaustive review of the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Cal
Poly Master Plan Update and the Slack and Grand
Residential Neighborhood Project. Each City
Department reviewed areas of the DEIR based on
expertise or areas where Cal Poly and the City
have service agreements. City staff comments
culminated in a comprehensive letter to Cal Poly,
touching on concerns with the impact of the
planned growth on City services, and potential
fiscal impacts on City operations.
Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC): City staff
continued to actively participate in the update of
the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land
Use Plan in 2017. In September 2017, City
representatives participated in the first Airport
Advisory Collaborative (AAC) meeting, where they reviewed the final draft report of the Airport
Land Use Plan (ALUP) Amendment comparative analysis and recommendations. The AAC
provided comments to the ALUC staff and consultant team encouraging further refinement of
the configurations of safety areas, land use policies for infill and mixed-use development,
definitions of uses, and noise contours to existing and anticipated changes to airport operations.
It is anticipated that the AAC will convey again in early 2018 to finalize their recommendations
for ALUC consideration. One of the key recommendations was the formation of a SLO Airport
Technical Advisory Collaborative (TAC) that would provide technical advice to the ALUC on the
update of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP).
Packet Pg 140
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
15
Planning and Building Activity
Application totals are tracked monthly and maintained on a calendar and fiscal year basis.
Reports are broadly distributed both within the City and to outside organizations. Tracking of
applications and permits serves as an indicator of development trends and a tool for budget
forecasting.
Yearly Planning Application Trends
Planning applications include: use permits, architectural reviews, subdivisions, zoning
amendments, and administrative actions. Figure 1 below shows planning application totals since
2005. The figure highlights the historic highs of the 2005 and 2006, and the effects of the
following economic downturn and recovery. On average, over 300 planning application have
been filed per year, for the last four years.
Figure 1 - Total Planning Applications Received per Calendar Year
Source: Community Development Department, 2017
Monthly Planning Application Trends
Figure 2 shows planning applications received on a monthly basis for the last 4 years and the
average since 2007. While 2017 saw fewer applications received in September than previous
years, applications received increased going into October and into November. This is an unusual
pattern for any year in the last 10 years and may indicate a busy 2018 for other Community
Development divisions such as Building and Public Works/Engineering.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017364 353
315
243
185 202 182 194
259
338 316 306 292
Number of ApplicationsPacket Pg 141
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
16
Figure 2 - Total Planning Applications Received Per Month by Calendar Year
Source: Community Development Department, 2017
The Community Development Department uses trends and adjusts staffing to correspond to
current development activity. When application numbers decreased during the recession, staff
levels were reduced commensurately. Staff levels have since increased to meet current demand.
Additionally, consultants have been brought on board to manage particularly large and complex
projects, such as Righetti Ranch, San Luis Ranch, and Avila Ranch. The application totals shown
in Figure 1 and 2 only capture numbers of applications and are not reflective of the size and
complexity of individual project applications. In addition to the three complex projects
mentioned above, the City is also processing other large projects in the Margarita and Orcutt
areas, as well as downtown mixed-use projects and large multi-family developments.
Building Permits and Plan Reviews
Building permits are issued for various projects ranging from the relatively simple (e.g. water
heaters, window change outs, reroofing, etc.) to the more complex projects (e.g. additions and
new buildings). Plan reviews are typically required for the more complex projects where it is
necessary to review proposed design documents for code compliance.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
JanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemberNumber of ApplicationsTotal Planning Applications Received
Per Month Calendar Year
AVG 2007-
2017
2014
2015
2016
2017
Packet Pg 142
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
17
Table 1 - Building Permits Issued 2014-2017 Comparison
BUILDING PERMITS
ISSUED
2017 2016 2015 2014
permits units permits units permits units permits units
Single Family 105 105 55 42 151 157 79 97
Multi Family 10 44 11 51 16 75 22 115
Commercial 5 1- 10 11 37 60 5 -
Public-New Buildings
& Alterations 0 - 0 - - - 0 -
Residential
Additions/Alterations 190 2 - 3 306 8 230 1
Commercial
Additions/Alterations 82 - 150 3 186 5 162 -
Motel Rooms 0 - 0 183- 0 - - -
TOTAL 392 152 568 293 696 305 498 213
Source: Community Development Department, 2017
Table 1 depicts the number of building permits issued over the past 4 years. In 2017, 115 permits
were issued for single-family and multi-family projects, representing 149residential units.
Table 2 - Building Division Project Statistics, 2014-2017 Comparison
PROJECT STATISTICS 2017 2016 2015 2014
Plan Check Applications Submitted 1301 1273 935 675
Source: Community Development Department, 2016
Table 2 shows the number of plan check applications conducted by the Building Division over the
last four years. Plan checks have increased within the last 3 years and are expected to increase
throughout 2018. In 2016 the Building Division added a contract Assistant Permit Technician to
help with the continued rise of permit applications as well as utilizing plan review consultants for
the more complex and large projects such as Chinatown, SLO Brew, Garden Street Terrace, and
Pacific Courtyards. 2017 saw a marked increase in plan submittals for Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU) which is reflected in the applications. Although there was an increase in submittals, a
majority of the permits for ADU’s have yet to be issued.
Packet Pg 143
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
18
Valuation of Construction
Construction valuation is a good indicator of the level of private investment in building
construction. Table 3 depicts the annual construction valuation over the past 4 years. Calendar
year 2016 was the fourth year in a row to see a notable increase in this area.
Table 3 - Valuation of Construction, 2014-2017 Comparison
VALUATION OF CONSTRUCTION 2017 2016 2015 2014
Single Family 19,706,522 15,024,481 37,904,420 26,974,176
Multi Family 17,248,685 8,172,054 12,079,291 16,088,664
Commercial 6,248,150 51,109,620 16,159,822 3,739,324
Public-New Buildings &
Alteration 0 0 0 0
Residential Additions/
Alterations 8,167,839 10,138,220 6,811,376 7,053,269
Commercial
Additions/Alterations 6,760,007 17,572,763 17,473,806 16,169,065
Total Valuation $58,131,203 $102, 017,138 $90,429,815 $70,024,498
Source: Community Development Department, 2017
Packet Pg 144
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
19
Housing and Residential Growth
The 2017 Department of Finance data estimated the City’s population to be 46,724, as shown in
Table 4. This equates to 3.6 percent growth since the 2010 Census when the City’s population
was estimated to be 45,119. Total housing units also grew by 3.6 percent in the same time period
with a total of 21,286 housing units in the City at the end of 2017.
Table 4 - Housing & Population
Housing and
Population 2010 2017
Total Housing Units 20,553 21,286
Total Population 45,119 46,724
Source: CA Dept. of Finance; Community Development
Department, 2017
The Land Use Element policy related to residential growth (LUE 1.11.2) states that the City’s
housing supply shall grow no faster than one percent per year, on average, based on established
thresholds shown in Table 5, from the Land Use Element:
Table 5 - One Percent City Population Growth Projection (From LUE Table 3)
Year Approximate Maximum
Number of Dwellings* Anticipated Number of People
2013 20,697 45,541
2015 21,113 46,456
2020 22,190 48,826
2025 23,322 51,317
2030 24,512 53,934
2035 25,762 56,686
Estimated urban reserve capacity: 57,200
Source: Land Use Element, City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Table 3, page 1-37.
*2013 population based on CA Department of Finance data and projected based on 1
percent annual growth.
This policy was modified in 2010 under Ordinance No. 1550 to an average of one percent per
year over the five-year Housing Element planning period. The policy change responded to slow
residential growth trends combined with the phasing and financing plans incorporated into the
Margarita and Orcutt Specific Plan Areas.
As of 2017, the City’s population and total housing units are both slightly higher than 2016 and
continue to remain on track with the Land Use Element’s 2020 projections. Therefore, the
Packet Pg 145
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
20
increase in dwellings and population remain consistent with growth management regulations. In
addition, the Residential Growth Management Regulations (MC 17.88) requires each specific plan
area to adopt a phasing schedule for residential growth to ensure that established thresholds in
the Land Use Element are not exceeded.
Based on the Community Development Department’s running total of residential construction
permits, as shown in Table 6, the annual growth rate in 2017 was 0.53 percent, which includes
new single-family and multi-family market-rate residential construction. This is well within the
limit of the 1 percent annual residential growth rate identified in the Land Use Element. The five-
year average growth rate also remains below 1 percent at 0.46 percent.
Over the last 10 years, the City has experienced a total growth in housing units of 3.33 percent,
while the average annual growth rate for the last decade was 0.33 percent. Although more units
were added the previous year, 2017 still marks a significant high for added units, with a total of
131 units. State law requires that affordable units deed-restricted to extremely low, very low, or
low income households are not factored into residential growth rate calculations. Nonetheless,
if those units are added, the average annual growth rate for the last decade was still only 0.33
percent.
Anticipated growth projections provided in the Land Use Element are the basis for many other
assumptions in the General Plan, such as transportation needs. Since the actual growth rate
continues to be lower than the projection, assumptions based on these projected rates remain
valid.
Table 6 - Residential Units Added to the City (01/01/08 – 12/31/17)
Year SFR -
Detach
SFR -
Attach MFR Annex
Units
Total
Units Net Mkt Net Mkt
Growth
Mkt Aff Mkt Aff Mkt Aff Rate
2008 7 0 23 0 -1 28 0 57 29 0.14%
2009 16 0 3 0 29 10 0 58 48 0.24%
2010 15 0 17 0 23 34 0 89 55 0.27%
2011 0 2 0 0 23 42 18 85 41 0.20%
2012 16 0 1 0 17 0 0 34 34 0.17%
2013 16 3 0 0 63 10 0 92 79 0.38%
2014 67 0 0 0 25 22 0 114 92 0.44%
2015 27 0 1 0 34 11 0 73 62 0.30%
2016 68 2 4 0 63 52 0 189 135 0.65%
2017 40 0 6 0 65 20 0 131 111 0.53%
10-yr
Total 272 7 55 0 341 229 18 922 686 3.33%
5-Year Average Annual Growth Rate 0.46%
10-Year Average Annual Growth Rate 0.33%
Source: 2017 Building Permits Finaled, Community Development Department
Note: Units shown are net totals accounting for demolitions.
Packet Pg 146
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
21
New housing types in 2017 consisted of a mix between detached single-family (40), attached
single-family (6), and attached multi-family units (65), where approximately 31 percent of the
multi-family units were deed-restricted for long-term affordability. All 20 multi-family units were
dedicated at the “extremely-low” and “very-low” affordability level.
It should be noted that over the past 10 years, 62 percent of new housing construction has been
in the form of attached multi-family development, with 25 percent deed restricted for
affordability. Figure 3 shows the construction trends of single-family and multi-family housing
since 2002.
Figure 3 - Housing Unit Construction Based on Permits Finaled
Source: Community Development Department, 2017
Quantified Objectives
State housing law requires that each jurisdiction establish quantified objectives for their fair
share of regional housing needs by income group. Deed-restricted affordable units count towards
meeting the quantified objectives, and housing built at densities the state presumes are
affordable qualify as well. The quantified objectives are for the five-year period between Housing
Element updates. The Housing Element includes goals, policies and programs to accommodate
affordable housing programs that meet the City’s quantified objectives, mixed-income housing,
housing variety and tenure, and special-needs housing.
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017
Single Family
Multifamily
Packet Pg 147
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
22
Table 7 - Progress Towards Meeting Quantified Objectives (01/01/14 to 6/30/19)
Income Category
(% of County Median Income)
Regional Housing Need Allocation
SFH
QO2
SFH
Built1
MFH
QO2
MFH
Built1
Total
QO
Total
Built1
Extremely Low (< 30%) 0 0 142 6 142 6
Very Low (30-50%) 0 0 143 50 143 50
Low (51-80%) 72 0 107 38 179 38
Moderate (81-120%) 81 2 121 12 202 14
Above Moderate (> 120%) 191 210 287 187 478 397
TOTAL UNITS 344 212 800 293 1,144 505
Source: 2015 Housing Element, City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department
1 Reflects net units constructed 01/01/14 thru 6/30/19.
2 Reflects Quantified Objectives for each category
The City’s most recent Housing Element was adopted in January 2015, with a planning period
from January 1, 2014 through June 30, 2019. As shown in Table 7 above, the 20 affordable
housing units added to the City, aids to fulfilling the Quantified Objectives for the “extremely
low” and “very low” income categories. Combined with the addition of the 111 “above
moderate” units, the Tables above display the great strides City has made great strides to the
housing stock in 2017. In its first four years (2014-2017), about half way through the planning
period, the City is at 44 percent of achieving its Quantified Objectives for housing through 2019.
Achieving the quantified objective is not a requirement, yet it is a way to measure how effective
the City has been in terms of housing programs and policies to advance the construction of
affordable housing. It should be noted, however, that market conditions and the financing
environment are the primary drivers that determine the production of affordable housing.
Affordable Housing
The City’s Housing Programs Manager (HPM) focuses on affordable housing development and
other important General Plan Housing Element goals. The HPM serves on the Board of Directors
for the Workforce Housing Coalition, the Funding Commission for the SLO County Housing Trust
Fund and contributes to the work of the Homeless Services Oversight Council. These efforts
contribute to an improved environment for planning and development of affordable housing in
the City of San Luis Obispo.
In 2017, the City continued to implement the Inclusionary Housing Requirement, and has over
10 Affordability Agreements in process through long-term and equity-share programs. Over
$1,000,000 in affordable housing in-lieu fees were also collected.
Pursuant to the ongoing zoning regulations update staff worked closely with the consultant to
add workforce housing as an income category in the City’s Zoning Regulations and Affordable
Packet Pg 148
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
23
Housing Standards. Staff began working with key community stakeholders to develop the
resulting workforce housing ordinance, aimed for preliminary review in 2018. Table 8 identifies
affordable housing accomplishments for 2017:
Table 8 - Affordable Housing Project Highlights from 2017
Project Affordable
Units Status Special Notes
860 On the
Wye
19 (10 units
set aside for
homeless
veterans)
Project as been completed
and all units are now
occupied.
On June 27, 2017, HASLO celebrated the
project’s grand opening. Assemblyman
Jordan Cunningham’s office presented
certificates of appriciation to all the veterns
who received housing.
Iron Works 46
Construction kicked off in
early 2017 and is on track
for completion in Fall
2018.
This mixed-use project located at 3680
Broad Street is being devevloped by HASLO.
The City has awarded a $920,000 AHF award
to the project.
Bishop
Street
Studios
34
All entitlements for this
new affordable housing
development were
awarded in late 2016.
HASLO aims to apply for
low income housing tax
credits in Spring 2018.
HASLO and Transitions Mental Health
Assocation have teamed up to renovate the
existing Sunny Acres building and create new
affordable housing for TMHA clients.
22 Chorro 4
All entitlements were
awarded in early 2017 for
the complex. Constuction
is expected to be
completed in 2018.
The 27-unit project located at Chorro Street
and Foothill Boulevard will provide 4 studio
apartments, deed-restricted for very-low
income households.
71 Palomar 4
All planning entitlements
were comleted in April
2017. Constrution is
expected to begin in early
Summer 2018.
The 29-unit project will provide 4 studio
apartments, deed-restricted for very-low
income households.
Courtyard
at the
Meadows
36
Courtyard at the
Meadows, HASLO’s new
affordable housing
development in the Serra
Meadows Tract was fully
entitled in Fall 2016.
HASLO will apply for tax credits in Spring
2018 and hopes to begin construction by
Winter 2018. The City projects to grant an
AHF award of $630,000 to assist with
construction costs.
Orcutt Area 73
Staff has entered into
affordable housing
agreements for two
separate subdivisions in
the Orcutt Area.
The Orcutt Area Specific Plan projects up to
1,000 units. At full build out, up to 150 new
affordable units will be created.
Packet Pg 149
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
24
Margarita
Area 36
Courtyard at the
Meadows, HASLO’s new
affordable housing
development in the Serra
Meadows Tract was fully
entitled in Fall 2016. Land
dedication for affordable
housing on the Toscano
Tract began in 2017.
The Margarita Area Specific Plan projects up
to 850 units. Up to 130 new affordable units
are expected at build out.
San Luis
Ranch 68
Large development
proposing 580 residential
units, a hotel, and
commercial spaces
34 units are required to meet the residential
component pursuant to the City’s
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. An
additional 34 units are required for the
commerical component, but can also be
satisfied by paying an in-lieu fee.
Avila Ranch 67
Large development
proposing 720 residential
units and commercial
spaces
Projected that 32 units will be for lower
income households and 35 to be affordable
at the moderate income level. An
addititional 4 units are required to satisfy
the commercial component, by either
construction or payment of an in-lieu fee
Source: Community Devleopment Department, 2017
Funding and Grant Programs
1. Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG): The CDBG program provides
annual funding for eligible affordable housing projects and support for the homeless
shelter. Over the past five years the CDBG Program has provided over $1,800,000 towards
affordable housing and approximately $700,000 towards homeless services. Projects
funded for the 2017 Program Year included homeless services, affordable housing land
acquisition for Bishop Street Studios, and affordable housing rehabilitation
2. Affordable Housing Fund (AHF): In 2017, the City awarded $850,000 in AHF loans to local
non-profits to assist with new affordable housing development. and $20,000 was
authorized for down-payment assistance.
3. Down Payment Assistance: $20,000 was authorized for down payment assistance loans
to one moderate income household
4. Grants in Aid (GIA): The City’s Human Relations Commission approved $139,885 in grants
to non-profit organizations whose focus is homeless prevention (including supportive
services and transitional housing), hunger and malnutrition prevention, supportive
physical and mental health services, and services for seniors and/or people with
disabilities. Awards were approved by Council in July and distributed in August.
5. San Luis Obispo County Housing Trust Fund (HTF): The HTF provides financing, technical
assistance and advocacy to increase the supply of affordable housing in the City. HTF staff
Packet Pg 150
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
25
serve as a resource to City staff working with developers on affordable housing projects.
Since 2005, the HTF has provided over $18 million in financing for affordable housing
projects county-wide, contributing to the creation or preservation of over 680 affordable
dwelling units. The City continues to support the HTF with Affordable Housing Funds to
help support the operating costs of the HTF.
Homeless Services Support
1. Homeless Services Center: In January
2015, the City Council approved a
$250,000 grant for CAPSLO’s new
Homeless Service Center located at 40
Prado. Building permits were issued for
the facility in November 2015. Over $4
million dollars have been raised
through the community for
construction costs. Construction began
in Spring 2017 and is slated to finish in
June 2018.
2. Safe Parking Program: The program provides seven parking spaces located at the Prado
Day Center. This allows homeless persons with vehicles a safe place to temporarily park
with the goal of eventually transitioning them into permanent housing. The City provides
$10,000 annually to CAPSLO for the program. The program will likely be expanded once
40 Prado opens in 2018.
3. Homeless Issues Working Group: The City has a Homeless Issues Working Group which
meets bi-monthly to support and implement the 10-Year Plan and to identify, evaluate,
and implement strategies to reduce the impacts of homelessness within the City.
4. Homeless Services Oversight Council (HSOC): Staff continues to participate in HSOC
quarterly general meetings. Priorities and recent accomplishments of the HSOC include:
making Housing First the main priority, joining the 100,000 Homes Campaign, and using
the Housing First approach to assist the most vulnerable, chronically homeless persons
who are at risk of dying on the streets. As part of the 50Now program, over 70 individuals
have been placed into housing under this program.
5. Homeless Veteran Support: The City continues to work towards the Mayor’s Challenge to
End Veteran Homelessness. On June 27, 2017, HASLO celebrated the Grand Opening of
860 on the Wye, a 19-unit residential development dedicated to veterans, where 10 units
were dedicated to those whom were formally homeless.
40 Prado Project Rendering
Packet Pg 151
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
26
Non-Residential Growth
Based on final building permits, 53,518 square feet of net new non-residential floor area was
added to the City in 2017, resulting in an annual growth rate of 0.46 percent.
Figure 4 illustrates the net annual growth rate of non-residential sectors beginning in 2005. Net
annual non-residential growth includes office, services and manufacturing, retail, hotel, and
institutional uses.
Figure 4 - Net Annual Growth Rates of Non-Residential Sectors (2005–2017)
Source: Building Permits Finaled, Community Development Department
Note 1: Annexed floor area excluded from growth rate calculations: 2008, portions of AASP.
Note 2: Demolition of nonresidential square footage included in calculations.
Table 9 describes mixed-use and non-residential projects in different phases of the review
process in 2017. Currently, projects totaling 1,336,191 square feet are either in the review
process, have received entitlements, or are nearing construction.
Table 9 - 2017 Projects Under Review with Non-Residential Square Footage
Project Name Address Nonres.
Sq. Ft. Type Status
Orcutt Area Specific Plan
Jones Subdivision 3761 Orcutt 15,070 Commercial PIP Review
Airport Area Specific Plan
Tank Farm Commerce Park 179 Cross 29,280 Industrial Entitled
Digital West 600 Tank Farm 77,370 Office Entitled
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
3.00%
3.50%
4.00%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Packet Pg 152
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
27
Aerovista Place 862 Aerovista 37,230 Office Entitled
Ellsworth Tract 250 Tank Farm TBD Commercial PIP Review
Aerovista Office Buildings 892 Aerovista 37,000 Office Complete
SLO Brew Production 855 Aerovista 31,290 Industrial Complete
Other Specific Plans
Madonna on LOVR LOVR 45,000 Commercial In Planning
Avila Ranch Specific Plan Buckley 20,000 Commercial/Office Entitled
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Madonna 200,000 Commercial/Office/Hotel Entitled
Mixed Use (Residential and Commercial)
*790 Foothill Mixed Use 790 Foothill 6,805 Commercial In Planning
*950 Orcutt Mixed use 950 Orcutt 6,800 Commercial In Planning
*207 Higuera Mixed Use 207 Higuera 1,097 Commercial In Planning
*Twin Creeks 791 Orcutt 3,488 Commercial In Planning
*Marsh & Carmel Mixed Use 435 Marsh 1,100 Commercial In Planning
San Luis Square 590 Marsh 21,322 Commercial In Planning
1185 Monterey 1185 Monterey 2,464 Commercial Entitled
Workforce Housing 3720 Broad 1,288 Commercial Building Review
Laurel Lane Mixed Use 1259 Laurel 2,306 Commercial Building Review
Caudill Mixed Use 774 Caudill 5,327 Commercial Building Review
Broad St. Mixed Use 3049 Broad 2,788 Commercial Building Review
The Junction 2120 Santa Barbara 3,000 Commercial Building Review
22 Chorro 22 Chorro 2,000 Commercial Under Construction
Iron Works 3680 Broad 4,400 Commercial Under Construction
1135 Santa Rosa Mixed Use 1135 Santa Rosa 5,942 Commercial Under Construction
Pacific Courtyards 1321 Osos 8,050 Commercial Under Construction
Hotels and Mixed-Use Developments
*Los Padres Inn 1575 Monterey 24,479 Hotel In Planning
Vesper Hotel 1027 Nipomo 11,743 Commercial/Hotel In Planning
Broad St. Collection 3249 Broad 13,333 Hotel In Planning
Monterey Place 667 Monterey 12,255 Commercial/Hotel In Planning
Olive Mixed Use 1042 Olive 23,957 Commercial/Hotel Entitled
Motel Inn 2223 Monterey 34,940 Hotel Building Review
TownePlace Suites 1301 Calle Joaquin 56,975 Hotel Building Review
Granada Hotel Expansion 1128 Morro 9,871 Hotel Building Review
Monterey Hotel 1845 Monterey 60,368 Commercial/Hotel Under Construction
Chinatown Hotel 877 Palm 46,140 Commercial/Hotel Under Construction
Hotel Serra 1125 Garden 25,047 Commercial/Hotel Under Construction
Other Commercial/Office Developments
*Palm Parking Garage 609 Palm 5,000 Commercial In Planning
*Water Resources Facility 35 Prado 17,704 Utilities In Planning
Bridge St. Project 279 Bridge 21,049 Industrial Entitled
French Hospital 1911 Johnson 58,600 Office Entitled
Packet Pg 153
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
28
*Madonna Plaza 273 Madonna 56,257 Commercial Building Review
*1101 Monterey 1101 Monterey 27,079 Commercial/Office Building Review
Perry Ford & VW Dealership 12200 LOVR 7,895 Commercial Building Review
Shell Station Development 1102 Higuera 5,000 Commercial Building Review
Discovery SLO Bowling Alley 1144 Chorro 29,500 Commercial Building Review
McCarthy Steel 3720 Broad 9,840 Industrial Building Review
Higuera Brew 6 Higuera 5,000 Industrial/Commercial Building Review
Long-Bonetti Public Market 120 Tank Farm 46,932 Industrial/Commercial Building Review
Poly Performance 870 Industrial 30,275 Industrial Under Construction
Airport Business Center 4460 Broad 74,883 Industrial Under Construction
BMW Dealership 1251 Calle Joaquin 23,945 Commercial Under Construction
Homeless Service Center 40 Prado 20,000 Office Under Construction
Direct Injectors 848 Via Esteban 6,207 Industrial Complete
Source: Community Development Department, 2018
*New projects in 2017
1. Project Review hierarchy: Pre-application, In Planning, Entitled, Public Improvement Plans (PIP) in review, Building
review, Under construction.
Commercial and Industrial Growth Management
Land Use Element Policy 1.11.4 states that each year,
the Council will evaluate the actual increase in non-
residential floor area over the preceding five years.
The Council shall consider establishing limits for the
rate of non-residential development if the increase in
non-residential floor area for any five-year period
exceeds five percent.
The five-year net non-residential growth rate for 2013
through 2017 was 2.5 percent, and the five-year
average annual average growth rate was 0.50 percent.
According to the policy, any limits so established shall
not apply to:
A. Changed operations or employment levels, or relocation of ownership change, of any
business existing within the City at the time the limit is set;
B. Additional nonresidential floor area within the downtown core;
C. Public agencies;
D. Manufacturing, light industrial, research businesses, or companies providing a significant
number of head of household jobs.
Each year the Council has considered whether or not to implement limits to new non-residential
floor area and has decided against establishing limits. If limits are established they would only
apply to certain types of new commercial floor area, such as new offices or new retail
establishments outside of the downtown core.
Chinatown Hotel SLO Under Construction
Packet Pg 154
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
29
Jobs-Housing Balance
The jobs-housing balance is a planning tool to review whether a community has a healthy balance
between jobs and the housing supply available to potentially house workers for those jobs. This
balance may be impacted by the match between wage levels and housing costs; whether all
workers in a house have employment in the community in which they live; whether preferences
are met within the community for either housing or employment; and whether options are
available nearby for either housing or employment.
The balance of jobs and housing in an area has implications for transportation systems, however
even an ideal balance may not prevent daily in- or out- commute patterns. According to planning
literature, the desired target is a jobs-to-housing unit ratio of 1.5:1, which reflects that there is
more than one worker living in the average household. Table 10 shows that the current jobs-to-
housing ratio inside the City limits is 2.4:1, which remained constant from 2016. When you
include major employers just outside the City limits the ratio is 2.7:1, which increased from 2016.
At the current rate of 2.4:1, the City is experiencing a jobs-housing imbalance.
Table 10 - Current Jobs/Housing Balance
Estimated jobs in City limits 52,092
Housing units 21,286
Jobs to housing ratio 2.4:1
Cal Poly jobs (not in City) 3,000
California Men's Colony jobs (not in City) 1,517
Jobs to housing ratio including neighboring
major employers (CP and Men’s Colony) 2.7:1
Sources: SLOCOG 2050 Draft Regional Growth Forecast. San Luis
Obispo Chamber of Commerce Major Employers, 2017. CMC,2015;
Community Development Department, 2017; Capital Facilities Fee
Nexus Study, March 2018
The increase of the number of estimated jobs inside the City limits, shows the stability and
strength in the City’s economy compared to last year. The number of housing units developed is
also increasing, which marked a significant high in 2017 compared to the last decade, however
more housing is still needed. With housing as a Major City Goal in both 2015-17 and 2017-19, the
City continues to focus on promoting housing development to keep pace with job creation in the
City.
Implementation strategies in the updated land use and housing elements of the general plan
seek to reduce the jobs/housing ratio through programs targeted at additional housing within
the city limits. Land Use Element Policy 1.5 states that the gap between housing demand (due to
more jobs and college enrollment) and housing supply should not increase.
Packet Pg 155
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
30
Specific Plan Implementation and Development
The General Plan requires approval of specific plans as a precursor to development of the City’s
major expansion areas. Specific plans typically contain more detailed land-use and design
standards than the General Plan and address the timing and financing of public facilities. Specific
plans can supersede the Zoning Regulations or lead to amendments of the Municipal Code. The
process for adopting a specific plan is similar to the process for adopting or amending a section
of the General Plan.
Margarita Area Specific Plan
The Margarita Area Specific Plan
(MASP) was approved on October
12, 2004, and the remaining
portions of the Margarita Area in
the County were annexed into the
City in 2008. Construction of 177
units has been completed in Serra
Meadows Tracts 2342, 2353-1, and
2353-2. They received tentative
map approval (PM SLO 15-0095) to
re-subdivide the office parcels of
Serra Meadows and create
residential lots. The final map for
that re-subdivision is currently in the
review process.
The original tentative map for Toscano Tract 2428 was approved in 2007 and was subsequently
revised at the request of the developer for constructability and marketability purposes. The
currently-approved tentative lot configuration consists of 161 single-family lots, multiple lots for
up to 26 units of affordable housing, multiple lots for riparian open space, and a 71-acre hillside
lot for permanent open space. The final map for Phase 1 of Tract 2428 was approved in 2016 and
created 45 single-family lots, several lots for riparian open space, and the 71-acre hillside lot. The
homes in Phase 1 are currently under construction and many have already been sold and
occupied. Phase 2 of Tract 2428 was approved in 2016 and created 36 single-family lots, several
lots for riparian open space and multiple lots for up to 26 affordable housing units. The single-
family homes in Phase 2 are currently under construction. The affordable housing lots were
deeded over to the Housing Authority. It is anticipated that the final map for the last phase of
Tract 2428 (Phase 3) will be submitted in 2018.
Orcutt Area Specific Plan
Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 3063 (Righetti Ranch) and 3066 (Jones Ranch) projects were
approved in 2016, and site grading has begun. The Righetti Ranch project includes 304 residential
units (272 single-family and 32 multi-family), the Righetti Hill open space, almost 14 acres of
New Residences in the Toscano Neighborhood
Source: Toscano Facebook Page
Packet Pg 156
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
31
public parks and extensive pedestrian, bicycle, and road improvements. The adjacent Jones
Ranch property is a mixed-use commercial-residential project, including 56 residential units and
a community commercial project of just over 15,000 square feet. Public improvement plans and
final maps for Tract 3066 and Phase 1 of Tract 3063 have been submitted by the applicant and
approved by the City and the final maps are currently pending recordation. In addition, single-
family residential building program was reviewed and approved with feedback from the ARC in
late 2017.
In 2016, the Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 3083 was approved by Council for the West Creek
project at the corner of Johnson and Orcutt. The West Creek project would create 77 lots for the
property located at 1299 Orcutt Road. The ARC has reviewed and approved the proposed home
designs.
In 2017, the Imel Ranch VTM No. 3095 was approved by Council. This VTM consists of 23 lots: 18
single-family residential lots, 2 detention/drainage lots, and 3 open space lots.
Avila Ranch Development Plan
On September 19, 2017, the City Council
approved the Avila Ranch project to enable
the development of 720 residential units
and 15,000 square feet of neighborhood
commercial uses on a 150-acre site north
of Buckley Road within the boundaries of
the Airport Area Specific Plan (“AASP”).
The project also includes 18 acres of parks
and 53 acres of designated open space
within the project boundaries. The project
will implement the policies and
development parameters in the recent Land
Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) update, other elements of the General Plan, Airport Area
Specific Plan (AASP), and the City’s Community Design Guidelines. The project is the
development of a major new City neighborhood, which will be governed by a Development Plan
within the framework of the existing AASP as amended.
The project will address housing affordability in several ways, most notably through the design
itself, which includes cluster development and many medium and high-density housing units
(197 R-3 units and 125 R-4 units), as well as R-2 units that have floor areas that are well below
the typical average for single-family detached units in the community. In addition, Inclusionary
Housing will be addressed through a combination of affordable housing deed restrictions on
some low and moderate-income units to be constructed by the applicant, and land dedication
where Inclusionary Housing units will be constructed by affordable housing developers. The
project will include 67 contractually price-restricted affordable (inclusionary) housing units, and
25 price-restricted Workforce Housing Units. The project will likely be developed over a period
of 10-15 years.
Avila Ranch Site Plan
Packet Pg 157
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
32
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
Review of the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
project continued through 2017. On July 18,
2017, the City Council took a number of
actions towards the step of annexation and
final approvals: (1) Certification of the Final
Environmental Impact Report, (2) Approval
of the Specific Plan, (3) Approval of the
General Plan Amendment, (4) Initiation of
Annexation for the project site, and review
of a term sheet as the basis for a future
development agreement. The Council
approved San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
project includes a mix of 580 residential
units that would be located primarily at the
north/northwest portion of the site. The
project is intended to implement the broad
development parameters set forth in the
LUCE update with the provision of housing,
commercial floor space, hotel/visitor
serving uses, and preservation of agricultural area. The commercial portion of the project
includes up to 200,000 square feet of general commercial/retail space, 150,000 square feet of
office development, and a 200-room hotel. Commercial uses proposed may include retail
anchors, neighborhood retail, restaurants, offices and a hotel. Approximately 60.4 acres of the
site would remain as preserved as open space for agricultural and open space use. In 2018, work
will continue on the next steps in the process which include approval of a Development
Agreement, completion of annexation, and establishment of a Community Facilities District
(CFD). Project implementation is anticipated in the late 2018, early 2019 timeframe.
San Luis Ranch Site Plan
Packet Pg 158
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
33
Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan (Froom Ranch Specific Plan)
The pre-application and Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment initiation request process for
the Madonna on Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) Specific Plan was initiated in May 2015. The
conceptual project was presented to the City Planning Commission on December 9, 2015 and
January 27, 2016, followed by the City Council on April 5, 2016, to consider the initiation request
and provide feedback to the applicant and staff regarding the applicant’s proposed mix of uses
and plan to amend the Land Use Element to allow development above 150 feet in ground
elevation. The City Council authorized initiation of the Specific Plan request, and an application
was received in early 2017 by JM Development Group, Inc.
The Froom Ranch Specific Plan is
envisioned as a primarily residential
project with some commercial
development in the northeast portion of
the site closest to Los Osos Valley Road
and the adjacent Irish Hills Plaza. A
major component of the planned
residential uses is a Life Plan Community
(LPC) known as Villaggio, which would
provide a variety of independent and
assisted senior living units. The Villaggio
LPC is proposed to include: 366
independent living units; 40 assisted
living units; 17 memory care beds; 34
skilled nursing beds; an 11,000-square
foot wellness center; and 67,000 square
feet of ancillary services. In addition to
the LPC, the Specific Plan anticipates:
approximately 130 medium-high
density, multi-family units; 44 high-
density, multi-family apartments;
100,000 square feet of commercial retail
uses; a three-acre trailhead park, which
would incorporate onsite historic
structures; and 59 acres of land designated for conservation/open space. Infrastructure includes
on and off-site road improvements and an offsite drainage basin.
In 2017, several advisory bodies were introduced to the Specific Plan, and staff and the applicant
received preliminary comments from the Parks and Recreation Commission, Cultural Heritage
Committee, and Architectural Review Commission. The Notice of Preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) scoping meeting was held at a Planning Commission hearing
in July 2017. Future steps in 2018 will include additional advisory body review and preparation
and circulation of the EIR, concluding with consideration of the Specific Plan, General Plan
Amendment, and final environmental document by the City Council in late 2018 or early 2019.
Froom Ranch Site Plan
Packet Pg 159
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
34
South Broad Street Area Plan
The South Broad Street Area Plan was adopted by the City Council in December 2014 as part of
the Land Use and Circulation Element update.
Since adoption, the following projects have been approved or are under review within the South
Broad Street Area Plan:
• Broad Street Mixed Use (3049/3099 Broad): Includes 12 residential units and 3,000 square feet
of retail space. The project received entitlements in August 2016 and is currently under
building Review.
• 860 On the Wye (860 Humbert): Includes 19 affordable rental units and a community room;
10 units are set aside for homeless veterans. The project was entitled in early 2015 and
received building permits in March 2016. The project is currently Under Construction.
• The Yard (2450 Victoria): Includes 25 live/work units and 18 residential units. The project
received was entitled in February 2016 and is currently under building Review.
• Caudill Mixed Use (774 Caudill): Includes 36 residential units and 5,500 square feet of
commercial space. The project received entitlements in June 2016.
• Broad Street Collection (3249 Broad): 10 live/work units and 6-unit hotel with caretaker’s
quarters (In Planning).
• Victoria & Caudill Mixed Use (797 Caudill): Includes 3 live/work units and 5 residential units (In
Planning).
South Broad Street Area Plan Site Overview
Packet Pg 160
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
35
Downtown Concept Plan Update
The recent update to the General Plan Land Use
Element in 2014 included an implementation objective
to update the Downtown Concept Plan to address the
significant changes in or affecting the downtown since
the original plan, and to include opportunities for
meaningful public input.
The work that had been underway on the Downtown
Concept Plan since December 2015, continued in 2017.
The public also remained actively engaged in a variety
of ways, including three public workshops. The Council-
appointed Creative Vision Team (CVT) met 13 times to
provide important input and design assistance. On July
12, 2017, the CVT unanimously endorsed the Final
Public Draft of the Downtown Concept Plan
supplement and poster.
Following the Planning Commission’s review of the Downtown Concept Plan on April 26, 2017
and July 26, 2017, they recommended adoption to the City Council. On September 5, 2017, the
City Council adopted the Downtown Concept Plan and the illustrative poster as a long-range
vision and guide for public and private investment Downtown.
Packet Pg 161
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
36
Plans Under Development
Mission Plaza Master Plan
Concurrent with the Downtown Concept Plan is the development of the Mission Plaza Concept
Plan. The overall goal of the project is to revitalize and refresh this important community hub
and provide the City a road map for planning of future maintenance and development projects
for the Plaza.
Since its inception in the 1970s, Mission Plaza has served as the cultural and historical “heart” of
the San Luis Obispo’s downtown. Given the Plaza’s age, popularity, and extensive use, the Council
authorized the development of the Mission Plaza Master Plan and Assessment in July 2015 for
this important community hub. This was consistent with the Council-approved 2013-15 Major
City Goal to “Assess and Renew the Downtown,” which included a task for the development of a
Mission Plaza Master Plan. Also identified in the update of the Land Use and Circulation Elements
is the expansion of Mission Plaza, originally envisioned in the 1993 Downtown Concept Plan.
A consultant team has been working with City staff to assess the present condition, uses and
policies related to the existing Mission Plaza; determine impacts of Plaza events on adjacent
residential neighbors, businesses, Old Mission Church operations and San Luis Obispo Creek
habitat; explore expansion of the Plaza into the adjacent Broad/Monterey St. “dogleg” through
permanent or temporary street closures; and provide a vision for the future of the Plaza and
surrounding streets. Public engagement activities took place in early 2016, with two plan
alternatives developed in the Spring, and a second workshop in July. Plans were also reviewed at
a joint City Council and Planning Commission study session in October. A preferred alternative
was developed after the study session, which included input from the Downtown Concept Plan
CVT. In January 2017, the
Parks & Recreation
Commission provided
feedback on possible
design features and
amenities of the plan. In
February 2017, the
Cultural Heritage
Committee provide
feedback on the plan, as
did the Architectural
Review Commission in
March 2017. On May 10,
2017, the Planning
Commission provided
additional feedback
regarding specific design
features. Mission Plaza Site Plan
Packet Pg 162
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
37
On September 5, 2017, the City Council reviewed the Mission Plaza Concept Plan and authorized
staff to proceed with preparation of a master plan document as well as fiscal and environmental
study of the plan implementation.
Zoning Regulations Update
City Council included the Zoning Regulations Update project for 2015-17 Financial Plan and
allocated $225,000 for consultant services. The Zoning Regulations are the primary document for
implementation of the LUCE. On September 6, 2016, the City Council reviewed the scope of work
for the Zoning Regulations Update and authorized issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for
consultant services. A consultant was hired in late 2016, and the update will begin in early 2017
with the scope of work consisting of the following items:
LUCE Implementation (Including, but not limited to, the following programs):
• Consider new regulations to address neighborhood compatibility for infill development
(Program 2.13)
• Evaluate student housing preferences and consider revising development standards to
better meet them in multifamily housing near campus (Program 2.11.1)
• Adopt special development standards for dwellings in downtown residential areas (Policy
2.8, Program 2.12)
• Evaluate alternatives to the current maximum number of dwellings units and height,
parking, and setback standards, to regulate residential building intensity (Program 2.15)
• Evaluate the potential to use portions of City-owned parking facilities for residents’
parking (Program 2.16)
Other Features of the Update:
• Reorganize the Zoning Regulations for simplicity and modernize for current and emerging
conditions, and as necessary to meet new State requirements.
• Update Parking Standards (Table 6)
• Update Land Use Table (Table 9)
• Review “S” (Special Considerations) Overlay Zones
• Update Land Use Definitions
Since February of 2017, the City has been working with the consulting firm MIG, Inc. to
comprehensively update the Zoning Regulations. To date, the process of updating the Zoning
Regulations has involved:
• Interviews with community members
• April 12, 2017 PC/CC joint study session
• Community workshop on June 3, 2017
• Regular updates with the Planning Commission (August through December)
• Internal interaction among City departments
• Weekly phone calls with the MIG team
Packet Pg 163
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
38
Sign Regulations Update
In 2017, staff continued to refine the draft Sign Regulations Update in response to input from
stakeholder interviews and the Issues and Options Report which summarized consultant
recommendations for needed updates. Staff anticipates refinement of the draft Sign Regulations
update and CHC and ARC review to occur by early 2018 followed by subsequent consideration
for final approval by the City Council.
• Various amendments and additions to respond to the free speech case of Reed v. Gilbert.
This includes legal analysis and appropriate amendments based on the holdings of the
case that has serious implications for many jurisdictions that include regulations that are
based on the content of the message. An example of this would be that it is not
permissible to only allow signage on residential properties for a specific purpose such as
political signs or yard sales.
• Additional sign types will be added to the Prohibited Signs section such as electronic
message centers, video displays, and internally illuminated cabinet signs which are
currently only prohibited in the Downtown.
• Addition of Design Principles to further define requirements for sign quality, proportion,
and appropriate placement.
• Updated photos and graphics for clarity on encouraged signs types and those that are
prohibited or discouraged.
• Cross references to other relevant guidelines and ordinances such as the Community
Design Guidelines, and Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation
Guidelines.
• Added language for clarity on the purpose and appropriate use of Sign Programs for new
development and projects with multiple tenants.
• Added language for clarity on level of review and required findings for exceptions.
• New and updated definitions to cover newer sign types and to improve interpretation and
enforceability.
Public Infrastructure Financing
In 2017 the City began the process of updating the fees charged to new development for a range
of transportation, parks, general government, public safety, and water and sewer capital facilities
and infrastructure that are important to the City’s future and quality of life. It is anticipated that
the update of those fee programs, in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act (Assembly Bill 1600)
will be completed in 2018. The economic vitality of the City is linked to critical investment in its
urban infrastructure system. While the City’s current configuration of existing development
impact fee programs has served an important role in funding infrastructure improvements
throughout the City over the last twenty years, changing economic circumstances, new Specific
Plans, and the City’s recently adopted Public Infrastructure Financing Framework (Framework)
and draft policies, warrant an update of these programs.
Packet Pg 164
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
39
Climate Action Plan
The City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) was adopted in 2012. The Plan contains quantified strategies
to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the community and City operations. It also
serves as the City’s Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy. Several strategies from the Climate Action
Plan were incorporated in the LUCE update. Implementing the CAP includes those actions the
City can directly impact and those actions for which the City engages the community.
In January 2017, the City held a community forum to allow community members to participate
in the decision-making process for the 2017-2019 Major City Goals. After substantial public
interest and comment, City Council declared Climate Action as one of its four Major City Goals
and Other Important Objective. The purpose of the goal is to implement the Climate Action Plan,
assess requirements to achieve a “net-zero City” target, and implement cost-effective measures,
including the implementation of a Sustainability Coordinator and formation of a Green team.
Currently, the City is 20% complete with this Major City Goal and is on-track to complete it by the
end of the 2019 Financial year. There have been many accomplishment and milestones that have
helped progress the City towards completing this Major City Goal. In June 2017, the City declared
June 20 Net Zero Energy Day. In July 2017, the Special Projects Manager position took on the
role and responsibilities of the Sustainability Coordinator. In November, the position was
reclassified to a Sustainability Manager position. The recruitment to fill that position is currently
underway and is anticipated to be filled in February 2018. In July 2017, the City “Green Team”
was established with representatives from each City department. In October 2017, a
Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the Climate Action Task Force (Task Force)
was approved to establish the Task Force as the “Community Climate Action Coalition” to help
achieve the objectives outlined in the Climate Action Major City Goal work program. Additionally,
in October, the City Council limited the use of single use plastic beverage straws citywide and
other measures for city facilities and special events. In November, the data collection for the
update of the GHG emissions inventory was initiated.
Municipal Actions
Strategies in the CAP include review of City facilities and operations to identify opportunities for
emissions reductions. In 2017, the City continued its efforts to make improvements to municipal
facilities that will result in lowered emissions, including:
Facility Upgrades: In 2017, the City Facilities Division
continued the work of replacing inefficient building
lighting fixtures to LEDs at a variety of City facilities,
including City/County Museum, Ludwick Community
Center, Emergency Dispatch Center, City Hall Exterior
lighting, and completed the interior lighting retrofit at the
Senior Center. The major thrust this year is replacing
Packet Pg 165
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
40
dozens of obsolete compact fluorescent “can lights” with L.E.D.
retrofits and retrofitting four-foot fluorescent tube fixtures. This
change represents a 33% reduction (at a minimum) in power
consumption with a 50% increase in light levels for each fixture.
The facilities division has also been tasked with reducing plastic single
use bottles in the waste stream and has been installing bottle filling
stations. The most recent at the Ludwick community Center.
City and Community Partner Actions
The Environmental Center of San Luis Obispo (ECOSLO): The Environmental Center of San Luis
Obispo is a local, non-profit organization that educates, advocates, and acts to protect and
enhance the natural environment and human well-being of San Luis Obispo County. On the
October 24, 2017 City Council meeting, Council voted to limit the use of single-use beverage
straws, an effort that will reduce the amount of plastic and paper waste that ends up as litter and
in the landfill. Climate Action, a Major City Goal for 2017-19, prioritizes the City’s climate action
efforts and has an overall goal of reducing community-wide greenhouse gas emissions. The
Environmental Center of San Luis Obispo (ECOSLO) reported that 1,363 plastic straws/stirrers
were collected from local beaches at the 2017 SLO County Coastal Cleanup Day, and 1,111 were
picked up the previous year, making straws/stirrers the tenth most collected debris. The City of
San Luis Obispo and ECOSLO have partnered together to visit affected businesses, provide
information on the ordinances, and allow time for understanding and adjusting to new
regulations before they take effect on March 1, 2018.
One With Nature: One With Nature is another local non-profit who aspires to preserve and
improve the beauty of the environment. Along with ECOSLO, the City of San Luis Obispo is also
working with One With Nature with the ordinance to limit the use of single-use plastic beverage
bottles and cups on City property and at special events on City property requiring a permit. One
With Nature is also collaborating with the City on the implementation of hydration stations in the
City’s infrastructure to enable citizens to opt for reusables more conveniently.
Community Choice Energy (CCE): Community Choice Energy (CCE), also known as Community
Choice Aggregation (CCA), enables local governments to leverage the purchasing power of their
residents, businesses, and governments to purchase or generate power for their communities
within a defined jurisdiction to secure alternative energy supply contracts on a community-wide
basis, while allowing consumers not wishing to participate to opt out. In 2015, the City Council
directed staff to develop initial feasibility studies with providers of Community Choice
Aggregation programs as well as participate in a program with the Counties of San Luis Obispo,
Santa Barbara and Ventura. Since approval of that resolution, the City has been involved in two
feasibility study efforts: 1) the Intra-County Study - a pro-bono “initial feasibility study” prepared
by Pilot Power Group designed to provide a high-level assessment of CCE feasibility within San
Packet Pg 166
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
41
Luis Obispo County, and 2) the Tri-County Feasibility Study – a multi-jurisdictional feasibility study
providing a detailed analysis of eight geographical CCE participation scenarios across San Luis
Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties (including the City jurisdictions within those
Counties).
The findings of the Intra-County Study generally align with the findings of a peer review of the
Tri-County study, finding with high probability that a new CCE program would be able to cover
its costs, generate net revenue, and maintain rate competitiveness across the studied scenarios.
The results of the Tri-County study were released in September 2017 and conclude that a newly
created regional CCE program spanning San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties is
not likely to be a viable venture in terms of the CCE program’s ability to provide competitive rates
and remain a solvent organization. However, the results of the peer review indicate that it may
be possible for a local or regional CCE program operating within Pacific Gas and Electric Company
In addition to the option to join an existing CCE program such as MBCP, there are several other
options for the City Council’s consideration. The next steps associated with each of these options
are dependent upon City Council direction.
CivicSpark: Climate Action Major City Goal strategy implementation in 2017 included
continuation of our collaboration with regional partners for outreach and education. AmeriCorps
staff resources were again made available through the Local Government Commission and
funding by the Air Pollution Control District (called CivicSpark). Civic Spark program staff have
been working with local cities and the County to collect information regarding permits issued for
energy upgrade projects (to aid in future reporting on CAP implementation) and to identify
permit streamlining opportunities for small scale photovoltaic installations (a process which the
City of San Luis Obispo already has in place). The CivicSpark team has also developed a web site
and handouts to educate residents and business owners about energy retrofits and energy
reduction actions.
Packet Pg 167
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
42
Economic Development
On October 16, 2012 the City Council approved the adoption of the Economic Development
Strategic Plan (EDSP). The EDSP was revised on March 17, 2015. The EDSP focuses on creating a
system that supports and sustains industries creating head of household jobs. The EDSP is
organized into four overarching strategies:
• Break Down Barriers to Job Creation
• Actively Support Knowledge & Innovation
• Promote and Enhance the San Luis Obispo Quality of Life
• Build on Existing Efforts and Strengthen Regional Partnerships
As part of the City’s effort to build on existing efforts and strengthen regional partnerships, in
2017 the City, in cooperation with SLOCOG, the EVC and Beacon Economics, was able to secure
access to the California Employment Development Department’s confidential data. This data is
available from 2008, and City staff was able to use 2016 data for 2017. The City contracted with
Beacon to do a historical analysis as well as annual updates. As an example of the data available,
payrolls in the City of San Luis Obispo grew 2.5% from fiscal year 2014/2015 to fiscal year
2015/2016, trailing the 3.1% mark set in the rest of San Luis Obispo County. However, wages in
the City of San Luis Obispo have also increased over the last year, with the average annual wage
across all sectors growing by 5.2% compared to 3.5in the rest of the county. The latest report can
be found on the City’s website.
Break Down Barriers to Job Creation
Permit Processing: The Development
Review Team (DRT) continued to work to
ensure a consistent and expedient
approach across all involved departments.
The team continues to use an automated
solution to track all projects in the system
and measure the performance of the
organization in meeting our published cycle
times. The team has also formalized the
process for using determinant processing
agreements and other tools to streamline
the approval process.
The Continuous Improvement Group (CIG), a sub-set of the Development Review Team continues
to actively work on permit process improvements and accountability measures through cross-
department and cross-functional input, action and alignment with key performance indicators.
The CIG is currently working on a prioritized list of projects to further improve the entitlement
and permitting processes. The major items are reviewing and updating the online checklists and
streamlining the intake process.
Packet Pg 168
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
43
Cost of Service Fee Study: In August of 2016 City Staff re-initiated a comprehensive review and
update of the cost of service fees charged by Planning, Development Review Engineering, Public
Works, Fire, Police, Utilities, and Parks and Recreation. The goal of the review is to ensure that
fees being charged are in line with the staff costs (e.g. staff time spent, material costs) of
providing the service for which the fee is being collected. The study is being conducted consistent
with Financial Plan Section H (Budget Reference Materials) which requires fees to be reviewed
and updated on an ongoing basis to ensure that they keep pace with changes in the cost-of-living
as well as changes in methods or levels of service delivery. The City is working with NBS
Government Finance Group to prepare the study which will be reviewed by the City Council on
April 18, 2017, where the Council adopted then updated master fee schedule for user and
regulatory fees.
Actively Support Knowledge & Innovation
Entrepreneurship: The Economic Development Program was actively working with partners to
promote an environment that supports entrepreneurship and start-ups. The City continued to
support the SLO HotHouse financially and professionally. In 2017, the HotHouse started 10 new
businesses, counseled 157 clients, created 60 jobs and had an overall investment in the
community of more than $6.4 million.
Access to Broadband: The City of San Luis Obispo has the highest level of fiber coverage in the
region. The City is continuing to work with the Downtown Association on possible Wi-Fi solutions
in the downtown area.
Promote and Enhance Quality of Life
Tourism and Community Promotions: The 2016-17 fiscal year
produced limited growth in the tourism industry in San Luis Obispo.
The City collected over $7.3 million dollars (+2.8%) in transient
occupancy tax (TOT). The collections met the City’s forecasted
and budgeted growth of 2% which is contributed directly into
the City’s General Fund.
However, the occupancy rate in the City decreased by an annual
average of 1.2%. Occupancy remained consistently the highest
during the summer and fall months between June through
September, then dipped in the winter and spring months of
December through March. April was a surprising growth month in 2017 with
nearly an 11% increase in occupancy and 16% in TOT collections compared to April 2016. This can
be attributed to the timing of the spring break holidays. The 2016-2017 fiscal year concluded with
average annual occupancy rate over 72%. While the occupancy rate decreased, the Average Daily
Rate (ADR) was up nearly 3% at $143.49. Additionally, the RevPAR, defined as Revenue Per
Available Room, grew by nearly 2% to $104.13. This means that although the occupancy was
down overall for the properties, the lodging businesses received higher profits based on rate
increases with less day-to-day impact on the properties.
Packet Pg 169
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
44
Additionally, the downtown Visitor Center served over 86,000 (+3.1%) in person guests and San
Luis Obispo lodging properties achieved twenty-five sell out weekends in 2016-17.
Fiscal year 2016-17, was a very accomplished year for tourism promotion activities. The tourism
efforts lead by the City’s Tourism Business Improvement (TBID) district included:
• Deployed “It Means Something Different Here” campaign 2.0
• Created and distributed unique content that inspired returning and new tourists
• Implemented a marketing automation program to enhance email marketing efforts
• Captured and created a library of candid, “local perspective” video content
• Expanded library of professional photography
• Developed and distributed new collateral materials
• Executed new social media opportunities including Snapchat & Instagram Stories
• Developed seasonal promotional campaigns, including Cal Poly Lodging Loyalty Program,
Money for a Rainy Day, Exclusive Seattle Promotion and tradeshow-specific promotions
• Developed individualized event promotion strategies
• Partnered with Visit SLOCAL on new co-op placements
During the 2016-17 fiscal year, tourism promotion activities generated at least 275 total mentions
or media placements that highlighted San Luis Obispo, including in the Toronto Star, Coastal
Living Magazine, Travel Channel, Huffington Post, Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco
Chronicle. Additionally, coordinated media visits or press trips were secured to promote the
destination with the goal of earning valuable editorial coverage. In fiscal year 2016-17, over 40
media outlets, both domestic and international were hosted in San Luis Obispo. As a result, the
TBID was featured on Sweet, Snapchat Discover channel that reaches 100 million daily active
users. Other digital outlets include: Goop, Lonely Planet, Thrillist and Matador Network.
The Promotional Coordinating Committee (PCC) continued the commitment to enhance the San
Luis Obispo experience for residents as well as visitors. The PCC funded vital promotional grants
to over 25 local non-profit organizations through the annual grants-in-aid process to enrich the
social, cultural, and diverse community events and activities available throughout the City. To
support these activities as well as all events in the City, the PCC enhanced the City funded smart
phone app called SLO Happenings to serve as the community go-to resource for all activities in
San Luis Obispo. Additionally, the PCC provided financial and program support to boost the visitor
service offerings in the City through the funding of programs like the tear-off City maps for visitors
and financial contribution to the operational costs for the downtown Visitors Center. In 2016-17
the PCC also established a strategic plan for the committee work and development. This new plan
will serve as the foundation for the committee’s work efforts, evaluation and program
consideration over the next two fiscal years.
Packet Pg 170
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
45
Homestay Rentals
On January 20, 2015 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1611 (2015 Series) to protect public
health, safety, and welfare within the City by establishing rules and requirements for homestay
rentals. Following the adoption of the Homestay Ordinance, staff began actively monitoring the
number of advertised short term rentals in San Luis Obispo.
The City has approved 56 Homestay Permits since the ordinance’s adoption, and the Community
Development Department has continued its efforts to identify unpermitted homestay uses.
Starting in 2018, Additional monitoring of unpermitted homestay locations will be provided
through a consultant who specializes in short-term rental locating and monitoring.
Packet Pg 171
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
46
New Policy Initiatives
In 2017, the City completed several policy initiatives across a wide variety of subject areas with
the support of all City departments. Those initiatives included:
Proposition 64: Adult Use of Marijuana Act
On November 8, 2016 California voters approved Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act
(AUMA). AUMA builds on Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MCRSA), in that it allows
adults (21 and over) to possess roughly an ounce of cannabis flower, eight grams of concentrate,
or up to six plants. It also creates a regulated market for the cultivation, production,
manufacture, and sale of recreational marijuana.
Senate Bill 94, the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (“MAUCRSA”),
was passed by the legislature on June 15, 2017 and signed into law by Governor Brown on June
27, 2017. The MAUCRSA largely repeals the MCRSA and incorporates certain provisions of the
MCRSA into the AUMA, integrating California’s medical and recreational cannabis regulatory
systems. With the approval of MAUCRSA, most municipal legal advisors and League of California
cities staff have concluded that cities will not be able to rely on permissive zoning concepts to
preclude issuance of state cannabis licenses. Instead, cities wishing to regulate cannabis uses
within their jurisdictions more restrictively than state law need to adopt express regulations
defining local limits of use. Cities that do not adopt such regulations likely will become subject
to state law regulation and the licensing of marijuana uses and activities within their jurisdiction
subject only to state law requirements.
San Luis Obispo’s City Council discussed Cannabis Regulations on March 14, 2017 and acted to
prohibit all cannabis related business activity in the City and provided staff with the following
direction: monitor developments in other jurisdictions; monitor development at the Federal
level; engage the community regarding various land use and taxation alternatives that may be
appropriate; and return to the City Council with a recommendation.
Staff has engaged the community in a consultative manner, seeking input from community
members in an effort to determine the community’s interest in the regulation of cannabis-
related businesses and activities, including the potential for taxation. Outreach included public
workshops, consultations with various organizations, businesses and individuals, a public panel
discussion, surveys and the information posted to the City’s website. The City Council will be
reviewing staff’s cannabis regulation recommendations in a study session early 2018.
Packet Pg 172
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
47
Sustainability Efforts
Beverage Straws Upon Request: At the June 20, 2017
City Council Hearing, the City Council discussed the
potential for a “straws upon request” Ordinance that,
if adopted, would require businesses to provide single-
use beverage straws to customers only upon request.
According to the Integrated Waste Management
Authority (IWMA), 400,000 straws are used every day
in San Luis Obispo County. The IWMA also found that
90 percent of customers will say “no” if asked if they want a straw. Council directed staff to
agendize a meeting related to this potential Ordinance. At the October 24, 2017 City Council
Hearing, Council ultimately voted to enact this Ordinance. Council identified this as a priority and
the work effort was added as an objective in the Climate Action Major City Goal work program.
Single-Use Plastic Bottles: At the February 2, 2016 City Council meeting, City Council directed
staff to agendize a Study Session related to the regulations for single-use plastic water bottles.
The City/County of San Francisco’s Ordinance was directed to be used as a model. At the January
3, 2017 City Council Study Session, staff presented the findings to Council. Ultimately, Council
directed staff to prepare an ordinance restricting the sale/distribution of all single-use plastic
beverage bottles under 21 ounces in size on City property. At the October 24, 2017 City Council
Hearing, Council voted to enact this ordinance, restricting the sale and distribution of single-use
plastic bottles on City property. The ordinance also stipulates that beverages cannot be served in
other single-use containers, such as single-use plastic cups, requiring the use of reusable
containers instead. With this new ordinance, which is not a citywide retail ban, those bottles and
cups cannot be sold or
distributed on City property or at
events on City property requiring
a permit (including city
facilities/offices, streets,
sidewalks, and parks). Council’s
decision is directly in-line with
the Major City Goal of Climate
Action.
Packet Pg 173
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
48
Historic Preservation
Historic Properties Mapping Information
In 2017, a project was initiated to enrich the information available on the Historic Resource
mapping available on the City’s website (link:
http://gis.slocity.org/HistoricMapTour/index.html) . Substantial progress was made to add
information for each of the properties with a “more information” link that provides more
historical information including important persons associated with the property. Staff will
continue to add to the mapping with the goal of adding more information to all 186 properties
that are on the City Master List of Historic Resources.
Cultural Heritage Committee
The Cultural Heritage Committee was
very busy in 2017, with the review of
various projects including historic
rehabilitations and
modifications/additions to historic
resources, Mills Act Historic Preservation
Agreements, Historic Resource
significance determinations, input on the
Mission Plaza Conceptual Plan and
Downtown Concept Plan, review of
mixed-use projects, review and
recommendations on treatment and
evaluation of historically significant Agricultural complexes in the Froom Ranch and San Luis
Ranch Specific Plans. The Cultural Heritage Committee also conducted training on CEQA and
Cultural Resources which was open to the public and attended by several historic preservation
professionals and representatives of the yak tityu tityu yak tilhini/Norther Chumash. The City
report was also submitted to the State Office of Historic Preservation which confirms the City’s
Historic Preservation Program continues to meet all requirements of the National Park Service
Certified Local Government Program (CLG) including: a Historic preservation
Committee/Commission, professional expertise, training, maintenance of a historic resource
inventory, and adherence to preservation principles for the designation and protection of historic
properties. The City of San Luis Obispo is the only Certified Local Government between Ventura
and Monterey County, and there are only 68 CLG’s in the state of California.
Packet Pg 174
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
49
Water Supply
In 2017, the City obtained water from five sources: Salinas Reservoir (Santa Margarita Lake);
Whale Rock Reservoir; Nacimiento Reservoir; recycled water from the City’s Water Resource
Recovery Facility (WRRF); and groundwater.
Table 11 – City Water Resource Availability
Water Resource 2017 Annual Availability
Salinas Reservoir (Santa Margarita Lake) and Whale Rock
Reservoir 6,940 AF Safe Annual Yield1
Nacimiento Reservoir 5,482 AF Dependable Yield2
Recycled Water 193 AF 2015 Annual Usage3
Siltation to 2060 (500 AF) WWME Policy4
TOTAL 12,115 AF
Source: General Plan, Water and Wastewater Management Element, 2016, Utilities Department, 2018.
1Safe Annual Yield is the quantity of water which can be withdrawn every year while operating both reservoirs in coordinated
operations under critical drought conditions. Safe Annual Yield is determined from a computer model, which accounts for
siltation loss through 2010 (per WWME Policy A 4.2.1).
2Dependable Yield is the contractual amount of water the City has right to from Nacimiento Reservoir.
3The quantity of recycled water included is the actual prior year’s recycled water usage (2015) per WWEA7.2.2.
4Reservoir siltation is a natural occurrence that reduces storage capacity over long periods, resulting in the reduction of safe
annual yield.
In 2017, availability from these sources equaled
12,115 acre-feet, as shown in Table 11. This supply
meets the projected primary water supply need at
General Plan build out of 7,496 acre-feet, plus an
additional 1,225 acre-feet for a reliability reserve
and a secondary water supply of 3,394 acre-feet.
The primary water supply was calculated using the
City’s build-out population (57,200 people) and
the water use rate of 117 gallons per capita. The
reliability reserve was calculated using the City’s
2017 population (46,724) and 20 percent of the
aforementioned water use rate. The secondary
water supply includes the remaining water
resources.
Santa Margarita Lake
Packet Pg 175
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
50
Water Conservation
Following abundant rainfall this past winter, on April 7, 2017 Governor Brown issued Executive
Order B-40-17 ending the drought state of emergency in California and eliminating the City’s
mandated 12 percent water use reduction. The City Council adopted resolutions to rescind the
drought emergency locally on June 20, 2017.
Locally, the City saw its surface water reservoirs recover between January and June of 2017. Since
the end of the drought the City has seen a slight increase in overall consumption from 2016 to
2017, from 92 gallons per capita day (gpcd) in Water Year 2016 to 95 gpcd in Water Year 2017.
For potable water only, the increase was from 88 gpcd in Water Year 2016 to 91 gpcd in Water
Year 2017.
A 2016 Executive Order (B-37-16), approved by Governor Brown on May 9, 2016, bolsters
California’s drought resilience and preparedness by establishing longer-term water conservation
measures that include permanent monthly water use reporting, new urban water use targets,
reducing system water loss, eliminating clearly wasteful practices, and strengthening urban
drought contingency plans. These measures aim to not only reduce immediate water use but to
establish a long-term change in the way Californians think about water.
Packet Pg 176
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
51
Circulation
Transportation Improvements
The following transportation planning projects and programs were implemented in 2017,
consistent with goals and policies in the Circulation Element of the General Plan.
Vehicular:
• Numerous traffic signal and intersection optimization improvements were completed as
part of the City’s Traffic Operations Program and ongoing traffic signal management
responsibilities.
• Numerous traffic safety improvements were implemented as part of the City’s Traffic
Safety Program including leading pedestrian intervals within the downtown core to give
pedestrians a head start on crossing at signalized intersections
• Construction documents are complete for the signal upgrade at Monterey and Osos
Street. Construction will start winter of 2018.
• Design for the California/Taft Roundabout is underway. Construction documents are
scheduled to be complete by the end of 2018.
• Two mobile speed feedback trailers were
deployed at over 50 locations consistent
with the City’s radar sign program.
• Transportation staff participated in
Public Works Night at Farmers’ Market in
May of 2017 and provided education and
outreach of the City’s multimodal
transportation facilities and goals,
including a demonstration of a “pop-up”
protected cycle-track.
Bicycle/Pedestrian:
• As part of the City’s Annual Pavement Management Plan, bike and pedestrian
improvements were installed along Madonna and Los Osos Valley Road including
buffered bike lanes and ADA curb ramp upgrades.
• Green bike lanes were installed at various locations including Los Osos Valley Road from
the 101 overpass to Laguna Middle School, Madonna Road, California Boulevard at Palm
Street and Santa Rosa Street from Walnut to Oak.
Packet Pg 177
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
52
• Construction of the Railroad
Safety Trail Class I Connection to
Laurel/Orcutt was completed in
2017.
• Planning efforts continued for the
Anholm Bikeway Plan (previously
Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard).
Implementation of the plan is
scheduled to begin summer of
2018, prioritizing the
implementation of the Plan’s Safe Routes to School elements.
• Design of the Railroad Safety Trail Extension from Taft to Pepper is still underway. Pending
acquisition of easements, construction is expected to begin in late 2018.
• In May 2017, the City participated in Bike to Work Month activities, including hosting a
bike breakfast on the steps of City Hall, encouraging the use of active transportation.
• In September 2017, the City held its annual Bicycle Rodeo instructing City youth on safe
bicycling techniques and proper riding habits.
• The City’s supply of short-term bicycle parking continued to expand as part of the City’s
“Racks with Plaques” bicycle rack donation program.
• Bike valet parking service continued at the weekly Thursday night Farmer’s Market and
during the summertime Concerts in the Plaza.
• The City collaborated with Bike SLO County and other community volunteers to offer
bicycle safety education training.
• The Public Works Department targeted Cal Poly’s Week of Welcome (WOW) for the
promotion of bicycle-on transit use.
• The City provided annual bicycling awareness training to SLO Transit drivers.
• The City conducted its eleventh annual Halloween Traffic Safety campaign passing out
3,700 reflective Halloween bags to elementary school students.
Packet Pg 178
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
53
Neighborhood Traffic Management (NTM)
The City continues to work with the Pismo/Buchon neighborhood, the South Chorro Street
neighborhood and the High Street neighborhood to address traffic concerns within their
neighborhoods. Below is the current queue of neighborhoods qualifying for a Traffic
Improvement Plan. Neighborhoods are listed in the order they were received:
1. Chorro (Broad to Buchon)—in progress
2. High (Higuera to Broad)—in progress
3. Augusta (Sinsheimer to Laurel)
4. La Entrada and Ramona
5. Mill Street (Santa Rosa to Grand)
6. Highland Drive (Patricia to Santa Rosa)
Transit
Below is a summary of some of transit network projects that were implemented in 2017.
• Fiscal Year 2016/17 saw
continual strong ridership with
1.1 Million rides.
• A new Laguna Tripper bus route
was introduced in response to
high ridership and overcrowding
along the Foothill Blvd going to
and from Laguna Middle School.
• In June 2017, SLO Transit
implemented most of the
operational changes
recommended by the City’s
adopted Short-Range Transit
Plan. These changes reorganize SLO Transit in a way that can be built upon for the next
10 to 15 years, creates a system that is much more resilient to system impacts (e.g.
roadwork, surge ridership, etc.) and most importantly, increases the safety of the service
• SLO Transit entered into a new two-year service agreement with Cal Poly University for a
transit subsidy program which will continue student and faculty access to local public
transit.
• SLO Transit received, in February of 2017, three new 45’ low-floor transit vehicles which
will replace three 2001 models and will feature such amenities as on-board infotainment
system, multiple sun-roofs, LCD dashboard display, free public Wi-Fi, flexible seating
configuration for peak and non-peaks, two-tone flooring, LED lighting, and a new paint
scheme.
New Rebranded SLO Transit Fleet
Packet Pg 179
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
54
Parking Management
Below is a summary of some of the major focus areas related to parking management in 2017.
1. In May 2017, Parking Services contracted with a new service provider to process
parking citations issued by the City. Implementation is currently under way and
we anticipate going live with the service provider in early 2018.
2. In May 2017, Parking Services released a request for proposals for new parking
structure access and revenue control equipment. New equipment will enable us
to better serve our various customer groups and make more informed decisions
using the data collected through the equipment.
3. In June 2017, all parking structures are now equipped to accept credit cards (Visa,
Mastercard, American Express, and Discover). Credit card acceptance makes the
exiting process faster for customers and
reduces the amount of cash the Booth
Attendants must handle.
4. In July 2017, Parking Services released a
request for proposals for license plate
recognition software and hardware. License
plate recognition can be used for parking
enforcement, data collection, and digital
permitting.
5. In August 2017, 2-hour timed zones were
established on McCollum Street near Albert
Drive and on Loomis Street east of Grand
Avenue. The timed zones were erected due to
vehicles being left on-street for extended
periods of time.
6. In December 2017, the City finalized a reorganization of the Parking Services staff
including the creation of a Parking Enforcement Officer II position. The
reorganization was a result of recommendations made from an organizational
assessment conducted in 2015.
Packet Pg 180
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
55
Safety
Emergency Preparedness and Response: Fire Department
In 2017, the San Luis Obispo Fire Department
(SLOFD) initiated a fire apparatus
consolidation program following a strategic
analysis of the fire department’s fleet to
inform the department’s 2015-2017 Capital
Improvement Project plan. As a result of this
strategic analysis and subsequent City Council
support, the fire department replaced a fire
engine and a fire ladder-truck with a single fire
ladder-truck. Both replaced apparatus were
scheduled for replacement according to the
City’s apparatus replacement plan. By
consolidating the functions of both apparatus
to be replaced into a single replacement apparatus, the fire department reduced the size of its
authorized fleet by one fire engine at a cost avoidance of over $600,000. This consolidation plan
actually results in an increased ability to provide services in the City by providing great
sustainability of ladder-truck operations. Furthermore, the new fire ladder-truck is built with a
modern diesel engine which has a significantly decreased negative impact on our environment.
In 2017, SLOFD partnered with the County Emergency Medical Services Agency (EMSA) and San
Luis Ambulance to pilot a new dispatch protocol, called “rapid dispatch,” that decreases the time
between receipt of a 9-1-1 emergency call and the response initiated by first responders. After
the pilot period was complete, the EMSA changed dispatch protocols for all SLO County fire
agencies and Dispatch Centers to reflect this best practice piloted in SLO.
In 2017, SLOFD transitioned all emergency response record keeping to a cloud-based records
management system, ImageTrend, which was supported by Measure G funding. Electronically
reporting emergency medical and fire response data to State and Federal agencies is now
required, and SLOFD complies with this requirement. Our local transition to ImageTrend lead the
way in the community, and other fire agencies in the region are building their programs based
on our success. Maintaining compliance with fire data reporting to the National Fire Incident
Reporting System (NFIRS) is a requirement to maintain our community’s eligibility to apply for
Federal grants. SLOFD has been very successful in years past with securing grants to decrease the
financial burden on local tax payers.
In 2017, SLOFD also began a new program to educate residents about wildland fire preparedness
and mitigation. Following a thorough assessment of our local wildland risks in the area surround
the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve, staff partnered with other City departments and local agencies,
including the County Fire Safe Council, to host an education session related to our local risk
Packet Pg 181
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
56
assessment and the national “Ready, Set, Go” program. Attendees were
provided information about general disaster preparedness best
practices as well as about landscape design and maintenance to
enhance the fire department’s ability to defend their property. This
program will continue to expand in future years, reaching more regions
of our City.
Regarding employee training and preparedness, SLOFD partnered with
all departments to provide classroom-based National Incident Management System certified
training required for City employees who may have a critical role to play in the event of a disaster.
SLOFD also hosted the annual Open House as part of Fire Prevention week activities and provided
emergency preparedness information to residents and visitors.
Hazard Mitigation: Fire Department
In 2017, SLOFD in collaboration with other City departments and community agencies completed
the third annual review of the 2014 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP). The LHMP provides
guidance on how to reduce the community’s vulnerability to natural hazards. This plan calls for
annual stakeholder meetings to update progress and identify collaborative opportunities. The
City is required to maintain a current LHMP, which must be updated every five years. Maintaining
a current LHMP allows the City to apply for State and Federal reimbursement in the event that
the City is impacted by a disaster.
In 2017, the City also agreed to partner with the County Office of Emergency Services (OES) to
participate in the development of a countywide LHMP, which would meet our local requirement.
Participating in this regional effort has tremendous cost savings and logistical efficiencies for the
City. The cost of developing a regional LHMP decreases the cost to local municipalities, and the
management of LHMP development is a shared function across participating agencies. The
County OES is taking the lead on a grant application to further reduce the local financial burden
of LHMP development and approval. Another significant benefit will be realized by regional
organizations that participate in the LHMP process, particularly those organizations that serve
several jurisdictions, such as hospitals, school districts, California Highway Patrol, and others.
These organizations will be able to participate fully in one planning process, rather than figure
out a way to participate in the LHMP processes of multiple agencies.
Staff Training: Police Department
Safety Element Program 9.4 states that the City will train police officers and other City employees
to levels appropriate for their tasks and responsibilities.
The California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), which mandates
minimum content and hours for basic and in-service training, regulates the training of police
officers and communication technicians. The Police Department maintained compliance with
POST requirements for in-service training hours for required employees. This was accomplished
Packet Pg 182
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
57
in 2017 by sending employees to POST-certified training courses in various topics, with the
associated costs reimbursed by POST, and by providing in-house training for employees.
In 2017 all sworn officers and some department staff participated in a 16-hour CIT (Crisis
Intervention Training) course. The primary goals of CIT is to reduce injuries to officers and mental
health consumers during contacts, and to appropriately redirect mental health consumers from the
judicial system to the services and support needed to stabilize consumers and reduce contact with
police.
The San Luis Obispo Police Department (SLOPD) also conducts in-house training through the use
of employees who are certified instructors in a variety of police-related job functions, including
defensive tactics, mobile field force, active shooter and use of firearms. In addition to the
standard police training the department implemented a Peer Support group to help officers after
tragic or traumatic events. The Peer Support Team has been trained to deal with a wide variety
of potential problems and has the ability to give direct counseling or direct those in need to the
proper resources.
Staff Training: Fire Department
In 2017, SLOFD realized the departure of
several key staff members. With the transition
in leadership responsible for department
training, the new Deputy Fire Chief conducted
an exhaustive survey and assessment of
department training needs and priorities. To
maximize the impact of precious training
funds, SLOFD has partnered with other
regional fire agencies to collaborate on course
offerings for fire service professional-track
certification classes.
Mutual and Automatic Aid: Police
Section 9.10 of the Safety Element indicates that the City will work with other jurisdictions to
obtain and follow adequate mutual-aid and automatic-aid agreements. The San Luis Obispo
Police Department assisted Santa Barbara County with Thomas Fire which occurred in December
of 2017 and the subsequent mudslides in Montecito in 2018. During both events, mutual aid was
requested by the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office and fortunately the San Luis Obispo Police
Department was able to provide officers for both events.
For the Thomas Fire, we sent a total of 7 officers over a 5-day period. The officers responded and
worked the Santa Barbara City area affected by the fire. The officers were asked to work in
multiple roles ranging from traffic control at a fixed post to roving patrols keeping looters and
trespassers out of the danger areas.
Packet Pg 183
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
58
For the Montecito mudslides a total of 10 officers responded over a 7-day period. Officers
responded immediately on the morning of Tuesday January 9 and with a few days break stayed
through Thursday January 18. While the officers were again asked to work many different
assignments, officer were asked to assist in evacuating those who were stranded in their homes
and could not leave the area on the night of the mudslides. After the initial emergency, officers
completed roving patrols and scene security.
For the Montecito area, the Police Department sent
our SWAT Bearcat (Armored Vehicle) to assist. Because
of the conditions, the bearcat was one of the few
vehicles that could be used to evacuate residents.
SLOPD also coordinated efforts with the San Luis
Obispo Sherrif’s Department in facilitating mobile field
force training. Law Enforcement personnel throughout
the county had the opportunity to be involved in mobile field force scenario-based training and
become familiar with each other’s policies and practices in the event of an actual significant
event.
The City has participated in a regional Special Weapons and Tactics Team (Regional SWAT) since
2008. The Regional SWAT team allows participating cities to leverage limited resources and
maximize coordination and special expertise during critical incidents.
Mutual and Automatic Aid: Fire
SLOFD deployed on many requests for Mutual Aid
throughout the State in 2017, including devastating fires
in the Sonoma County, a fire in the hills above Cal Poly,
and the largest fire in California State history, the Thomas
Fire. Fire personnel deployed to large-scale incidents
receive invaluable on-the-job training, and the costs
associated with their deployment are reimbursed to the
City. The statewide mutual aid system that redeploys
SLOFD personnel to
assist communities in
need is the same
system that sends non-local fire crews to our area when we
are in need of assistance. In 2016, our local area benefited
from this system during the Cuesta Fire, just north of our City.
In 2017, we paid it back by helping our statewide neighbors
during a historically devastating year.
SLOFD is also a member of the Regional Urban Search and Rescue (USAR), County Hazardous
Materials Response Team, County Fire Investigation Strike Team, and the County Type III Incident
Packet Pg 184
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
59
Management Team. These regional teams provide exceptional service to the communities of
participating agencies at a fraction of the cost of providing that service autonomously.
Community Action Team (CAT)
CAT Officers continue to identify problems and crime trends that negatively impact the quality
of life of residents, business owners and visitors. CAT Officers have focused on several individuals
in our community who are involved in adverse and repetitive criminal activities that negatively
impact our community. They have been successful in working with others to find alternatives to
incarceration that include enhanced and focused service placement and transitional housing. The
program has continued to grow and the relationships in the court system have proven very
valuable. This past year the department worked closely with County Mental Health to add a
fulltime mental health specialist to the CAT team. The police department believes this added
resource will help support the need in addressing many of our chronic offenders who suffer from
mental health disorders. Currently County Mental Health is in the final stages of the RFP process
and we hope to have the new position established in early 2018.
CAT officers work collaboratively with a myriad of individuals and groups, including patrol
officers, investigators, the Neighborhood Outreach Manager, other city departments, social
service providers, business groups, and other governmental agencies as appropriate.
Multi-Dwelling Property Inspection Program
Under the direction of the Fire Marshal, the Fire Prevention Bureau inspects all multi-dwelling
properties (three or more units) in the City to ensure that they meet a reasonable degree of fire
and life safety. This state-mandated program helps safeguard residents and visitors who
patronize local hotels and generates approximately $194,000 in revenue that offsets
implementation costs. The Fire Prevention Bureau completed approximately 727 inspections of
apartments, hotels, and fraternity and sorority houses in 2017.
Fire and Life Safety Inspections
SLOFD engine companies completed over 1,337 fire and life safety inspections in 2017. In
addition, Fire Prevention Bureau staff completed over 200 inspections of industrial facilities,
schools, hospitals and nursing homes, day care centers and assisted living centers, and large
public assembly occupancies. A portion of these inspections resulted in Fire Code operating
permits, which generated approximately $133,000 in revenue.
Hazardous Materials Inspections
The Fire Prevention Bureau serves as a “Participating Agency” in the County’s Certified Unified
Program Agency (CUPA). Businesses that use or store hazardous materials in an appreciable
quantity, generate hazardous wastes, or operate underground or aboveground petroleum
storage tanks are subject to inspection. The Hazardous Materials Coordinator conducted 283
facility inspections in 2017, which generated over $100,000 in permit fee revenue.
Packet Pg 185
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
60
Vegetation Management
While fewer weed complaints were fielded
by the Fire Prevention Bureau in 2017,
there was again a significant increase in
complaints regarding dead pine trees due
to the pitch canker epidemic. The Fire
Department combined funding with
Natural Resources who, through the use of
Cuesta Camp Crews, completed wildland
fuel reduction projects in City-owned
Bishop Peak open space in 2017.
Critical Facilities Locations and Reducing Structural Hazards
Section 9.19 of the Safety Element tasks the City with identifying and evaluating hazards in
existing structures, with the highest priority given to critical facilities. This effort includes
maintaining and replacing City facilities, routine code inspections of certain commercial and
residential buildings, complaint-based code inspections for all buildings, mitigating hazards
associated with unreinforced masonry buildings (URM), and outreach regarding structural safety
of private wood-frame buildings.
Unreinforced Masonry Hazard Mitigation: The 2004 URM Ordinance required full strengthening
by July 2010 unless partial, Level A, strengthening was completed by July 1, 2007. Where Level A
was completed by the deadline, Level B work could be delayed until July 1, 2012. Level A
strengthening consists of installation of anchors between building walls and roof, walls and
floors, and bracing of any parapets. Level B consists of Level A work plus installation of the steel
members that stabilize the storefront and frame. Distinction between Level A and B was
established by ordinance to encourage owners to complete this significant portion of the
strengthening process as soon as possible.
Of the 128 URM buildings in the City, 125 have completed seismic strengthening or were
otherwise brought into compliance with the ordinance and the last three are currently under
construction. This includes the Hotel Serra project and 796 Higuera Street.
Packet Pg 186
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
61
Neighborhood Wellness
Land Use Element Program 2.14 states the City will help identify neighborhood problems, and
undertake a wide range of focused development review, capital improvement, and code
enforcement efforts to help residents preserve and enhance their neighborhoods.
Neighborhood Matching Grants
The City Council identified Neighborhood
Wellness as a Major City Goal in the 2013-15
Financial Plan and has carried this goal
forward into the 2015-17 Financial Plan as
an Other Important Council Objective. One
of the implementation strategies identified
is to support activities to establish or bolster
neighborhood cohesiveness. Neighborhood
Matching Grants are a mechanism to
provide support to neighborhoods for
activities and projects that engage neighbors
in positive ways.
Final Applications for the second year of the program were due January 3, 2017, and three
applications were submitted, totaling $8,927 in grant requests. At the February 1,2017 meeting,
the HRC selected two projects for funding, including Mitchell Park Landscaping ($5,000) and Serra
Meadows Pop Up Parties ($1,982) for a total of $6,982. Mitchell Park neighbors logged 608 hours
of work landscaping two prominent park areas with drought-tolerant, low-maintenance plants.
The new Serra Meadows neighborhood fostered a sense of community by hosting inclusive
events to connect with one-another. The applicant team combined fun activities with emergency
preparedness and organized a neighborhood watch group.
The 100 percent neighborhood matching
grant program was awarded $20,000 for the
2017-19 Financial Plan for continuance into
a third cycle. Applications became available
on October 1, 2017 and Staff held an
informational meeting on October 30th. To
streamline the application process, Staff
met with interested applicants throughout
the Winter months, thus removing the
previous requirement of having to submit a
draft application for refinement. The
application period was also extended to
February 12, 2018. Staff provided the HRC (the Advisory Committee charged with awarding grant
funds) a program update on December 6, 2017.
Packet Pg 187
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
62
Neighborhood Officer Program – Police Department
In 2013 the Police Department launched a
Neighborhood Officer Program that divides
the City into 13 distinct “neighborhoods,”
each with dedicated patrol officers assigned
to address City neighborhood issues. The
Neighborhood Officers act as liaisons
between the Police Department, the
community, and a variety of city agencies. The
Neighborhood Officers assist with public
education, crime prevention, establishing
Neighborhood Watch groups, and
neighborhood specific problems. The
Neighborhood Officer Program offers residents and business owners a personal option when
police assistance is needed and an immediate response isn’t needed. Residents and businesses
can find their Neighborhood Officer on the City webpage and contact them directly either by
phone or email.
In 2017, the Neighborhood Officer program continues to be a strong resource for residents and
business owners. Neighborhood officers conducted “Walk & Talks” in the neighborhoods
surrounding Cal Poly in the fall to educate and acclimate student residents to living in San Luis
Obispo. Neighborhood officers have continued to be a consistent “go to” for residents needing
assistance with a variety of quality of life concerns. Neighborhood officers also provided crime
prevention help to Neighborhood Watch groups throughout the city.
Code Enforcement – Community Development Department
The City’s Code Enforcement Office, which reports directly to the Community Development
Department’s Chief Building Official, deals primarily with violations of building codes and zoning
regulations. Examples of code violations that impact neighborhood quality include:
• Property Maintenance Violations
• Sign Violations
• Unpermitted Construction
• Substandard Buildings
• Occupancy Violations
• Land Use Violations
• Homestay Violations
In2017, there were 220 code enforcement cases opened in response to requests for field
investigations and proactive enforcement. These included land use and zoning violations,
property maintenance and substandard building violations, among others.
In addition, there were 739 Neighborhood Services code enforcement cases, which included
violations such as visible storage, failure to screen waste containers, dead or overgrown
Packet Pg 188
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
63
vegetation and yard parking. Neighborhood Services conducts proactive outreach and
enforcement measures in residential areas throughout the city and attends numerous outreach
events at Cal Poly, Cuesta, The San Luis Obispo Board of Realtors, as well as regular Neighborhood
Wellness and RQN meetings. These outreach efforts are ongoing.
Neighborhood Outreach – Police Department
Police Department SNAP employees
(Student Neighborhood Assistance Program)
continue to conduct parking enforcement in
neighborhoods during evening hours. In
2017 they issued 2518parking citations for
violations in residential parking permit
districts. SNAP issues Disturbance Advisory
Cards (DACs) which are formal warnings, in
response to substantiated noise party
complaints. In 2016, SNAP issued 456 DACs.
SNAP also assists with graffiti abatement and
identifying abandoned vehicles for towing.
In response to the need for non-adversarial processes that address community conflicts, the City
of San Luis Obispo, Cal Poly, Cuesta College, and Creative Mediation, a local non-profit, developed
the SLO Solutions Program in 2004 to offer free conflict resolution and mediation to City
residents. The program served 1228 residents in 2017
Neighborhood Wellness meetings were discontinued in 2015 as attendance had dropped off
considerably. In its place, the police department is now providing an annual “Neighborhood
Forum”, providing the community with information on neighborhood initiatives, crime
prevention techniques and upcoming police department driven projects. The second annual
Neighborhood Forum was held on November 15, 2017. Chief Cantrell and staff provided
information on crime trends, neighborhood crime prevention, homelessness and anticipate
budget challenges.
Packet Pg 189
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
64
Open Space Protection
The General Plan contains many goals, policies and programs focused on open space protection.
The policies apply to sensitive lands within the City’s urban reserve as well as land in the greenbelt
area that is protected for its biological, agricultural, aesthetic and/or watershed protection value.
The Land Use and Circulation Element and Conservation and Open Space Element address this
subject in detail.
The highlights of 2017 include:
1. Completed the Natural Resources
Roundtable: the 20th Anniversary
Proceedings of the San Luis Obispo
Greenbelt.
2. City staff oversaw final acquisition and
abatement activities at the Waddell
property in anticipation of open the
property to the public in 2018.
3. Continued implementation of the Calle
Joaquin Agricultural Reserve Master Plan
with Central Coast Grown, for
educational and local agriculture
production purposes.
4. The City’s Ranger Service program, in partnership with the Central Coast Concerned
Mountain Bikers (CCCMB) and other volunteers, continued to expand both single-use and
multi-use trails in the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, as well as through the neighboring Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) parcel under a Memorandum of Agreement with BLM,
increasing the hiking, trail running and mountain biking opportunities in that open space by
several miles.
5. The Stenner Springs Natural Reserve continued to be expanded upon and improved through
volunteer and Ranger work days, including the installation of the new Stenner Flow trail.
6. A new loop trail was installed at Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve.
7. Continued invasive species vegetation control along Froom Creek and San Luis Obispo Creek
and continued planting native plants to restore the habitat, including a native oak volunteer
planting day at Bishop Peak Natural Reserve.
8. Continued to implement the Stormwater Management Program as required by the Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Plan focuses on improving stormwater quality
through Best Management Practices (BMPs), including: construction site monitoring,
municipal operations, development review, and public participation to reduce pollution run-
off.
Waddell Ranch Open Space
Packet Pg 190
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
65
9. Participated in planning and
implementation of several important
ongoing City projects, including: Chevron
Tank Farm Remediation and
Redevelopment Plan; Los Osos Valley
Road/Hwy 101 interchange project; and
the Margarita Area and Orcutt Area
Specific Plans.
10. Continued steelhead trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss) surveys along San
Luis Obispo Creek with biologists from
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife.
11. The Ranger Service and the Natural Resources Program prepared the City of San Luis Obispo
2015 Open Space Maintenance Plan as part of the Open Space Major City Goal. The Open
Space Maintenance Plan provides a comprehensive strategy for day-to-day maintenance
activities, as well as long-term improvements and enhancements, including items such as
signs and kiosks, gates and fencing, or parking and trash. The Open Space Maintenance Plan
also includes two technical appendices: The City of San Luis Obispo Vegetation Management
Plan: The Wildland–Urban Interface and Integrated Vegetation Management Plan for Open
Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo 2015-2020. Substantial progress towards
implementation of the Open Space Maintenance Plan was completed in 2016, including new
trailhead kiosks, trash receptacles, and Mutt-MittTM stations.
12. The 2015-17 Council objective to “Initiate Implementation of the Laguna Lake Natural
Reserve Conservation Plan” is underway. To that end, a comprehensive consultant team led
by MNS Engineers is designing dredging and sediment management options, developing
financing options, completing environmental review and securing regulatory agency
permits. City Council provided direction in September 2016 for selection of the preferred
design and financing alternative, leading towards a “shovel ready” project anticipated for
the 2017-19 financial plan period.
The New Reservoir Canyon Loop Trail
Packet Pg 191
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
66
Parks & Recreation
In 2017, the Parks and Recreation Department continued to offer a wide variety of programs and
activities that enhance the quality of life in the community. The following tasks were
accomplished implementing the Parks & Recreation Element of the General Plan:
Collaborative Programs
Sports: The City provides recreation sports opportunities for youth, adults and seniors. The City
continues to collaborate with local community groups (such as the San Luis Obispo County YMCA
and San Francisco Jr. Giants Baseball program) to form partnerships in effort to provide
recreational activities for over 1,200 local children through youth basketball, futsal (indoor
soccer), Jr. Giants Baseball Program and the Major League Baseball Youth Camp. The City’s
recreational programming focuses on building confidence, teamwork, integrity, and leadership
skills. The City continues to work collaboratively with the Youth Sports Association and San Luis
Coastal Unified School District to meet the needs of youth.
Adult recreational sports include adult
softball, adult soccer, ultimate Frisbee,
table tennis and volleyball programs.
Senior sport activities (55+) include
Pickleball programs and Boomer Softball.
Pickleball continues to exhibit high
popularity with the total number of
participants playing on a regular basis
steadily increasing. In 2017, Parks and Recreation enhanced Pickleball play opportunities with
the resurfacing of an existing tennis court at French Park to add multi-purpose court lines within
existing city parks, facilities and resources through a sports court restriping project. Pickleball is
currently played daily at five City park locations (Meadow Park basketball court, Ludwick
Community Center, Islay Park basketball court, French Park tennis court and French Park
basketball court).
Community Programs: Parks and Recreation
provides high quality programs that are responsive
to industry trends and changing community needs.
New programming in 2017 encouraged
participation, built community amongst all users,
and strengthened the Department’s operational
commitment to programs across all age groups. In
2017 community programming included events
such as Snow Night and Leprechaun Lost at
Farmer’s Market (in collaboration with the Downtown Association), Egg Hunt, Family Water
Safety Day, The 100-mile club, Night Golf, Family Camp Out, Major League Baseball Clinic, Movie
Nights, Back to Pool Night, September Scramble, Gobble Wobble, Pix-On-Peaks, Turkey Break
Packet Pg 192
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
67
Skate camp, Kids Play Free at the Golf Course, the 38th Annual SLO Triathlon and numerous
Garden Clean-up Days. Additional collaborations, from Health and Wellness Seminars and Senior
Center Contract Classes, have provided much needed services and programs to the community,
especially underserved populations. Community Gardens are provided at four locations. There
are 100+ garden plots available to City residents to lease with a fifth community garden location
planned at the Laguna Lake Golf Course in 2018. The Parks and Recreation Department continues
to offer online program registration, facility reservations, and satisfaction surveys to its
customers. In 2017 the Department enhanced its web and social media presence which resulted
in an increase in event attendance up to 50%.
SLO Triathlon: In 2017
the City sponsored the
38th annual SLO
Triathlon. The SLO Tri
occurred on the fourth
Sunday in July at
Sinsheimer Park and
included a .5-mile swim, 15-mile bike and 3.1 mile
run course. Approximately 200+ community
volunteers made this annual event possible. The
SLO Triathlon focuses on completion, rather than
competition, and draws over 1,000 participants state-wide annually to the event.
Youth Services: The Transitional Kinder (TK)
(Kindergarten), Sun ‘N Fun (Grades 1 – 3) and Club
STAR (Grades 4-6)programs continue to provide
necessary child care and social experiences for
over 1,000 elementary school-aged youth,
incorporating character development, community
service, academic support, tools for resiliency and
making positive choices, in a safe and nurturing
environment. In the 2017-18 school year, Youth
Services provided programming at five school sites
in support of the Joint Use Agreement with the San
Luis Coastal Unified School District
Other programs during the school year included two Teacher Work Day Camps, a week-long
Spring Break Camp for school-aged youth as well as numerous onsite special events.
Summer programming also provided essential care for over 600 families. KidVENTURE’s Ultimate
Day Camp provided traditional camp experiences to school-age campers and a training
opportunity for the 14-16 aged Counselors-in-Training (CIT).
Packet Pg 193
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
68
SLO Skate Park
The SLO Skate Park project at Santa Rosa Park was
completed in 2015 and celebrated its two-year anniversary
in 2017. The 15,500-square-foot concrete skate park is
already an invaluable addition to the City. With now over a
year in service, the skate park sees an average of 50-100+
locals and visitors alike on a daily basis. Programming in
2017 included Spring Break Skate Camp, Turkey Break
Camp, and summer events such as Friday Night Skates and
DJ and Ramp-n-Roll. The City collaborates with skate parks
County-wide for the Monster Skate series. Monster Skate
encourages skaters of all ages to compete and show off
their skills. Contests are held on six Saturdays during March
through May at local Central Coast skate parks.
Historic Jack House and Gardens
The Historic Jack House and Gardens (collectively referred to as “The Jack House”) were deeded
to the City of San Luis Obispo on March 10, 1975.
For over four decades, the City has managed,
maintained, and operated the Jack House. The
Jack House and Gardens are located at 536
Marsh Street in San Luis Obispo. In 2017, guided
history tours, programming, and special events
were provided at the Jack House. The Jack
House Gardens were rented for 50+ weddings
and other events. In 2017, the volunteer docents
provided tours for approximately 200 individuals
or groups from May to December. The Jack
House closed from December to April for annual
maintenance.
In 2017, the Jack House Committee approved a project plan to develop policies for the ongoing
and future management, maintenance and operations of the Jack House. The project includes
research of industry standards and best practices for the management of historic resources and
community outreach to seek input about community priorities related to parks, facilities,
programs and activities. The project and analysis are expected to conclude at the end of 2018.
Packet Pg 194
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
69
Volunteers & Training
Approximately 1,491 Parks and Recreation volunteers supported services and programming at
the Senior Center, Laguna Lake Golf Course, Jack House, special events and activities such as the
Junior Giants, SLO Triathlon, Movie Night, Back To Pool Night, Youth Sports, Summer Camps,
Garden workdays and Ranger Work Days. Over 10,946 hours were logged in 2017 valued at
$146,999 in support.
Parks and Recreation continues to
demonstrate a culture of valuing human
capital and expecting the bet from all team
members. In 2017, 22 Parks and Recreation
staff participated in trainings provided by the
Center for Organizational Effectiveness, 15
for California Professional Recreation Society
(CPRS), 40 staff became American Red Cross
Certified in CPR/AED/First Aid, 3 obtained
professional certifications resulting in 7
promotions both Department and City-wide.
Open Space Maintenance
Ranger Services works to provide both educational and recreational opportunities to the
community of San Luis Obispo. The City's 7,000 acres of designated open space promise to have
something for everyone including rugged hiking trails, challenging mountain biking and leisurely
scenic pathways just minutes from downtown.
The City’s Ranger Service program employs full-time rangers and other part time staff that
actively maintain the City’s open
spaces. Approximately 21.87 tons of
trash was removed from San Luis
Obispo Creek and City open spaces by
staff and volunteers, with the largest
amounts of material collected during
the annual Creek Day clean-up event.
In 2017, park rangers led 14 hikes
through City open spaces (including
Hikes with Hounds), and held 75 work
days. City parks, open spaces, and joint
use facilities were patrolled nearly
every day of the year. Staff provided
environmental education courses
through the City’s STAR and Sun ‘N Fun
Packet Pg 195
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
70
programs and had two one-week Junior Ranger Activity Camps that were attended by children
ages 7-10. In 2017, a total of 528 hours were devoted to public education focusing on
conservation and promoting laws. In 2017, over 1,500 dog leashes were given away at trail
entrances and 500+ paper trail maps.
New Trailhead kiosks, informative and education panel inserts were added in 2017.
Collaboration with the public and the Central Coast Concerned Mountain Bikers (3CMB) resulted
in new trail being construction at Cerro San Luis, Stenner Springs, and Reservoir Canyon, and
miles of trails being maintained throughout the City’s open space network. Hundreds of
volunteers turned out for multiple events and provided thousands of hours of service taking care
of the City’s open spaces.
The City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation
#PixOnPeaks is an Award-winning program. In
2017, #PixOnPeaks 2.0 was launched identifying
even more community trails to hike. The
#PixOnPeaks Instagram social media campaign is
geared at making the public aware of many of the
City of SLO’s lesser known open spaces and trails
and a conservation effort aimed at reducing foot-
traffic on highly travelled trails.
Park Improvement Projects
Sinsheimer Playground Renovation: The Sinsheimer Park Playground was renovated in 2017 to
a modern playground intended to make Sinsheimer a “destination park”. The previous
playground was installed in 1993. The new playground features a grassy hill (inviting children to
slide down), a climbing wall
to encourage kids to explore
their inner monkey. Other
fun features included a
snowboard simulator, a
zipline and swings. The ADA-
accessible playground also
includes new picnic tables
and benches, walkways,
trees, water fountains and
water filling stations. The
playground renovation was
funded in part by a local
revenue measure.
Packet Pg 196
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
71
New Kikuyu Grass at Damon Garcia Sports Field: New
Kikuyu grass was planted on Field B in 2017 on a trial basis.
This new grass type sustains the almost year-round active
play. Renovations are planned for Fields A, C and D in 2018.
Regular field visits with user groups support ongoing
communications, active problem solving and innovative
ideas for the sharing of the fields.
French Park Pickleball Multi-Use Lines in Tennis Court: The
French Park Tennis court was resurfaced and painted with
multi-use lines in effort to maximize existing resources and
recreational facilities to increase play. In addition to drop-
in tennis, this sports court has increased its usage with
almost 200 pickleball players weekly.
ADA Trail at Laguna Lake Park: A new ¼ mile
long ADA accessible nature trail was
constructed at the Laguna Lake Park in 2017.
This is the first all ADA trail in San Luis Obispo.
Dog Off-Leash Area Safety
Enhancements: Laguna Lake Dog-Off
Leash Area capital project for safety
enhancements allocated $50,000 for
site improvements, including visual
boundary markers, pavement collars at
water stations to reduce mud, 900+ feet
of new fencing to improve safety along
the parking lot, new signage and
woodchips filled in the cracks to
increase pet and owner safety when
walking.
Packet Pg 197
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
72
North of Broad Street Neighborhood Park: Parks and Recreation has had communications with
the LDS Church and Neighborhood Leadership. Staff continue work to identify potential park
locations.
Public Art Program
In 2017, the City of San Luis Obispo dedicated a 30-foot public art
sculpture titled “Olas Portola Fuente Seca”, loosely translated meaning
Waves in a Dry Fountain. The sculpture is situated in the original Portola
Fountain base at the intersection of Higuera and Marsh streets. The
original fountain, built by the San Luis Obispo Monday Club in 1967, had
become dated and minimized by the activity around it. The addition of
“Olas Portola” is the first kinetic (wind-driven) sculpture in San Luis
Obispo.
An electrical box
located at the SLO
Swim Center
became the most
recent canvas for
box art in 2017.
The main goal for
the Artist was to create a simple, pleasant
image and soften the feel of an isolated
utilitarian section of an otherwise very nice
public park space. That Artist was inspired by
San Luis Obispo’s quintessential balance of
nature and architectural development. The box art mural depicts San Luis Creek and other
elements specific to San Luis Obispo.
Packet Pg 198
8
General Plan Annual Report 2017
73
Conclusion
The City’s General Plan guides the use and protection of the City’s various resources to meet
community purposes. It reflects consensus and compromise among a wide diversity of citizens’
preferences, within a framework set by state law. The General Plan is published in separately
adopted elements, each containing policies and implementing programs. The General Plan
Annual Report summarizes the major programs in these elements that saw activity in 2017.
One outcome of an annual report is the evaluation of whether actions that have occurred indicate
a change in the general vision of the community that requires a more comprehensive update of
the General Plan. The most prominent activities undertaken by the City in 2017 related to efforts
to begin implementation of four key elements of the General Plan that were most recently
updated: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, and Water and Wastewater. The input received as part
of these update processes helped align the General Plan with the community’s vision. That vision
was in part reflected in the City Council’s adopted Major City Goals and Other Important
Objectives for FY 2015-17, as well as FY 2017-19, described on pages 11 and 12 of this report.
Staff will continue to implement these goals and objectives related to Housing, Climate Action,
Multi-Modal Transportation, and Fiscal Health, which will be further reported on in the 2018
Annual Report.
Packet Pg 199
8
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg 200
8
Meeting Date: 4/3/2018
FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Director of Utilities
Prepared By: David Hix, Deputy Director Utilities – Wastewater
SUBJECT: WRRF DESIGN SERVICES CONTRACT AMENDMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Approve a contract amendment with CH2M, Inc. for $790,767 for completion of Design
Services for the Water Resource Recovery Facility Project, Spec. No. 91363; and
2. Approve transfer of $790,767 from the Sewer Fund working capital for the WRRF project to
the project account.
DISCUSSION
As the WRRF project completes final design, a variety of elements key to completing the project
for bidding on schedule were identified.
Described in the February 20, 2018 WRRF Project Update Council Agenda Report, these
changes will result in the WRRF accomplishing the City’s long-range goals related to water
resiliency, recycled water, and environmental stewardship, while meeting regulatory mandates,
needed capacity for 2035 build-out, aging infrastructure and creating a community asset
(Attachment A).
Some of the necessary
design contract
amendments are:
• MBR procurement
that resulted in a
lower cost and
better warranty.
• Value engineering
that has resulted in
the reduction of
some processes,
optimization in
others.
• Removal of the berm surrounding the equalization basin to ensure the protection of
critical neighboring facilities such as the Corporation Yard and Homeless Services
Center.
• A building for the UV (Ultra-Violet) disinfection system and conversion of the WRRF
Packet Pg 201
9
electrical system to medium voltage to enhance reliability and safety.
• Pumping to return flows from the equalization basin to the WRRF during wet weather to
comply with regulatory requirements and optimize the size of the MBR (membrane
bioreactor).
This request is for the out-of-scope items to complete final design and critical to getting the
project out to bid and maintaining the project schedule.
The program management team has thoroughly reviewed the contact amendment, discussed and
negotiated with CH2M for several weeks, resulting in the request being presented to be accurate,
appropriate, and fair. CH2M’s design services and the team they bring have been key to the
success of this complicated design. CH2M has been a dedicated and committed partner in this
project. Attachment B contains the complete contract amendment.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City Council adopted Resolution 10740 (2016 Series) certifying the environmental impact
report (EIR) for the Water Resource Recovery Facility Project (SCH #2015101044) on August
16, 2016. The proposed contract amendment for additional design services is consistent with the
project analyzed under that EIR and this action does not trigger the need for additional
environmental review.
FISCAL IMPACT
The original design agreement was entered into in July 2015 for an amount of $6,229,323. Since
that time, project design has evolved, and components have been added (MBR process and pre-
selection, architectural, value engineering and existing facility modification), amended, and
revised. This lead to a first amendment of the contract in January 2017 for $1,519,049. This is
the second amendment that should allow the project to proceed to 95% design considering the
magnitude and complexity of a project of this scale. This amendment to CH2M’s design contract
will cost $790,767. This expenditure has been included in the sewer fund analysis. At this time, it
is not anticipated this will affect the sewer fund that has a current unreserved working capital of
$25,345,818. Complete impacts to the sewer fund will be analyzed after costs for construction,
additional services and contingencies have been finalized.
CH2M Contract for Design Services $7,748,372
Amendment for Phase 3 $790,767
Total CH2M Contract for Design $8,539,139
Industry average for design related services for a project such as the WRRF range from 7% to
9% of construction cost. Total construction cost for the WRRF is estimated to be $95-$109
million, which places CH2M’s anticipated total design contract within the industry standard.
Total costs for the project will continue to be refined as bids and proposals are authorized for
project construction, construction management, engineering services during construction,
contingencies and phases 4 & 5 of program management.
Packet Pg 202
9
ALTERNATIVE
Elect not to approve the contract amendment. The City Council may elect not to approve the
contract amendment at this time. Council may select this alternative if it believes that design
services may be accomplished in a different manner. Staff does not recommend this alternative
due to complicated nature of the project, the extent of the present design, cost of modifying the
current project and the probable loss of desired design elements.
Attachments:
a - 02-20-2018 Council Agenda Report
b - CH2M Contract Amendment 180309
Packet Pg 203
9
Meeting Date: 2/20/2018
FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Director of Utilities
Prepared By: David Hix, Deputy Director Utilities – Wastewater
SUBJECT: WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY PROJECT UPDATE AND
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT SERVICES CONTRACT AMENDMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Approve a contract amendment with Water Systems Consulting, Inc. for $1,124,453 for
completion of Phase 3 Program Management Services for the Water Resource Recovery
Facility Project, Spec. No. 91219; and
2. Approve transfer of $1,124,453 from the Sewer Fund working capital for the WRRF project
to the project account.
DISCUSSION
WRRF Project Update
The WRRF project is in the final design phase with the recent completion of sixty percent project
design as a major project milestone. Completion of construction documents and bidding is
scheduled for September 2018 with construction beginning the end of the calendar year. The
WRRF project will deliver the key project drivers of regulatory compliance, replacing aging
infrastructure, providing needed capacity for the future, maximizing recycled water production,
and community resource center. The WRRF project changed considerably in early 2017 after
comprehensive analysis determined that Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) technology offered
considerable benefits from the conventional denitrification technology originally envisioned for
the WRRF. MBR
technology will
produce a higher water
quality, maximize
recycled water
production, and
position the City for
potable reuse. This
major change and other
conditions described
later in this report have
added additional time
and cost to the project
scope and schedule.
Contract Amendment
While best aligning with the City’s long-range goals related to water resiliency, recycled water,
and environmental stewardship, the change to the MBR process have resulted in schedule
Packet Pg 204
9
impacts. In addition, a variety of conditions were identified that required additional studies to
provide more information to progress with design. These studies revealed important issues that
required further analysis and changes to the Program Manager’s existing scope of work to keep
the project moving forward. The necessary changes listed below have resulted in significant cost
and schedule impacts:
• MBR procurement to ensure the most efficient MBR system with the best warranty for
the City.
• Additional value engineering that has resulted in the reduction of the size of some
processes, and efficiencies and optimization in others.
• Flood studies that have provided enhanced analysis to inform the protection of the
WRRF, the City’s Corporation Yard, and future and existing infrastructure in the Prado
Road area.
• Additional inflow and infiltration studies to ultimately reduce process replacement.
• Additional analysis of cooling wetlands process. This study determined that regulatory
constraints make this alternative infeasible.
The extended schedule will require additional funding for the WRRF project program to
complete the final design phase. These costs include ongoing program management, engineering
support, permitting, funding support, and public and stakeholder engagement. This request is for
the out-of-scope items and to complete program management for the final design which is
critical to keeping the design phase on schedule.
Staff has thoroughly reviewed the contract amendment (Attachment A) and believes the request
to be accurate, appropriate, and fair. Program management services have been essential to the
success of this highly complicated project. Water Systems Consulting Inc. (WSC) has been a
valued partner in this project.
Design services for the project have also been impacted by the schedule and out-of-scope items
outlined above. The City is anticipating a contract amendment request to be submitted by the
project designer CH2M. Staff will again thoroughly review the request and discuss and negotiate
with the designer before seeking Council consideration.
Project Costs and Funding
On January 26, 2018, the City received written assurance that it will receive a low interest loan
for up to $140 million in project costs from the State Revolving Fund (SRF) (Attachment B).
This low interest loan will allow the City to save millions of dollars in interest. An SRF loan is
based on the State’s General Obligation Bond and charged at 50% of the current rate. Based on
the written confirmation, City and State legal staff will soon begin consultation on the draft
agreements. Final loan documents will be presented later this year for Council consideration.
The current bidding and building climate in California has seen a rapid escalation of construction
Packet Pg 205
9
WRRF Project Phases
Phase Schedule Status
Phase 1 - Project Planning January 2014 – June 2015 Complete
Phase 2 - Preliminary Design July 2015 – August 2016 Complete
Phase 3 - Final Design October 2017 – December 2018 Ongoing
Phase 4 – Construction December 2018 – January 2022
Phase 5 - Close Out November 2021 – February 2022
costs statewide. The most recent cost document presented a low-medium-high range of estimated
project construction costs with the high range exceeding the sewer fund’s financial capacity.
The WRRF Project team continues to analyze the project and will modify the bidding documents
to offer flexibility at the time of award to stay within budget. This will include a separate bid
item for the Water Resource
Center (WRC) to allow the
required improvements to
move forward and the City to
determine if project funding
can support the building. This
approach allows competitive
bidding for two distinctly
different projects and may
offer savings. If the WRC
cannot be a part of the
project, the building will be
placed in the Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) for
construction at a later date.
Grants, partnerships and other funding mechanisms are being actively pursued for a variety of
processes and improvements at the WRRF and the surrounding area. These include flooding,
recycled water, energy, inflow and infiltration reduction, and transportation. Staff has identified a
goal of fifteen million dollars in grants, loan forgiveness, and partnerships to help offset the cost
of the project.
Project Phases, Schedule, and Next Steps
This calendar year will see the completion of project final design phase and the beginning of the
construction phase for the project. Several key project objectives are on-track for this year and
are summarized on the project milestone schedule below. Several key items that will be coming
to Council for funding consideration include program management for phase 4 and 5 and
engineering support for the project. Other activities for 2018 and 2019 include the revision and
negotiation of the WRRF’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit (NPDES)
permit and Time Schedule Order (TSO).
Packet Pg 206
9
Packet Pg 207
9
FISCAL IMPACT
This amendment to WSC’s phase 2 and 3 program management contract will cost $1,124,453.
The Sewer Fund has sufficient unreserved working capital for this expenditure. On June 30,
2017, the City’s comprehensive annual financial report showed an unreserved working capital of
$27,656,818.
Original WSC Contract for Phase 2 and 3 $2,311,000
Amendment for Phase 3 $1,124,453
Total WSC Contract for Phase 2 and 3 $3,435,453
Industry average for total program related services for a project such as the WRRF are 6% of the
entire project cost. Total project costs for the WRRF are estimated to be $120-$140 million,
which places WSC’s anticipated total program management contract for Phases 1 through 5
within an acceptable range. Total costs for the project will continue to be refined as the design
nears completion.
ALTERNATIVE
Elect not to approve the contract amendment. The City Council may elect not to approve the
contract amendment at this time. Council may select this alternative if it believes that program
management may be accomplished in a different manner. Staff does not recommend this
alternative due to complicated nature of the project, the expense of bringing on a different
program manager mid-project, and the lack of in-house expertise and resources.
Attachments:
a - WSC Contract Amendment
b - Funding Letter from State Water Resources Control Board
Packet Pg 208
9
AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT NO. 2
THIS AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT is made and entered in the City of San Luis Obispo on
______________________, by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, herein after
referred to as City, and Water Systems Consulting Inc, hereinafter referred to as Contractor.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, on November January 29, 2014 the City entered into an Agreement with Program Manager
Services for the Water Resources Recovery Facility per Specification No. 91 219; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to amend the scope of services to extend Program Management Services for
Phase 3 of the Water Resources Recovery Facility Project and the Contractor has submitted a proposal for this purpose
that is acceptable to the City.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants hereinafter
contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. The scope of services and related compensation is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit A attached
hereto.
a. Program Management Services per proposal dated December 26, 2017, at a cost not to exceed
$1,124,453.00
2. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and year
first written above.
ATTEST: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
____________________________________ By: ____________________________________
City Clerk Mayor Heidi Harmon
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONTRACTOR
_____________________________________ By: ____________________________________
City Attorney
Packet Pg 209
9
Packet Pg 210
9
Packet Pg 211
9
AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT NO. 2
THIS AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT is made and entered in the City of San Luis Obispo on
______________________, by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, herein after
referred to as City, and CH2M Hill Engineers, Inc., hereinafter referred to as Contractor.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, on November 23, 2015 the City entered into an Agreement with Contractor for Design Services
for the Water Resources Recovery Facility per Specification No. 91363; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to amend the scope of services to related to: Project Management, Membrane
Bioreactor (MBR) Rebid, Equalization Pond Return Pump Station, Ferric Chloride Facilities, Primary Effluent
Screens, Process Air Blowers, 3W Pump Station, UV Electrical Building, Medium Voltage Distribution, Flow Meter
Vault, Temporary Pumping Design for UV, Value Engineering, Removal of the Berm at EQ (Equalization) Basin, and
Water Resource Center, and Contractor has submitted a proposal for this purpose that is acceptable to the City.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants hereinafter
contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. The scope of services and related compensation is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit A attached
hereto.
2. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and year
first written above.
ATTEST: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
____________________________________ By: ____________________________________
City Clerk Mayor Heidi Harmon
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONTRACTOR
_____________________________________ By: ____________________________________
City Attorney
Packet Pg 212
9
CH2M
1501 W. Fountainhead Pkwy Suite 401
Tempe, AZ 85282
(480) 966‐8188 (T)
(480) 966‐9450 (F)
www.ch2m.com
March 9, 2018
Mr. Dave Hix
Deputy Director ‐ Wastewater
Public Utilities
City of San Luis Obispo
879 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401‐2710
Subject: City of San Luis Obispo – Water Resource Recovery Facility Project Revised Amendment No. 2
Request
Dear Mr. Hix,
As we progress towards the Construction Document Development (95%) Stage of the Project, there are
a number of changes that have occurred during the 60% phase resulting in additional scope for the
project. The additional scope of the project has developed in the following areas:
Item No. 1 – Additional Project Management due to Schedule Extension
Item No. 2 – MBR Rebid
Item No. 3 – Equalization Pond Return Pump Station
Item No. 4 – Ferric Chloride Facilities Addition for CEPT
Item No. 5 – Primary Effluent Screens
Item No. 6 – Process Air Blowers Evaluation
Item No. 7 – 3W Pump Station
Item No. 8 – UV Electrical Building
Item No. 9 – Medium Voltage Distribution
Item No. 10 – Vault
Item No. 11 – Temporary Pumping Design for Interim UV Operation
Item No. 12 – Value Engineering Items
Item No. 13 – Remove Berm at EQ Basin
Item No. 14 – Water Resource Center
Item No. 1 – Additional Project Management Due to Schedule Extension
The schedule for the WRRF project was updated based on the delay in the MBR contract award, per our
letter provided on December 15, 2017. Additional project management has been required during this
period for additional meetings and requests from the City and Program Management team. Additional
effort for three months has been assumed. As of the date of this letter, the start of the Construction
Document Development (95%) design phase has been delayed by four weeks for the Value Engineering
reconciliation.
Packet Pg 213
9
PAGE 2
MARCH 9, 2018
PAGE 2 OF 7
Item No. 2 – MBR Rebid
After receipt of the original bids from two membrane vendors on April 20, 2017, the State Water
Resources Control Board Division of Financial Assistance Legal Counsel advised the City that the
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) requirements were not met, thus both bids were determined
to be nonresponsive. As part of the rebid activities, the City requested additional items be included in
the specifications, including an extended warranty and change to a mandatory pre‐bid meeting.
As a result of the rebid, additional work was performed including the following:
Revised specifications for the rebid as requested by the City and provided the final rebid
package (June 29, 2017).
Additional bid phase services, including issuing addenda. Developed and issued Addenda No. 1
(July 19, 2017), No. 2 (July 20, 2017), No. 3 (August 3, 2017), No. 4 (August 9, 2017), and No. 5
(August 17, 2017).
Attended the mandatory pre‐proposal meeting on July 7, 2017.
Attended additional meetings during the bid phase to support the City’s procurement processes,
address City and Program Manager questions, discuss addenda, and discuss the proposal review
findings (August 2, 16, 28 and September 1, 5).
Evaluated the lowest present worth cost bid, upon receipt of proposals on August 22, and
provided letters summarizing proposal review comments (September 7 and 9, 2017).
Attended exceptions review meetings with the City, Program Manager and successful vendor
(September 12, 14, 20 and 22, 2017).
Developed two versions of conformed bid documents as requested by the Program Manager to
incorporate addenda and City, legal and vendor revisions (September 29 and October 16, 2017).
With the rebid, the City received a 10‐year full warranty for a similar system price as identified in the
original bid, which provided a 7‐year full warranty with a 3‐year cliff.
Item No. 3 – Equalization Pond Return Pump Station
Based on the Facilities Plan, the original scope of work included modifications to the return pump
station to operate at an increased water surface elevation, providing a redundant pump in the existing
pump station and providing additional automation (level control). The scope also included raising the
perimeter berm to prevent inundation during the 100‐year storm event. The 30% design showed the
addition of a second vertical turbine solids handling pump in the existing wetwell, matching existing.
During the development of the 60% design, further investigation showed that the existing diversion
structure could not be structurally retrofit to accommodate the higher water surface elevation and
provide flood protection; relocation of the pump station was required. A new pump station with vertical
turbine solids handling pumps was designed and modeled.
During the July 5‐6, 2017 P&ID review meetings, the City requested that submersible pumps be used
instead of vertical turbine solids handling pumps. Redesign of the station was required to accommodate
the change in pump type. The following drawings and specifications were impacted by the addition of
the new pump station and the subsequent change from vertical turbine pumps:
Additional mechanical, structural drawings, and electrical drawings to modify the existing
control structure and design a new flow equalization pump station, including the following:
o 14‐XS‐1101, Structural Existing Control Structure Demolition Plan and Section
o 14‐S‐1101, Structural Existing Control Structure Demolition Plan and Section
o 14‐S‐1102, Structural Pump Station and Water Cannon Structure Plans and Sections
o 14‐D‐1101, Process Pump Station Plan and Section
Packet Pg 214
9
PAGE 3
MARCH 9, 2018
PAGE 3 OF 7
o 14‐D‐1102, Process Control Structure Plan and Section
o 14‐EF‐1100, Electrical Pump Station Facility Plan
o 14‐EP‐1101, Electrical Pump Station Process Plan
Redesign to change to submersible pumps, including evaluating the pump selection revision and
developing specifications.
o 14‐S‐1102, Structural Pump Station and Water Cannon Structure Plans and Sections
o 14‐D‐1101, Process Pump Station Plan and Section
o 44 42 56.04, Submersible Pumps
Item No. 4 – Ferric Chloride Facilities Addition for CEPT
As discussed in workshops during the 30% and 60% design, chemically enhanced primary treatment
(CEPT) is recommended as a backup for enhanced settling during peak flow events or when a primary
clarifier is out of service, depending on plant flows. There was agreement with the need for using CEPT
under these conditions. CEPT was not identified as being required in the Facilities Plan and therefore
was not included in the original project scope.
There was a decision by the City to reuse the existing ferrous tank for ferric chloride, but add a new feed
pump as the existing units are 20 years old. The 60% design includes drawings and a specification for a
new ferric chloride feed system for CEPT. The 60% design deliverable includes selection of a ferric
chloride chemical pump and development of drawings and a specification for the pumps. The 95% and
100% drawings and specifications will include further detailing of this system. The following drawings
and specifications were impacted by the addition of the new ferric feed system pump:
08‐I‐0021, Ferric chloride P&ID (modified)
16‐XD‐1100, Process Demolition Plan and Sections
16‐D‐1100, Process Plan and Sections
16‐EP‐1100, Electrical Process Plan
44 42 56.16, Peristaltic Hose Pumps ‐ Ferric chloride metering pump specification
Item No. 5 – Primary Effluent Screens
The scope for this item is based on changing the fine screening facility from the band screen currently
included in the 60% design deliverable to a horizontal drum screen, as requested by the City.
Drawings requiring revision include:
28‐S‐1100, Structural Foundation and Top Plans
28‐S‐3001, Structural Sections
28‐D‐1100, Process Plan, Sections and Detail
28‐EP‐1100, Electrical Process Plan
The following specification will need to be revised:
44 42 32, Fine Screen Systems
Item No. 6 – Process Air Blowers Evaluations
The Facilities Plan indicated the City would be installing two new Neuros turbo blowers as part of a WRRF
Capital Improvement Project. In the Facilities Plan, Table 7‐12, Design Criteria Required for Upgrades
Permit Compliance indicated a total of 5 blowers, 2 existing and 3 new. The 30% design drawings were
based on the use of turbo blowers, matching this proposed approach. The City indicated during 30%
that they wanted CH2M to evaluate blower types. Based on the City’s request, several presentations
were developed, including an extensive evaluation of various blower combinations, including energy
Packet Pg 215
9
PAGE 4
MARCH 9, 2018
PAGE 4 OF 7
comparisons at the range of conditions to optimize energy benefits for City. As a result of this
evaluation, a blower system was selected with mixed blower types to most closely meet the wide range
of projected operating conditions, including turndown and peak events.
The scope for this item is the evaluation of a range of blower options and combinations including:
Development and delivery of initial presentation of blower options, including general approach
proposed for blower evaluation (July 26, 2017).
Analysis of blower types and sizes, with combinations of blowers to optimize annual operating
efficiencies.
Development and delivery of final blower evaluation presentation with recommendation
(September 27, 2017).
Follow‐up meeting to review City decision (October 11, 2017).
Item No. 7 – 3W Pump Station
The original scope of work was based on expanding the capacity of the existing 3W pump station by
replacing the two existing 300 gpm pumps with two new 600 gpm pumps. Based on the new 3W
capacity requirements, additional wet well space was required and reuse of the existing wet well was
not compliant with Hydraulic Institute Standards. CH2M proposed pumps with variable frequency drives
(VFDs), which is standard practice for 3W systems. The City and the Program Manager requested
further development of alternatives to allow further turndown during night time low flow conditions.
The resulting system includes both VFDs and a hydropneumatic tank. Meetings were held on July 26
and August 22, 2017 to present alternatives and evaluations of the 3W pumping system options.
The new 3W pump station is shown on the following drawings:
08‐I‐0030, Effluent Cooling & 3W Pumps
08‐I‐0033, 3W Pump Station Discharge
68‐XD‐1100, Process Demolition Plan
68‐S‐1100, Structural Foundation Plan
68‐S‐1100, Structural Lower Level Plan
68‐S‐1100, Structural Sections
68‐D‐1100, Process Lower Plan
68‐D‐1200, Process Ground Level Plan
68‐D‐3001, Process Sections
68‐D‐3002, Process Sections
68‐D‐3003, Process Sections
68‐EP‐1100, Electrical Process Plan
Item No. 8 – UV Electrical Building
The Facilities Plan did not identify the need for a new electrical building to serve the new UV system,
located in the vicinity of the existing chlorine contact basins. There was an assumption that existing
electrical buildings would have space for the UV system electrical components, but they do not.
Therefore, a new electrical building was included in the 60% design to house the UV system electrical.
The 3W system electrical equipment is also located in this building. The 60% design deliverable included
the following drawings for the UV system electrical building:
53‐A‐1100, Architectural Plans
53‐A‐2001, Architectural Elevations and Section
53‐S‐1100, Structural Plans
Packet Pg 216
9
PAGE 5
MARCH 9, 2018
PAGE 5 OF 7
53‐S‐3001, Structural Sections
53‐S‐3002, Structural Sections
53‐M‐1100, HVAC Plans
53‐F‐1100, Fire Protection Plan
53‐EP‐1100, Electrical Process Plan
53‐EF‐1100, Electrical Facility Plan
Item No. 9 – Medium Voltage Distribution
The Facilities Plan and the 30% design for site electrical were based on low voltage distribution. During
60%, the City elected to provide medium voltage power distribution within the plant and use step‐down
transformers to power 480‐volt facility loads versus continuing with low voltage power distribution. Two
meetings were held on June 14 and July 26, 2017 to present and discuss alternatives. The decision was
based on increased operational safety through reduction of the arc flash hazard, increased power
reliability, increased flexibility for future expansion (potable reuse) and simplification of the service
connection from PG&E. As an outcome from the Value Engineering activities, the City has elected to
implement a single‐loop system in lieu of the double‐loop system included in the 60% design.
This change in approach resulted in the need to update the single line diagrams, site plan drawings to
show the location of the medium voltage equipment, electrical plan drawings to show the power
distribution, and add technical specifications for medium voltage equipment. The following drawings
were affected as part of the change to medium voltage distribution:
09‐E‐1000, Site Electrical Plan ‐ Overall
09‐E‐1001, Site Electrical Plan ‐ Area 1
09‐E‐1003, Site Electrical Plan ‐ Area 3
09‐E‐1004, Site Electrical Plan ‐ Area 4
09‐E‐1005, Site Electrical Plan ‐ Area 5
09‐E‐1007, Site Electrical Plan ‐ Area 7
09‐E‐1008, Site Electrical Plan ‐ Area 8
09‐E‐1009, Site Electrical Plan ‐ Area 9
09‐E‐1010, Site Electrical Plan ‐ Area 10
09‐E‐1011, Site Electrical Plan ‐ Area 11
09‐E‐1012, Site Electrical Plan ‐ Area 12
44 ‐EF‐1100, Electrical Facility Plan
98‐E‐6001, Electrical Main Single Line Diagram Revised
98‐E‐6011, Electrical Overall Single Line Diagram 44‐MSG‐01
98‐E‐6012, Electrical Single Line Diagram 40‐SWBD‐01
98‐E‐6015, Electrical Single Line Diagram 40‐SWBD‐02
98‐E‐6018, Electrical Single Line Diagram and Elevation 53‐SWBD‐01, 68‐MCC‐01 and 40‐MCC‐04
98‐E‐6019, Electrical Single Line Diagram and Elevation 53‐SWBD‐02 and 68‐MCC‐02
98‐E‐6301, Electrical Medium Voltage Circuit Breaker 01
98‐E‐6302, Electrical Medium Voltage Circuit Breaker 02
98‐E‐6303, Electrical Medium Voltage Circuit Breaker 03
98‐E‐6304, Electrical Medium Voltage Circuit Breaker 04
Item No. 10 – Vault
The Facilities Plan proposed providing flow meters on the influent pumps discharge piping. Evaluation
of the discharge piping revealed that it does not remain full under all operating conditions. Therefore, a
Packet Pg 217
9
PAGE 6
MARCH 9, 2018
PAGE 6 OF 7
flow meter vault was included in the 60% design deliverable for primary influent flow measurement.
The following drawings were developed for the primary influent flow meter vault:
18‐S‐1100, Structural Plans and Section
18‐D‐1100, Process Plans and Sections
Item No. 11 – Temporary Pumping Design for Interim UV System Operation
The final design will be based on MBR permeate pumping to the UV system. Because of the Time
Schedule Order date for THM compliance, interim operation of the UV system on filtered effluent was
considered for approximately one year through installation of a temporary pumping system. Additional
evaluation and testing by the City revealed that THM compliance would not be met without the MBR
system in operation.
The effort for defining temporary pumping has included the following:
Hydraulics evaluation for the temporary pumping system
Site/location evaluation and plan for piping tie‐ins for temporary system
Coordination with vendors of temporary pumping systems
Specification 01 57 28 Temporary Flow Control
Drawing 06‐Y‐1010 Yard Piping Plan Area 10
Item No. 12 – Value Engineering Items
The final design will incorporate the value engineering items discussed and agreed to during the January
10th meeting among the City, WSC, HDR and CH2M. The specific items identified below will require
additional design time to incorporate the changes into the contract documents.
Delete photovoltaic systems at Facilities 10, 14, 36, 40, 54, 72 and 83
Change UV facility to slab on grade
Reduce the effluent cooling capacity to align with recycled water goals by eliminating 1 tower
A credit has been provided for the deletion of the new screw press at Facility 86, however, the scope of
work will still include modification of the existing belt press load out conveyor to accommodate roll‐off
bin handling and relocation of the existing feed pump.
Although the sidestream treatment facility has been deleted from the project, design elements need to
be addressed with this change. The filtrate pump station will still be required and additional dynamic
process modeling of the centrate return will need to be conducted to confirm the need for the
equalization basin to attenuate the ammonia loading variability on the bioreactors. As a result, no credit
has been applied.
Item No. 13 – Remove Berm at Equalization (EQ) Basin
To mitigate off‐site impacts during a flood event, the City has elected to remove the berm around the
EQ basin that is currently shown in the 60% design drawings. This change will involve re‐grading the EQ
basin to provide the required 8.75 million gallons of storage volume within the basin. Further evaluation
of the existing control structure, primary effluent diversion box overflow and return pump station will be
required to accommodate the new footprint, grading and operating water surface elevation. Re‐grading
of the adjacent roadways is required to align with the new exterior elevation. The following drawings
will be affected by this change:
Packet Pg 218
9
PAGE 7
MARCH 9, 2018
PAGE 7 OF 7
01‐G‐0043, Hydraulic Profile 1
05‐XF‐1000, Overall Site Facility and Piping Demolition Plan
05‐C‐1000, Site Plan Overall Key Plan
05‐CL‐1001, Location Plan Area 1
05‐CL‐1002, Location Plan Area 2
05‐CL‐1005, Location Plan Area 5
05‐CG‐1001, Grading and Drainage Plan Area 1
05‐CG‐1002, Grading and Drainage Plan Area 2
05‐CG‐1005, Grading and Drainage Plan Area 5
06‐Y‐1001, Yard Piping Plan Area 1
06‐Y‐1001, Yard Piping Plan Area 2
06‐Y‐1001, Yard Piping Plan Area 5
14‐C‐1001, Civil Plan
14‐C‐3001, Civil Section
14‐C‐3003, Civil Section
14‐XS‐1101, Existing Control Structure Demolition Plan
14‐S‐1101, Existing Control Structure Plan and Sections
14‐S‐1102, Pump Station and Water Cannon Plan and Sections
14‐D‐1100, Process Overall Plan
14‐D‐1101, Process Pump Station Plan and Section
14‐D‐1102, Process Control Structure Plan and Section
14‐D‐5001, Process Plan Section and Detail
Item No. 14 – Water Resource Center
As an outcome from the Value Engineering activities, the City has elected to include the Water Resource
Center as an additive alternative in the construction bid. Additional level of effort has been identified for
this change.
We look forward to discussing the details of this change order at your earliest convenience.
Regards,
CH2M HILL Engineers, Inc.
Ronald E. Williams, P.E., BCEE
Vice President
C: Jeff Szytel, WSC
Jasmine Diaz, WSC
Lianne Westberg, WSC
Jennifer Phillips, CH2M
Barb Engleson, CH2M
Emilio Candanoza, CH2M
Packet Pg 219
9
2017$258 $226 $196 $175 $165 $153 $135 $110 $155 $175 $1092018$260 $228 $198 $177 $167 $154 $136 $111 $156 $177 $1101288 $74,885 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 288$74,885$4,800 $0$0$79,6852017 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0$0$0 $0 $0 $02018 288 $74,885 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 288$74,885$4,800 $0 $0 $79,68524.5 $1,161 10 $2,260 4.3 $843 0.4 $70 4.8 $792 32 $4,896 20.7 $2,795 19 $2,090 0 $0 0 $0 244 $26,596 340$41,502$2,919 $0$0$44,4212017 4.5 $1,161 10 $2,260 4.3 $843 0.4 $70 4.8 $792 32 $4,896 20.7 $2,795 19 $2,090 0 $0 0 $0 244 $26,596 340$41,502$2,919 $0 $0 $44,4212018 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0363 $16,254 0 $0 0 $0 7 $1,225 14 $2,310 136 $20,808 90 $12,150 0 $0 151 $23,405 14 $2,450 11 $1,199 486 $79,801 $0 $0 $0 $79,8012017 63 $16,254 0 $0 0 $0 7 $1,225 14 $2,310 136 $20,808 90 $12,150 0 $0 151 $23,405 14 $2,450 11 $1,199 486 $79,801 $0 $0 $0 $79,8012018 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0418 $4,644 0 $0 0 $0 2 $350 4 $660 27 $4,131 18 $2,430 0 $0 30 $4,650 4 $700 3 $327 106 $17,892 $0 $5,500 $5,500 $23,3922017 18 $4,644 0 $0 0 $0 2 $350 4 $660 27 $4,131 18 $2,430 0 $0 30 $4,650 4 $700 3 $327 106 $17,892 $0 $5,500 $5,500 $23,3922018 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0518 $4,644 0 $0 0 $0 2 $350 4 $660 39 $5,967 26 $3,510 0 $0 44 $6,820 4 $700 3 $327 140 $22,978 $0 $0 $0 $22,9782017 18 $4,644 0 $0 0 $0 2 $350 4 $660 39 $5,967 26 $3,510 0 $0 44 $6,820 4 $700 3 $327 140 $22,978 $0 $0 $0 $22,9782018 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $068 $2,064 0 $0 0 $0 16 $2,800 0 $0 40 $6,120 38 $5,130 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 102 $16,114 $0 $0 $0 $16,1142017 8 $2,064 0 $0 0 $0 16 $2,800 0 $0 40 $6,120 38 $5,130 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 102 $16,114 $0 $0$0 $16,1142018 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0$0$0750 $12,900 0 $0 0 $0 6 $1,050 12 $1,980 100 $15,300 70 $9,450 0 $0 110 $17,050 12 $2,100 9 $981 369 $60,811 $0 $11,650 $11,650 $72,4612017 50 $12,900 0 $0 0 $0 6 $1,050 12 $1,980 100 $15,300 70 $9,450 0 $0 110 $17,050 12 $2,100 9 $981 369 $60,811 $0 $11,650 $11,650 $72,4612018 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0$0$0881 $20,898 0 $0 0 $0 9 $1,575 18 $2,970 143 $21,879 95 $12,825 0 $0 158 $24,490 18 $3,150 14 $1,526 536 $89,313 $0 $0$0 $89,3132017 81 $20,898 0 $0 0 $0 9 $1,575 18 $2,970 143 $21,879 95 $12,825 0 $0 158 $24,490 18 $3,150 14 $1,526 536 $89,313 $0 $0$0 $89,3132018 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0$0$09108 $27,864 0 $0 0 $0 12 $2,100 24 $3,960 130 $19,890 86 $11,610 0 $0 144 $22,320 24 $4,200 18 $1,962 546 $93,906 $0 $0$0 $93,9062017 108 $27,864 0 $0 0 $0 12 $2,100 24 $3,960 130 $19,890 86 $11,610 0 $0 144 $22,320 24 $4,200 18 $1,962 546 $93,906 $0 $0$0 $93,9062018 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0$0$01010 $2,580 0 $0 0 $0 2 $350 4 $660 36 $5,508 24 $3,240 0 $0 40 $6,200 4 $700 3 $327 123 $19,565 $0 $0$0 $19,5652017 10 $2,580 0 $0 0 $0 2 $350 4 $660 36 $5,508 24 $3,240 0 $0 40 $6,200 4 $700 3 $327 123 $19,565 $0 $0$0 $19,5652018 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0$0$0114 $1,032 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 26 $3,978 0 $0 0 $0 6 $930 0 $0 6 $654 42 $6,594 $0 $0$0 $6,5942017 4 $1,032 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 26 $3,978 0 $0 0 $0 6 $930 0 $0 6 $654 42 $6,594 $0 $0$0 $6,5942018 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0$0$012122 $31,722 0 0 0 0 14 $2,478 27 $4,510 166 $25,565 111 $15,097 0 0 184 $28,705 27 $4,780 20 $2,200 671 $115,057 $0 $0$0 $115,0572018 122 $31,722 0 $0 0 $0 14 $2,478 27 $4,510 166 $25,565 111 $15,097 0 $0 184 $28,705 27 $4,780 20 $2,200 671 $115,057 $0 $0$0 $115,0571399 $25,742 0 0 0 0 11 $1,947 23 $3,842 149 $22,947 100 $13,601 0 0 166 $25,897 22 $3,895 17 $1,870 587 $99,740 $0 $21,500 $21,500 $121,2402018 99 $25,742 0 $0 0 $0 11 $1,947 23 $3,842 149 $22,947 100 $13,601 0 $0 166 $25,897 22 $3,895 17 $1,870 587 $99,740 $0 $21,500 $21,500 $121,2401424 $6,240 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 24 $6,240 $0 $0$0 $6,2402018 24 $6,240 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 24$6,240$0 $0$0 $6,240898 $232,629 10 $2,260 4 $843 81 $14,296 135 $22,343 1024 $156,989 679 $91,837 19 $2,090 1033 $160,467 129 $22,674 348 $37,969 4360 $744,398 $7,719 $38,650 $38,650 $790,767Task No.Comments:2(32,878)$ 3EQ Pond Return Pump Station(20,127)$ 4(25,837)$ 7(6,176)$ 10(7,593)$ 12(33,368)$ Credit provided for removal of new screw press at Facility 86, scope will include reconfiguration of cake loading at the belt press bldg. and relocation of feed pump.The total estimated cost shown on this sheet include the following credits requested during the review of the January 29, 2018 Amendment Request.‐Level of effort reduced. Credit provided for work not required at the existing 3W pump station.Level of effort reduced. MBR RebidFerric Chloride Addition for CEPT3W Pump StationVaultVE ItemsCredit provided for work not required at the existing pump station.Amendment No. 2Detailed Fee EstimateWater Resource Recovery Facility City of San Luis ObispoEngineering TechnicianTechnician Office / ClericalPrincipal in Charge Principal Professional 1 Sr. Professional 2 Sr. Professional 1Task Nos.Task/Activity DescriptionLabor ClassificationProject Professional 2TOTAL Estimated Cost ($)TOTALPrimary Effluent ScreensProcess Air Blowers3W Pump StationUV Electrical BuildingTemp UV OperationMedium Voltage DistributionVaultVE ItemsRemove Berm at EQ PondWater Resource CenterFerric Chloride Addition for CEPTProject ManagerSubconsultant TotalTotal Labor Hours Total Labor Costs ($) Travel and Other Expenses ($)Cannon Corp.Project Professional 1 Staff Professional 2MBR RebidEQ Pond Return Pump StationSubconsultant Costs ($) Project SchedulePacket Pg 2209
Meeting Date: 4/3/2018
FROM: Greg Hermann, Interim Deputy City Manager
Prepared by: Teresa Purrington, Acting City Clerk
SUBJECT: RESCHEDULE THE 2018 CITY COUNCIL MEETING CALENDAR
RECOMMENDATION
Amend the 2018 City Council Meeting Calendar to reschedule the regular City Council meeting
of Tuesday, November 20, 2018 to Tuesday, November 27, 2018.
DISCUSSION
The City Council’s regular meetings are scheduled for the first and third Tuesday of every month
and in the event that a regular meeting of the council falls on a legal holiday, then the regular
meeting shall be held at the same place and time on the next succeeding working day pursuant to
Section 1.1.2.1 of the Council Policy & Procedures. A copy of the approved 2018 meeting
schedule is attached. (Attachment A)
Holiday Conflicts
The third Tuesday in November occurs on November 20, the same week as the Thanksgiving
Holiday. Staff recommends rescheduling the second meeting in November to November 27 in
order to not conflict with the City Council’s, the publics, or staff’s holiday travel plans.
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 IMPACTS
There are no fiscal impacts associated with the recommended action since the request does not
add a new meeting, it only reschedules an existing regular meeting.
ALTERNATIVES
Council could choose to not reschedule the November 20, 2018 meeting or reschedule the
meeting to a different date.
Attachments:
a - Approved Schedule of 2018 City Council Meetings
Packet Pg 221
10
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 1 2 3
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 1 2
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
29 30 27 28 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 1
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
29 30 31 26 27 28 28 30 31 23/
30 24 25 26 27 28 29
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 4 6 1 2 3 1
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 30 23/
30
24/
31 25 26 27 28 29
*Recommended rescheduling of regular meeting
*Recommended dates for possible re-scheduled regular meetings
*Recommended for possible cancellation
2018 City Council Schedule
OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER
M A R C HF E B R U A R YJ A N U A R Y
A P R I L M A Y J U N E
J U L Y A U G U S T S E P T E M B E R
28
Packet Pg 222
10
Meeting Date: 4/3/2018
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Xzandrea Fowler, Community Development Deputy Director
SUBJECT: CAPITAL FACILITIES FEE PROGRAM UPDATE/NEXUS STUDY (AB 1600)
ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION AND WATER AND WASTEWATER
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM
RECOMMENDATION
1. Receive a presentation on the Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study, which identifies
various infrastructure projects associated with transportation, parkland and park
improvements, police, fire, and general government facilities, and calculates new
development’s fair share of the cost of these facilities; and
2. Consider recommended policy adjustments to reduce the fair share for new development to
ensure the feasibility of various development types, including multi -family and smaller
single-family units; and
3. Introduce an Ordinance and Resolution to adopt and implement the recommended Capital
Facilities Fee Program; and
4. Adopt a Resolution to adopt and implement the recommended Water and Wastewater
Development Impact Fee Program.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
This project is an important implementation item for the 2014 Land Use and Circulation Element
update and accomplishes key action items identified in the Major City Goals for Fiscal Health
and Responsibility, and Housing Production. This report and accompanying documentation
includes the necessary analysis and studies to substantiate revisions and additions to the City’s
current development impact fees. The nexus studies that have been prepared to support the
Capital Facilities Fee Program, and the Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fee
Program, provide the City of San Luis Obispo with the necessary technical documentation to
support the potential adoption of:
1. An updated transportation development impact fee;
2. A modified parks and parkland in-lieu fee;
3. Updated water and wastewater development impact fees; and
4. New general government, police, and fire development impact fees.
The adoption of a revised Capital Facilities Fee Program, and Water and Wastewater
Development Impact Fee Program, and the careful investment of development impact fee
revenues along with other local, State, and Federal sources of funding for infrastructure, will
ensure that adequate infrastructure will be available to support growth of the City as envisioned
in the General Plan and enhance quality of life for existing residents.
In total, the projects included in the Nexus Study will cost $360 million to deliver (excluding
Packet Pg 223
11
cost associated with parkland acquisition and improvement projects that will be identified in the
update of the Parks and Recreation Element/Master Plan). Of this total, $209 million is identified
as the maximum amount that could be recovered through impact fees, consistent with the
requirements of AB 1600. As illustrated in the following table, the gap between the “Total Cost”
and the “Reduction Strategy CFFP Revenue” (equal to $214 million) will require funding from
other sources (grant, regional, General Fund) and is not currently included in General Fund long-
range forecast projections. The proposed reduction strategy is intended to ensure development
feasibility, and incentivize smaller, more affordable housing units. The strategy increases the gap
between the total project cost and the available fee revenue to pay for those projects by $63
million.
DISCUSSION
General Plan Policies
The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Land Use Element Policy 1.13.9, Costs of Growth,
states the following:
The City shall require the costs of public facilities and services needed for new
development be borne by the new development, unless the community chooses to help pay
the costs for certain development to obtain community-wide benefits. The City shall
consider a range of options for financing measures so that new development pays its fair
share of costs of new services and facilities which are required to serve the project, and
which are reasonably related to the new growth attributable to the development.
Some of these “costs of growth” are paid for by new development either through the direct
construction of an infrastructure project (such as a roadway or water line needed to serve that
development), or by payment of a development impact fee. During previous study sessions on
this topic, the Council has directed staff not to charge the maximum fees to ensure that
development remains feasible, and to incentivize the construction of smaller, more affordable
housing units. The fee structures recommended have all been evaluated to ensure feasibility, and
are tiered to incentivize smaller, more affordable housing units.
Mitigation Fee Act
The Mitigation Fee Act (Assembly Bill 1600) is contained in California Government Code
Section 66000 et.seq., established constitutional limits and “ground rules” for the imposition and
Packet Pg 224
11
administration of impact fee programs. The Act became law in January 1988 and requires local
governments to document the following when adopting an impact fee:
1. Identify the purpose of the fee;
2. Identify the use of the fee revenues;
3. Determine a reasonable relationship between the use of the fee and the type of
development paying the fee;
4. Determine a reasonable relationship between the need for the fee and the type of
development paying the fee; and
5. Determine a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the
facility attributable to development paying the fee.
In summary, a fee cannot collect more than the cost of the public facility needed to accommodate
the new development paying the fee. AB 1600 establishes the legal requirement for there to be a
nexus between the project and fee. In addition, fee revenues can only be used for their intended
purpose.
Previous City Council Direction
On October 17, 2017, the City Council participated in Study Session #1 (Attachment F) to
review and provide direction on the preliminary results of the Capital Facilities Fee Program
Nexus Study. The preliminary results presented during that study session represented the
maximum fees that could be charged to development based on a list of identified
facilities/infrastructure improvements and/or service levels desired, consistent with legal nexus
requirements and fair-share analysis that are necessary to support development through the
buildout of the 2035 General Plan. The Council considered the effect of implementing a
maximum fee program and provided staff with guidance regarding policy considerations that
incorporate analysis of the total fee burden, impacts to affordable housing objectives,
identification of alternative infrastructure funding sources, refinement of the list of identified
transportation and park and recreation facilities/infrastructure improvements.
In response, staff and the consultant team revised preliminary nexus study results and presented
them to the City Council on January 9, 2018 during Study Session #2 (Attachment G). Council
directed staff to evaluate further policy adjustments to ensure feasibility, even if it resulted in a
recommendation to charge less than the maximum fees identified in the Nexus Study, to collapse
the transportation component of the fee program into a single Citywide program “one happy
family”, and to incentivize the development of missing middle housing by reducing the overall
fee burden on the development of small lot single family unit and multi-family residential units.
Provided below is a Table that summarizes how the Transportation Impact Fee component of the
CFF Program has evolved through this process over the course of the last six months. The
recommended fees shown in the previous table reflect the fee reduction strategy that was
developed to address Council direction from the study sessions and feedback from outreach with
the development community and stakeholders.
Packet Pg 225
11
Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
On October 17, 2017, City Council also considered final adoption of the Water and Wastewater
Capacity and Connection Fees (Attachment I). City Council deferred the adoption of the
proposed fees to better understand the total fee burden on new development.
The October 17, 2017 staff report included a recommendation and three alternatives
(Attachment H). Based on Council direction received during the subsequent study session
related to the CFF Study and the total fee burden, Alternative 1 for water and Alternative 3 for
wastewater proposed on October 17, 2017 are now recommended. This change results in the
removal of $22.7 million and $10.9 million of capital infrastructure for water and wastewater
respectively from the fee program placing a greater portion of the capital improvement cost on
water and wastewater ratepayers. Returning to the term “development impact fee” instead of the
term “capacity and connection fee” will best communicate the alternative fee.
Community Outreach
Staff actively engaged with a variety of stakeholders throughout the process, beginni ng with a
Developer’s Roundtable meeting in June 2017, followed by additional meetings in October 2017,
December 2017, and March 2018. All of which were well attended by a variety of
representatives from the development community. In addition to those meetings, staff presented
the evolving fee programs to the Chamber of Commerce, EVC, Home Builders Association,
Save Our Downtown, the Bicycle Advisory Commission, and the Planning Commission.
Following the completion of the administrative draft Capital Facili ties Fee Program Nexus Study
staff embarked on a “Outreach Roadshow” from February 26, 2018 to March 9, 2018. During
this time frame staff shared the findings of the Nexus Study and met individually with
Packet Pg 226
11
developers, property owners, and stakeholders in the community to discuss how the
recommended fees would impact their specific projects. Some of those meetings resulted in
further refinement of the nexus study analysis and the feasibility considerations.
Recommended Capital Facilities Fee Levels
The recommended fee levels for the Capital Facilities Fee Program reflect a reduction strategy
that was developed by staff and the consultant team in response to Council direction received
during the two study sessions along with feedback received from the development community
and stakeholders throughout the process. Provided below is a summary of the components of the
policy reduction strategy:
• Transportation – the Single-family fee is tiered to incentivize smaller, more affordable
units, maximum fee applies to single family units that are 1,400 sq. Ft. and larger, and for
single family units that are less than 1,400 sq. Ft. fees decrease proportionally by size.
• Transportation – Multi-family fee is tiered so that the multi-family fee never exceeds the
single-family fee for the same unit size.
• Transportation – Retail and Hotel uses are discounted by 60% (modified from existing
50% discount).
• Transportation – Office and Industrial uses are discounted by 15%.
• Parkland – Only single family and multi-family development will be charged impact fees.
Non-residential uses will not be charged development impact fees.
• Public Safety – Police fees are discounted by 50%.
• General Government – Fees will not be charged. The impact of this approach is that
should City administrative facilities need to expand as the Community grows, 100% of
the costs will need to be borne by other sources.
Packet Pg 227
11
While development impact fees overall are increasing, it is important to point out that with the
policy level recommendations, the Transportation Impact Fee component is decreasing by
approximately 11% or $13 million as compared to the City’s current transportation impact fee
program. Because multiple fee program areas are being consolidated into a Citywide fee, some
areas will realize an increase whereas some will realize a decrease in rates. An example of this is
within the Margarita Area, transportation fees for a single-family resident base fee will be
reduced from $12,928 to $9,828, over a $3,000 reduction per unit. This is consistent with
previous recommendations to reduce the geographic disparities and overall complexity of the
City’s development impact fee programs.
Implementation and Administration of the Capital Facilities Fee Program
The updated CFF and corresponding fee schedule will need to be adopted by City Council
Resolution (Attachment B) as enabled by the City’s Fee Ordinance (Attachment A). What this
means is that the existing Ordinance allows the City Council to adopt, by Resolution, a fee
Packet Pg 228
11
schedule consistent with supporting technical analysis and findings provided in the CFF Study.
The Resolution approach to setting the fee allows periodic adjustments of the fee amount that
may be necessary over time, without amending the enabling Ordinance. The existing Ordinance
will also need to be amended to address the primary implementation and administrative issues
and procedures associated with the CFF. In Section 8: Implementation and Administration of
CFF, of the CFF Study provided in Attachment C, there is a summary of the key
implementation and administrative elements.
Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee/Development Impact Fee Program
The Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Study (Fee Study) commenced
separately from the CFF Study. The City contracted for these services with HDR Engineering,
Inc. A study session was conducted on February 7, 2017 during which time the Council directed
Utilities Department staff to explore various options for the Capacity and Connection Fee Study.
At the October 17, 2017 Council meeting, the Utilities Department presented four fee options
and recommended the fees found in Option 2 (water) and Option 4 (wastewater). These options
used a methodology that equitably distributed capacity-related investments between new
development and existing water and wastewater ratepayers.
The fees recommended on October 17, 2017 included a prioritized list of capital projects from
water and wastewater master plans prepared following the update of the General Plan Land Use
Element in 2014. The project costs in the Fee Study were equitably distributed between existing
customers through rates (84% of project costs) and new development through the recommended
fees (16% of project costs).
It is important to note the October 17, 2017 recommended fees included only the highest priority
water and wastewater projects necessary to provide the required capacity for the General Plan
that, apart from water source of supply and the WRRF project, could be feasibly delivered over
the next ten years. This differs from the methodology applied citywide to calculate maximum
fees.
At the October 17, 2017 meeting, Council took no action on the fees, but provided feedback.
Council supported staff’s recommendation to eliminate the wastewater catchment area fees in
favor of the citywide wastewater fee and the tiering of residential fees where reduced fees were
available for smaller residential units. Council directed staff to return with its recommended fees
with the City’s CFF Study so that the feasibility of the City’s entire fee program could be
considered comprehensively.
Citywide Fee Fee Per EDU
Existing Water Fee $11,322
Water Option 1 $11,872
Water Option 2* $15,780*
Existing Citywide Wastewater Fee $3,830
Wastewater Option 1 / Option 3 $8,165 / $10,721
Wastewater Option 2 / Option 4* $9,522 / $12,602*
NOTE:
* October 17, 2017 Staff recommendation.
Packet Pg 229
11
Capacity and Connection Fees Incorporated into Overall Fee Burden “Prototypes”
Subsequently, the October 17, 2017 and January 9, 2018 study sessions focused on the Capital
Facilities Fee Study, EPS, Inc. (CFF Study consultant team) incorporated the Utilities
Department staff-recommended Options 2 (water) and 4 (wastewater) into its overall fee burden
prototypes.
When included with other proposed fees from the CFF Study, the total fee burden exceeded
thresholds identified by EPS for various residential and non-residential prototypes. Council
provided direction to Community Development staff to look for ways to reduce the total fee
burden.
To assist with balancing the various fee requirements throughout the City, the alternatives
presented in the Utilities Department October 17, 2017 staff report (Alternative 1 – Water and
Alternative 3 – Wastewater) were applied to the prototypes. These alternatives, which, apart
from the elimination of the wastewater catchment areas and the expanded tiered Equivalent
Dwelling Unit (EDU) pricing, are similar in methodology to the fees the City has currently and
are now being recommended. Selection of these options helps bring the total fee burden in line
with the identified thresholds for new development.
Because of this change, the following is eliminated from the water fee program:
• Buy-in to the capacity available from existing water distribution, storage, and
treatment infrastructure.
• Contribution toward capital projects identified in the Potable Water Distribution
System Operations Master Plan that are not debt financed.
• Contribution toward expansion of recycled water infrastructure described in
the Recycled Water Master Plan.
• Contribution toward expansion of the City’s groundwater program.
With the reduction in the water fee program under Alternative 1 (summarized in Table 2),
funding for capital projects would be from water rates. Due to the timing of necessary
improvements, offsite improvements may be required in some locations for development to
proceed due to existing conditions.
Because of this change, the following is eliminated from the wastewater fee program:
• Buy-in to the capacity available from existing wastewater collection system
and water resource recovery infrastructure.
• Contribution toward prioritized capital projects identified in the Wastewater
Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy providing capacity to serve
future development that are not debt financed.
• Contribution toward water resource recovery capital projects that are not debt
financed.
With the reduction in the wastewater fee program under Alternative 3, summarized in the table
below, funding for capital projects would be from wastewater rates. Due to the timing of
Packet Pg 230
11
necessary capacity improvements, offsite improvements may be required in some locations for
development to proceed due to existing capacity constraints.
Current (2017-18)
Development Impact Fees October 2017 Staff Recommendation April 2018 Staff Recommendation***
Fee
Program Per EDU Fee
Program
∆ from Current
Fee Program Per EDU Fee
Program
∆ from Current
Fee Program Per EDU
Water $65.9
million $11,322 $91.8
million +$26 million $15,780 $69.1
million +$3.2 million $11,872
Wastewater $35.1
million* $3,820** $73.3
million +$38.2 million $12,602 $62.4
million +$27.3 million $10,721
NOTES:
* Includes $12.8 million of catchment area improvements.
** Additional catchment area fees, where applicable.
*** Staff recommendation for April 2018 includes Alternative 1 (Water) and Alternative 3 (Wastewater) from October 17, 2017 Council Agenda
Report, provided as Attachment H.
Changing from the October 17, 2017 staff recommendation to the alternatives (Alternative 1 for
Water and Alternative 3 for Wastewater) impacts the City’s water and wastewater ratepayers.
Water Alternative 1 shifts $22.7 million to the water ratepayer, increasing the ratepayer burden
from approximately 84 percent of capacity related costs to 88 percent of these costs. Wastewater
Alternative 3 shift $10.9 million to the wastewater ratepayer from approximately 84 percent of
capacity related costs to 86 percent of these costs.
Impact on Water and Wastewater Ratepayer
October 2017 Staff Recommendation April 2018 Staff Recommendation*
WATER:
New Development $ 91,800,000 16% $ 69,100,000 12%
Water Ratepayer $ 481,950,000 84% $ 504,650,000 88%
TOTAL: $ 573,750,000 100% $ 573,750,000 100%
WASTEWATER:
New Development $ 73,300,000 16% $ 62,400,000 14%
Wastewater Ratepayer $ 389,406,250 84% $ 395,725,000 86%
TOTAL: $ 458,125,000 100% $ 458,125,000 100%
NOTE:
* Staff recommendation for April 2018 includes Alternative 1 (Water) and Alternative 3 (Wastewater) from October 17, 2017 Council Agenda
Report, provided as Attachment H.
Recommended Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fees
Both the water and wastewater development impact fee programs establish citywide fees,
eliminating the current wastewater catchment area fees applicable in areas served by wastewater
lift stations. The fee programs will continue to be referred to as “development impact fees” as the
recommended fees are not at the level that included the buy-in component to system capacity.
The residential “tiers” are proposed to align water consumption and wastewater generation with
residential unit size. Non-residential fees continue to be assessed by meter size equivalency.
Packet Pg 231
11
Recommended Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fees
Residential (by Unit Size)
EDU
Water
Development
Impact Fee
Wastewater
Development
Impact Fee
Residential Unit (1,201+ square feet) 1.0 $11,872 $10,721
Residential Unit (801 to 1,200 square feet) 0.8 $9,497.60 $8,577
Residential Unit (451 to 800 square feet) 0.7 $8,310.40 $7,505
Mobile Home 0.6 $7,123.20 $6,433
Studio Unit (450 square feet or less) 0.3 $3,561.60 $3,216
Non-Residential (by Meter Size)
¾” 1.0 $11,872 $10,721
1” 1.7 $20,182 $18,226
1.5” 3.4 $40,365 $36,451
2” 5.4 $64,109 $57,893
3” 10.7 $127,030 $114,715
4” 16.7 $198,262 $179,041
6” 33.4 $396,525 $358,081
Impact Fee Program Feasibility Considerations
City staff and the consultant team, with the assistance of the development community, created
general development prototypes for evaluation that represent current development projects in the
City. Those prototypes represent the following types of development:
• Single family residential units (large lot to small lot)
• Multi-family residential units
• Office/Service
• Industrial
• Retail
The CFF Study consultant team conducted market research and interviewed developers in San
Luis Obispo to obtain project-specific information to estimate appropriate values. Provided
below is a summary of the analysis methodology, the specific case studies that were evaluated,
and the estimated total fee burden thresholds that were evaluated.
The feasibility analysis charts, provided in Attachment E, illustrate existing fee levels compared
with the revised fee levels for a series of development prototypes against the back-drop of
industry standard infrastructure burden feasibility norms.
Throughout the charts, there are some areas where the consultant team made certain assumptions
and used some judgement about which fees to show and/or the best way to illustrate the cost of a
fee that is otherwise not straight-forward to calculate. Notes are included throughout to explain
any assumptions that were used. In addition, because affordable housing fees, public art-in-lieu
Packet Pg 232
11
fees and school district fees are not part of this update, they are shown in aggregate, though the
detail of each fee is shown on the data table that accompanies each feasibility chart.
In all cases, the development impact fees reflected on the charts are based on the staff
recommended fee level.
Benchmark Cities Analysis
Under the recommended fee program, the City’s Transportation Impact fee rates will be on the
lower end of spectrum as compared to comparable agencies, and one of the lowest rates
particularly for high traffic generating land uses. For example, the chart below depicts the
proposed transportation impact fee rates for Retail & Office land uses among these various
agencies. The order of magnitude in comparison is similar for other land use rates as well such as
residential and industrial.
CONCURRENCES
The proposed update to the City’s development impact fee programs combined sound technical
analysis with a collaborative, iterative, and informed decision-making process. The technical
analysis was grounded in legally defensible nexus. The recommendations are supported by the
Public Works, Utilities, Police, Fire and Park and Recreation Departments.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The adoption of the proposed Ordinance and Resolutions is (1) not a Project under the
California Environmental Quality Act (”CEQA”) and is therefore exempt pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines section 15378(b)(4): (2) statutorily exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section
15273(a)(4) (Rates, Tolls, Fares and Charges for obtaining funds for capital projects necessary to
maintain service within existing service area); (3) not intended to apply to specific capital
improvement projects and as such it is speculative to evaluate such projects now and any
specifically identified transportation projects were already evaluated under CEQA and imposed
as mitigation measures in previously certified EIRs and /or adopted mitigated negative
declarations; and/or (4) not intended to, nor does it , provide CEQA clearance for future
Packet Pg 233
11
development-related projects by mere payment of the fees. Each of the foregoing provides a
separate and independent basis for CEQA compliance and when viewed collectively provides an
overall basis for CEQA compliance.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City of San Luis Obispo’s Economic Development Strategic Plan identifies the cost of
infrastructure as one of the major barriers to the creation of head of household jobs. The attached
Nexus Study is an important tool for understanding these costs, and how to ensure that they are
allocated in a way that is consistent with City policy. By identifying who benefits from a given
infrastructure project, costs can be assigned to new development (through a development impact
fee), or to existing development (e.g. through contributions made by the General Fund or through
water and sewer rate increases).
The General Plan includes an important policy regarding the cost of growth:
1.13.9. Costs of Growth
The City shall require the costs of public facilities and services needed for new development
be borne by the new development, unless the community chooses to help pay the costs for a
certain development to obtain community-wide benefits. The City shall consider a range of
options for financing measures so that new development pays its fair share of costs of new
services and facilities which are required to serve the project, and which are reasonably
related to the new growth attributable to the development.
The CFF Study is a tool to help the City establish an effective AB 1600 (Mitigation Fee Act)
Program to offset the cost of infrastructure needed to support build-out of the General Plan. The
facilities and infrastructure projects identified in the CFF Study have been determined to be
necessary to support the community’s plan. The projects come from the General Plan Land Use
and Circulation Elements, the Bicycle Transportation Plan, various specific plans, the Draft
Facilities Master Plan, the Fire Master Plan and other forward-looking planning documents.
In total, the projects included in the CFF Study will cost $360 million to deliver (excluding cost
associated with parkland acquisition and improvements projects that will be identified in the
update of the Parks and Recreation Element/Master Plan). Of this total, $209 million is identified
as the maximum amount that could be recovered through impact fees, consistent with the
requirements of AB 1600. The gap between the full cost recovery and the recommended number
will require funding from other sources and is not currently included in long-range forecast
projections. However, the City Council has previously determined that the maximum fees should
not be charged to ensure that new development (smaller, more affordable housing units in
particular) remains feasible. In other words, the City Council is choosing to help pay the costs to
help obtain community-wide benefits.
Based on the Council’s direction, the proposed fee program includes policy reductions to the
maximum fees that could be charged in the areas of General Government (no fee being charged),
Transportation (reductions for smaller units), Water and Wastewater (reduced scope of impact
fee program), Public Safety (reduced fee), and Parks (no fee charged for commercial). With
these policy reductions implemented, the total amount expected to be recovered through the
Packet Pg 234
11
City’s development impact fee program is $146 million, which includes the administrative fee.
Securing Supplemental Funding
The CFF Program is not appropriate for funding the full amount of all capital costs identified in
the CFF Study. The difference between the $360 million total project cost and the $146 million
in expected fee revenue is $214 million. As a result, the City will have to identify funding and
pay for improvements related to existing developments and improvements not funded by the
CFF Program or any other established funding source. Examples of such sources include the
following:
1. General Fund Revenues - The city could allocate a portion of its General Fund revenues
for discretionary expenditures. Currently existing General Fund contributions to capital
projects are supported primarily by Measure G revenues. These revenues have been
primarily allocated toward maintaining existing infrastructure and forecasts show that
sacrifices would need to be made to our existing maintenance programs to fund project
enhancements or new projects. Council could direct some of these funds toward CFF
Program projects. This could reduce the amount available for maintaining existing
infrastructure. In addition, Council could allocate other General Funds currently utilized
on other service priorities toward CFF Program projects.
2. Assessments and Special Taxes – The City could fund a portion of capital facilities
costs using assessments and special taxes. For example, the establishment of a Mello-
Roos Community Facilities District would allow the City to levy a special tax to pay debt
service on bonds sold to fund construction of capital facilities or to directly fund capital
facilities. The City could also seek voter approval of a special tax through ballot initiative
to provide funding for a range of capital improvements. There will be more detailed
discussion of funding alternatives at the April 17, 2018 Council meeting regarding
Funding the Future of SLO.
3. Regional, State or Federal Funds – The City might seek and obtain grant of matching
funds from Regional, state and Federal sources to help offset the costs of required capital
facilities and improvements. As part of its funding effort, the City should continue to
research and monitor these outside revenue sources and apply for funds as appropriate.
4. Other Grants and Contributions – A variety of grants or contributions from private
donors could help fund several capital facilities. For example, private foundations and/or
charity organizations may provide money for certain park and recreation or cultural
facilities.
As part of the adoption of the CFF Program, the City will need to adopt a finding that it will
obtain and allocate funding from various other sources for the fair share of the cost s of
improvements identified in the CFF Study that are not funded by the CFF Program as well as any
additional funding required to “backfill” any policy-based fee reductions. If additional funding
does not materialize, then substantial revisions will need to be made to the program or General
Plan policy changes will need to be made to change planned levels of services. Any
supplemental funding identified will be incorporated into the CFF Program as part of the next
Packet Pg 235
11
five-year update.
ALTERNATIVES
The following alternatives are available to the Council should you choose to not adopt the
reduced fees as recommended by staff:
1. Adopt a Capital Facilities Fee Program Update that charges the maximum fees. This
alternative is not recommended because it could create total fee burden feasibility issues
for new development, particularly small-lot, single-family development and multi-family
development.
2. Adopt a Water and Wastewater Development Fee Program that charges fees in
accordance with staff’s October 17, 2017 recommendation (Water Option #2 and
Wastewater Option #4). Those options ensure that existing ratepayers and new
development equitably apportion costs related to existing and future capital expenditures.
However, this alternative is not recommended because it could create total fee burden
feasibility issues for new development, particularly small lot single family development.
3. Do not adopt and implement the Capital Facilities Fee Program Update and continue to
charge the existing development impact fees that are currently in place for Transportation
and Parkland. However, this alternative is not recommended because the current fee
program does not include the infrastructure projects needed to support new development
through the buildout of the General Plan.
Attachments:
a - CFFP Ordinance
b - CFFP Resolution
c - Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
d - 2018 Resolution Water and Wastewater
e - Feasibility Charts
f - Council Reading File - Council Agenda Report - Study Session #1
g - Council Reading File - Council Agenda Report - Study Session #2
h - Council Reading File - Council Agenda Report Water and Wastewater 10_17_17
i - Capacity Fee and Connection Fees Study Draft Final
Packet Pg 236
11
O ______
ORDINANCE NO. _____ (2018 SERIES)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO
ESTABLISH CAPITAL FACILITIES FEE PROGRAM AND MAKE
RELATED AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 4.56
(ORDINANCE NO. 1256 (1994 SERIES)) TO INCLUDE THE CAPITAL
FACILITIES FEE PROGRAM, AND ADOPTING CEQA EXEMPTION
FINDINGS
WHEREAS, existing local, state and federal resources are insufficient to meet the City of
San Luis Obispo’s capital improvements infrastructure and facility needs for transportation, parks
and recreation, general government, and public safety; and
WHEREAS, new development generally increases the demand for capital infrastructure
improvements and facilities and affect the quality of the community’s infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, the public interest, convenience, health, safety and/or welfare require that
fire, parks and recreation, police, and transportation infrastructure be provided for the maintenance
and enhancement of the quality of life of the City’s residents; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has a critical need to ensure that impacts from
new development to transportation, fire, parks and recreation, police, and general government
(hereinafter defined as “capital improvements”) are addressed, and development impact fees are a
commonly-used mechanism to address this need; and
WHEREAS, Article XI, Section 5 of the California Constitution provides that the City, as
a home rule charter city, has the power to make and enforce all ordinances and regulations in
respect to municipal affairs, and Article XI, Section 7, empowers the City to enact measures that
protect the health, safety, and/or welfare of its residents; and
WHEREAS, Section 203 of the San Luis Obispo City Charter provides that the City has
the right and power to make and enforce all laws and regulations in respect to municipal affairs ;
and
WHEREAS, the Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600), codified in California Government Code
Sections 66000-66025, establishes the legal requirements for a jurisdiction to implement a
development impact fee program in conformance with constitutional standards; and
WHEREAS, many cities and counties have adopted and imposed capital improvement
impact fees on new development to ensure that impacts from new development are addressed; and
WHEREAS, on August 16, 2016, the City Council initiated proceedings to adopt impact
fees by directing staff to prepare a nexus study for development impact fees for transportation,
park and recreation, public safety, and general government capital improvements and identified
and appropriated funding for this purpose; and
Packet Pg 237
11
Ordinance No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 2
O ______
WHEREAS, policies supporting development impact fees for capital improvements are
included in the recently adopted specific plans and related General Plan amendments, for Avila
Ranch, San Luis Ranch, Orcutt Area, Margarita Area, and the Airport Area, as well as the 2014
Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) of the City’s General Plan, the 2015 Housing Element,
and the 2013 Economic Development Strategic Plan; and
WHEREAS, on April 21, 2017, the Community Development Director, on behalf of the
City Manager, further initiated proceedings by to entering into a professional services contract
with Economic Planning Solutions, Inc. (EPS) to conduct a citywide impact fee nexus study and
implementation strategy; and
WHEREAS, EPS has prepared a Nexus Study entitled “Capital Facilities Development
Impact Fee Nexus Study,” for the City of San Luis Obispo, dated March 20, 2018, a copy of which
was previously provided to the City Council and made available to the public; and
WHEREAS, the Nexus Study has documented and confirmed that development in San
Luis Obispo will result in further growth, and that such growth will place additional burdens on
capital improvements infrastructure for transportation, parks and recreation, public safety, and
general government in the City; and
WHEREAS, the Nexus Study further identified the locations and types of development
that will generate those impacts, and thus established the reasonable relationship between the
location and type of development projects paying the fees and the need for capital improv ement
infrastructure for transportation, parks and recreation, public safety, and general government
generated by such development; and
WHEREAS, the Nexus Study provided data outlining the various capital improvement
infrastructure that are required to meet the need generated by new development projects in the
City; and
WHEREAS, it is the City’s policy that new development should contribute its fair share
to capital improvement infrastructure for transportation, parks and recreation, public safety, and
general government through the imposition of impact fees which will be used to finance, defray,
or reimburse the City for the appropriate portion of the cost of capital infrastructure improvements
which serve such development; and
WHEREAS, the Nexus Study established factors that reasonably estimate the level of
impacts on capital improvement infrastructure for transportation, parks and recreation, public
safety, and general government from new development based on the type of development project,
and thus determined that there is a reasonable relationship between the type of development project
paying the fees and the need for capital improvement infrastructure for transportation parks and
recreation, public safety, and general government; and
WHEREAS, the Nexus Study established eligible uses of revenues from capital
improvement infrastructure for transportation, parks and recreation, public safety, and general
government, based on the types of impacts from development projects, and thus determined that
Packet Pg 238
11
Ordinance No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 3
O ______
there is a reasonable relationship between the type of development project paying the fees and the
use of the fee revenues; and
WHEREAS, the Nexus Study applied factors that reasonably estimate the level of
impacts on capital improvement infrastructure for transportation, parks and recreation, public
safety, and general government per unit of development and that vary by the type of development
project, to calculate the fee on a development project, and thus determined that there is a reasonable
relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the capital improvement infrastructure
for transportation, parks and recreation, public safety, and general government fees attributable to
the development project on which the fee is imposed; and
WHEREAS, through the payment of the fee, developers of residential and non-residential
projects will address a portion of the impact of their developments on capital improvement
infrastructure for transportation, parks and recreation, public safety, and general government; and
WHEREAS, impact fees are necessary to maintain an adequate level of capital
improvement infrastructure for transportation, parks and recreation, public safety, and general
government; and
WHEREAS, the proposed impact fees adopted under this Ordinance are lower than the
maximum legal fees documented in the Nexus Study; and
WHEREAS, EPS also studied the economic feasibility of new development in San Luis
Obispo to provide a basis for creating an impact fee program that can be implemented without
adversely affecting San Luis Obispo’s ability to attract new development; and
WHEREAS, the proposed impact fees for capital improvement infrastructure for
transportation, parks and recreation, public safety, and general government balances the need for
such improvements with the goal of not impeding the construction of new development; and
WHEREAS, the City will obtain and allocate funding from various other sources for the
fair share of the costs of improvements identified in the Nexus Study that are not funded by the
impact fees as well as any additional funding required to supplement any policy-based fee
reductions; and
WHEREAS, the capital improvement infrastructure for transportation, parks and
recreation, public safety, and general government fee proposals were discussed in four Developer’s
Roundtable meetings (including June 29, 2017, October 5, 2017, December 11, 2017, and March
1, 2018) which consisted of City staff and a cross section of stakeholders with interest associated
with the impact fee program and such materials were also made available to the public; and
WHEREAS, the capital improvement infrastructure for transportation, parks and
recreation, public safety, and general government fee proposals were discussed at one duly noticed
meeting of the Planning Commission during a study session on October 11, 2017; and
Packet Pg 239
11
Ordinance No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 4
O ______
WHEREAS, the capital improvement infrastructure for transportation, parks and
recreation, public safety, and general government fee proposals were discussed at two duly noticed
meetings of the City Council during study sessions on October 17, 2017 and January 9, 2018; and
WHEREAS, following those study sessions the City Council directed city staff return with
revisions to the impact fees and accompanying legislation; and
WHEREAS, the impact fees were scheduled to be considered at regular, duly noticed
(including newspaper ads published on March 17, 2018 and March 24, 2018) meeting of the City
Council on April 3, 2018; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance was considered, after a duly noticed public hearing, at a
regular meeting of the City Council on April 3, 2018.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows/or that (whatever action is needed):
SECTION 1. Recitals. The recitals contained in this Ordinance are true and correct and
are an integral part of the Council’s decision, and, are hereby adopted as findings.
SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines the
adoption of this Ordinance is (1) not a Project under the California Environmental Quality A ct
“CEQA”) and is therefore exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4); (2)
statutorily exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15273(a)(4) (Rates, Tolls, Fares and
Charges for obtaining funds for capital projects necessary to maintain service within existing
service area); (3) not intended to apply to specific capital improvement projects and as such it is
speculative to evaluate such projects now and any specifically identified transportation projects
were already evaluated under CEQA and imposed as mitigation measures in previously certified
EIRs and /or adopted mitigated negative declarations; and/or (4) not intended to, nor does it,
provide CEQA clearance for future development-related projects by mere payment of the fees.
Each of the foregoing provides a separate and independent basis for CEQA compliance and when
viewed collectively provides an overall basis for CEQA compliance.
SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall be known as the “Capital Facilities Development
Impact Fees Ordinance.”
SECTION 4. Chapter 4.56 of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby
repealed and replaced in its entirety with Exhibit A.
SECTION 5. Severability. If any subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of
this Ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent
jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforcement of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance, or any other provisions of the city' s rules and regulations.
It is the city' s express intent that each remaining portion would have been adopted irrespective of
the fact that any one or more subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared
invalid or unenforceable.
Packet Pg 240
11
Ordinance No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 5
O ______
SECTION 6. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members
voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in The
Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This Ordinance shall go into effect at
the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED on the day of ____, 2018, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council
of the City of San Luis Obispo on the ____ day of ____, 2018, on the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
Acting 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 ______________, _________.
______________________________
Teresa Purrington
Acting City Clerk
Packet Pg 241
11
Ordinance No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 6
O ______
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 4.56 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
Sections:
4.56.010 - Purpose.
The council declares that the fees required to be paid by this chapter are established for the
purpose of protecting the public health, safety and general welfare, and implementing the policies
of the general plan, by providing adequate public facilities to support orderly development.
4.56.020 - Definitions.
Unless otherwise required by the context, the following definitions shall govern the
construction of this chapter:
"Commercial development" means the development or use of land for any retail, office,
service commercial or other business purpose.
"Council" means the city council of the city of San Luis Obispo.
"Development" or "development project" means any project undertaken for the purpose of
development, and includes a project involving the issuance of a permit for construction or
reconstruction, but not a permit to operate. Development or development project shall include: (i)
approvals of land divisions pursuant to Title 16 of this code, including approval of lot line
adjustments, certificates of compliance, parcel maps, tract maps and condominium conversions;
(ii) land use approvals pursuant to Title 17 of this code, including re-zonings or the approval of
development plans, site plans, minor use permits, variances, but excepting approval of San Luis
Obispo general plan/land use ordinance amendments; (iii) For the issuance of any occupancy
permit or final building inspection; and (iv) all other approvals of real property development,
which approvals are subject to the jurisdiction of the city of San Luis Obispo and which approvals
are subject to the exercise of the discretion of the city council, planning commission, or community
development director. For purposes of this chapter, new development includes any change of use
or occupancy which increases the traffic service requirements of a development.
"Dwelling unit" means a structure, or portion of a structure that is used for separate residential
occupancy by an individual, a family or group of unrelated individuals.
"Impact fee" means a monetary exaction charged to the applicant in connection with approval
of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a part of the cost of the public facilities
related to the development project. This definition does not include fees specified in Government
Code Section 66477, or fees for processing applications for permits or approvals.
"Imposition of fees" occurs when they are imposed or levied on a specific development.
Packet Pg 242
11
Ordinance No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 7
O ______
"Multifamily residential development" means development or use of land for residential
purposes involving more than one dwelling unit in a single structure.
"Public facilities" means public improvements, public services or community amenities.
"Single-family residential" means development or use of land for residential purposes
involving no more than one dwelling unit in a single structure.
4.56.030 - Fees—Imposition and application.
This chapter establishes development impact fees which are imposed as a condition of
approval upon all development projects for which a building permit is issued on or after the
effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter. Those impact fees are established for the
following public facilities:
A. General Government Impact Fee;
B. Fire Impact Fee
C. Parkland In-Lieu Fee;
D. Parks and Recreation Development Impact Fee;
E. Police Impact Fee; and
F. Transportation Impact Fee.
Water and wastewater impact fees shall be governed by Title 13. These impact fees are
established in order to pay for the capital costs of public facilities reasonably related to the needs
of new development in the city. At least once every five years, the council shall review the basis
for the impact fees to determine whether the fees are still reasonably related to the needs of new
development. In establishing these fees, the council has considered the effect of the fees with
respect to the city's housing needs as established in the housing element of the general plan.
4.56.040 - Fees to be set by resolution.
The amount of fee assessments shall be determined by resolution adopted by the city council.
Fees shall be adjusted annually by modifying the adopted value up or down in conformance with
the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index. The factor for the adjustment of the fees
shall be calculated and established each January by the director of financial services, utilizing the
following formula:
Factor =
1 + Current Index - Base Index for Date of Adoption
Base Index for Date of Adoption
4.56.050 - Payment of fees.
Except as otherwise provided in Section 66007 of the Government Code, impact fees shall be
paid to the city at the time a building permit is issued. In cases where payment of all or part of the
required fee is deferred at the time of building permit issuance, the community development
director may require that the applicant, at the applicant's expense, execute a contract with the city
Packet Pg 243
11
Ordinance No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 8
O ______
to pay all deferred impact fees prior to final inspection and/or issuance of a certificate of occupancy
for the project. The contract shall specify the amount of the unpaid fee and a legal description of
the property affected. It shall be recorded in the office of the county recorder and shall constitute
a lien for the payment of the fees, which shall be enforceable against the successors in interest of
the property owner. When impact fees are paid in full, the city, at the expense of the applicant or
property owner, shall execute a release of any lien securing those impact fees.
4.56.060 - Protests.
Any party subject to the fees established by this chapter may protest the imposition of those
fees by meeting all of the following requirements:
A. Tendering any required payment in full or providing satisfactory evidence of
arrangements to pay the fee when due or ensure performance of the conditions necessary
to meet the requirements of the imposition of the fee.
B. Serving written notice of protest on the city council which notice shall contain all of the
following information:
1. A statement that the required payment is tendered, or will be tendered when due,
under protest;
2. A statement informing the city council of the factual elements of the dispute and the
legal theory forming the basis for the protest.
C. Serving the written notice of protest, no later than ninety (90) days after the date of the
imposition of the fees.
The city council shall consider that protest at a hearing to be held within sixty (60) days after
serving the written notice of protest. The decision of the city council shall be final.
4.56.070 - Exemptions.
The fees imposed under this chapter shall not apply to the following:
A. The United States or to any agency or instrumentality thereof, the state of California or
any county or other political subdivision of the state of California;
B. Remodeling or alteration of an existing residential building, but only if the number of
dwelling units is not increased or the use changed;
C. That portion of a structure that existed before the addition of dwelling units or the
enlargement of floor area in a nonresidential structure. If a structure is destroyed or
demolished and replaced within two years from the date of demolition, the impact fees
shall be based on the service requirements of the new development less the service
requirements of the development which it replaced.
4.56.080 - Credits and reimbursement.
If the applicant for approval of any development project is required by the city, as a condition
of approval to construct facilities, the cost of which has been used in the calculation of impact fees
which apply to that project, the applicant may receive a credit against those impact fees, up to the
amount charged for the same type of facility. If the cost of the improvements constructed by the
applicant exceeds the amount of the impact fees charged to the development project for the same
Packet Pg 244
11
Ordinance No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 9
O ______
type of facility, the excess cost may be reimbursed to the applicant from other impact fee revenues
within a reasonable time. To qualify for reimbursement, the applicant must enter into a
reimbursement agreement with the city, and any such agreement must specify the amount to be
reimbursed and the approximate schedule of the reimbursement.
4.56.090 - Disposition and use of fees.
The director of financial services shall establish a separate fund or account for each type of
facility listed in Section 4.56.030. All impact fees collected by the city shall be deposited in the
fund or account established for the specific type of facility for which the fee is collected. Any
interest earned on funds deposited in a fund or account shall be deposited in that fund or account.
Funds deposited in those accounts shall be used only to pay for design an d construction,
including construction administration, of projects identified in resolutions or other formal city
council action adopted pursuant to Section 4.56.030 as the basis for the impact fees, or for
reimbursements as provided in Section 4.56.080.
4.56.100 - Refunds.
If impact fees collected by the city have not been expended or designated for the intended
purpose within five years following their collection, the city shall either refund those fees as
provided in Section 66001 of the Government Code, or make findings as required by that section
to retain the fees. The refund provision of this chapter shall apply only to moneys in possession of
the city and need not be made with respect to any bonds, letters of credit or other items given to
secure payment at a future date.
Packet Pg 245
11
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2018 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING AND ESTABLISHING CAPITAL
FACILITIES FEE, ALSO REFERRED TO AS DEVELOPMENT IMPACT
FEES
WHEREAS, existing local, state and federal resources are insufficient to meet the City of
San Luis Obispo’s capital improvements infrastructure and facility needs for transportation, parks
and recreation, general government, and public safety; and
WHEREAS, new development generally increases the demand for capital infrastructure
improvements and facilities and affect the quality of the community’s infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, the public interest, convenience, health, safety and/or welfare require that
fire, parks and recreation, police, and transportation infrastructure be provided for the maintenance
and enhancement of the quality of life of the City’s residents; and
. WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has a critical need to ensure that impacts from
new development to transportation, fire, parks and recreation, police, and general government
(hereinafter defined as “capital improvements”) are addressed, and development impact fees are a
commonly-used mechanism to address this need; and
WHEREAS, Article XI, Section 5 of the California Constitution provides that the City, as
a home rule charter city, has the power to make and enforce all ordinances and regulations in
respect to municipal affairs, and Article XI, Section 7, empowers the City to enact measures that
protect the health, safety, and/or welfare of its residents; and
WHEREAS, Section 203 of the San Luis Obispo City Charter provides that the City has
the right and power to make and enforce all laws and regulations in respect to municipal affairs;
and
WHEREAS, the Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600), codified in California Government Code
Sections 66000-66025, establishes the legal requirements for a jurisdiction to implement a
development impact fee program in conformance with constitutional standards; and
WHEREAS, many cities and counties have adopted and imposed capital improvement
impact fees on new development to ensure that impacts from new development are addressed; and
WHEREAS, policies supporting development impact fees for capital improvements are
included in the recently adopted specific plans and related General Plan amendments, for Avila
Ranch, San Luis Ranch, Orcutt Area, Margarita Area, and the Airport Area, as well as the 2014
Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) of the City’s General Plan, the 2015 Housing Element,
and the 2013 Economic Development Strategic Plan; and
Packet Pg 246
11
Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 2
WHEREAS, the City Council introduced an Ordinance to establish a Capital Facilities Fee
Program that identified the impact fees that are necessary to maintain an adequate level of capital
improvement infrastructure for transportation, parks and recreation, public safety, and general
government at a duly noticed public hearing, at a regular meeting of the City Council on April 3,
2018; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance #### amending Chapter 4.56 of the
Municipal Code to establish a Capital Facilities Fee Program that identified the impact fees that
are necessary to maintain an adequate level of capital improvement infrastructure for
transportation, parks and recreation, public safety, and general government at a duly noticed public
hearing, at a regular meeting of the City Council on April 17, 2018. The Capital Facilities Fee
Program, as codified in Chapter 4.56, states that the amount of each Capital Facilities Fee be
established by Resolution of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, an analysis of the required Capital Facilities Development Impact Fees to
support the City’s capital improvement infrastructure for transportation parks and recreation,
public safety, and general government was identified in the Capital Facilities Development Impact
Fee Nexus Study, and cost information for capital projects have been completed for the fees
identified as included in the attached Exhibits A and incorporated herein by this reference.
WHEREAS, by this Resolution, the City Council intends on establishing the amount of
such rates and charges.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings
a) The purpose of development impact fees is to protect the public health, safety, and
general welfare by providing adequate transportation, park and recreation, fire,
police, and general government facilities to satisfy the needs of new development
and to mitigate the impacts of new development on the City’s capital facilities and
improvements.
b) The development impact fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used
only to pay for facilities and improvements identified in the development impact
fee analysis and shall not be in lieu of any other fee or tax as may be required by
the Municipal Code.
c) There is a reasonable relationship between the types of development on which the
development impact fees are imposed and the use of the development impact fees
and the need for the facilities and improvements. All new development requires
adequate water supply, treatment and distribution as well as wastewater collection
and treatment facilities to protect the public health and safety.
d) As required by Government Code Section 66001 et seq., there is a reasonable
relationship between the amount of the development impact fee and the cost of the
facilities and improvements attributable to the developments on which the
development impact fees are imposed. The estimated costs of facilities and
Packet Pg 247
11
Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 3
improvements, including financing costs, to be paid for as shown in the Capital
Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study, for the City of San Luis Obispo,
dated March 20, 2018 2018, prepared by Economic Planning Systems, Inc. the
findings and analysis of which are hereby incorporated by reference, have been
allocated to new development.
SECTION 2. Cost Estimates. At any time that the actual or estimated costs of facilities
identified in the development impact fee analysis changes, the Finance Director shall review the
development impact fee and determine whether the change affects the amount of the development
impact fees. If the development impact fees are significantly affected, the Finance Director shall,
within thirty (30) days, recommend to the Council a revised fee for their consideration.
SECTION 3. Amount of Development Impact Fees. Effective July 1, 2018, development
impact fees for capital improvement infrastructure associated with transportation, parks and
recreation, public safety, and general government shall be in the amounts set forth in Exhibits A
and B attached hereto. Unless otherwise acted upon by the Council, the amount of the development
impact fees will automatically be adjusted on July 1 of each subsequent year by the Municipal
Cost Index for the prior year.
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:
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
Acting City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
Packet Pg 248
11
Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 4
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 ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
Acting City Clerk
Packet Pg 249
11
Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 5
EXHIBIT A
CAPITAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
Effective July 1, 2018
Packet Pg 250
11
Public Review Draft Report
Capital Facilities Development
Impact Fee Nexus Study
Prepared for:
City of San Luis Obispo
Prepared by:
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
March 20, 2018
EPS #161187
Packet Pg 251
11
Table of Contents (continued)
1. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW ................................................................................. 1
Background .............................................................................................................. 1
Legal Context ........................................................................................................... 2
Summary of Maximum Fees ....................................................................................... 3
CFF Implementation .................................................................................................. 6
Organization of Report ............................................................................................... 7
2. DEMOGRAPHIC AND LAND USE FORECASTS .................................................................... 8
Growth through 2035 ................................................................................................ 8
Development Capacity ............................................................................................. 11
Changes in Growth Forecasts/Development Capacity ................................................... 12
3. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE ................................................................................ 14
Mitigation Fee Act Nexus Findings ............................................................................. 14
Background ............................................................................................................ 15
Geography of Transportation Fee Program ................................................................. 16
Land Use Categories and Growth Assumptions ............................................................ 17
Transportation Improvements and Cost Estimates ...................................................... 19
Fee Calculation ....................................................................................................... 21
4. PARKLAND IN-LIEU FEE AND PARKS AND RECREATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ..................... 28
Service Standards and Cost Estimates ....................................................................... 28
Park In-Lieu Fee ..................................................................................................... 31
Mitigation Fee Act Nexus Findings ............................................................................. 32
Impact Fee Technical Analysis .................................................................................. 33
Combined Schedule of Park Fees .............................................................................. 37
5. GENERAL GOVERNMENT IMPACT FEE ......................................................................... 39
Mitigation Fee Act Nexus Findings ............................................................................. 39
Service Standards and Cost Assumptions ................................................................... 39
Cost Allocation and Fee Calculations .......................................................................... 40
6. POLICE IMPACT FEE ............................................................................................. 43
Mitigation Fee Act Nexus Findings ............................................................................. 43
Capital Improvements and Cost Estimates ................................................................. 43
Cost Allocation ........................................................................................................ 45
Fee Calculation ....................................................................................................... 46
Packet Pg 252
11
Table of Contents
7. FIRE IMPACT FEE ................................................................................................ 49
Mitigation Fee Act Nexus Findings ............................................................................. 49
Capital Improvements and Cost Estimates ................................................................. 50
Cost Allocation ........................................................................................................ 52
Fee Calculation ....................................................................................................... 53
8. IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF CFF ........................................................... 55
Fee Collection and Amount ....................................................................................... 55
Annual Review, Accounting, and Updates ................................................................... 56
Securing Supplemental Funding ................................................................................ 57
Appendices
APPENDIX A: Transportation Impact Fee Improvement List and Cost Allocation
Packet Pg 253
11
List of Tables (continued)
Table 1 Maximum CFF Program Fee Schedule .................................................................. 4
Table 2 Population, Jobs and Service Population ............................................................... 9
Table 3 Population and Employment Densities ................................................................ 11
Table 4 Development Capacity in City Transportation Model............................................. 12
Table 5 Land Use Category Descriptions ........................................................................ 13
Table 6 Land Use Category Definitions .......................................................................... 18
Table 7 Summary of Types of Transportation Improvements and Costs ............................. 19
Table 8 Summary of Cost Allocations ............................................................................ 20
Table 9 Citywide Growth Projections ............................................................................. 23
Table 10 Citywide Trip Generation .................................................................................. 24
Table 11 Average Cost per Trip ...................................................................................... 25
Table 12 Trip Generation Rates and Components of Maximum Fee Calculations.................... 26
Table 13 Summary of Maximum Citywide Transportation Fees ........................................... 27
Table 14 Current Parkland and Recreation Facilities Land .................................................. 29
Table 15 Effective Parks Standards ................................................................................. 30
Table 16 Maximum Park In-Lieu Fees ............................................................................. 32
Table 17 Parkland and Improvements Cost Multiplier ........................................................ 34
Table 18 Service Population Generation by Land Use ........................................................ 35
Table 19 Maximum Parks Development Impact Fees by Land Use ....................................... 36
Table 20 Parkland In-Lieu/Parks Development Impact Fee Combined Schedule .................... 38
Table 21 General Government Cost Estimates and New Growth Allocation ........................... 40
Table 22 General Government Facilities Fee Calculation .................................................... 41
Table 23 New Police Vehicle Cost Estimates ..................................................................... 44
Table 24 Police Headquarter Cost Estimate ...................................................................... 45
Table 25 Total Police Capital Costs ................................................................................. 45
Table 26 Police Capital Improvement Cost Allocations ....................................................... 46
Table 27 Police Services Facilities Fee Calculation ............................................................. 48
Packet Pg 254
11
List of Tables
Table 28 Fire Station Improvements and Estimated Costs ................................................. 50
Table 29 Fire Services Vehicles, Equipment, and Estimated Costs ....................................... 51
Table 30 Fire Improvement/Vehicle Replacement Costs .................................................... 52
Table 31 Fire Costs and Cost Allocation ........................................................................... 53
Table 32 Fire Services Facilities Fee Calculation ............................................................... 54
List of Figures
Figure 1 Map of Current Transportation Fee Subareas ...................................................... 15
Figure 2 Revised Geographic Areas of Updated Transportation Fee Program ........................ 16
Figure 3 Allocation to New Development ......................................................................... 21
Packet Pg 255
11
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
1. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
This Capital Facilities Fee (CFF) nexus study (Study) provides the City of San Luis Obispo with
the necessary technical documentation to support the potential adoption of updated
transportation and parks impact fees and new general government, police, and fire impact fees.
Consistent with City policy, the fee programs will help ensure that new development contributes
its fair share to needed infrastructure and public facilities, helping to sustain the City’s quality of
life and economic vitality as growth occurs.
Background
This CFF study is a key implementation action of the 2014 Land Use and Circulation Element
General Plan Update and is guided by General Plan Policy 1.13.9, which requires that new
development pays its proportionate share of infrastructure costs. The Study also builds off the
City’s Economic Development Strategic Plan and four prior study sessions held with the City
Council to discuss policies and practices for infrastructure financing.
Over the last 30 years, the changing fiscal situation in California has steadily under-funded local
infrastructure. Accordingly, many cities have adopted a policy of “growth pays its own way,”
requiring new development to fund infrastructure expansion through the imposition of capital
facilities fees, also known as development impact fees. The adoption of a revised CFF program
and the careful investment of development impact fee revenues along with other local, State,
and federal sources of infrastructure and capital facilities funding will serve as an important
stimulus for economic development, providing certainty to developers about the rules and
financial obligations they will face while ensuring that adequate infrastructure will be available to
support growth and enhance competitiveness.
The City of San Luis Obispo currently has established transportation and parks programs with
fees that vary by geographic subarea of the City. While the current configuration of the existing
development impact fee programs has served an important role in funding infrastructure
improvements throughout the City over the last twenty years, changing economic circumstances
and infrastructure needs, new Specific Plans, and the City’s recently adopted public financing
policies warrant an update of these programs. The City also charges other impact fees and in-
lieu fees on a Citywide and/or Specific/Master Plan Area basis that are not evaluated in this
Study, but are relevant when development feasibility and other policy issues are considered in
establishing a recommended set of fees.1
This Study has been prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) under the
management of the Community Development Department and based on significant input from
the Public Works, Parks and Recreation, Utilities, Police and Fire Departments, input from
stakeholders, and direction from City Council. The City Council will determine the preferred CFF
1 For example, water, wastewater, affordable housing, and public art fees. New development is also
subject to school district capital facilities fees. The water and wastewater development impact fees
are being updated through a separate study.
Packet Pg 256
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 2 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
levels, including fees potentially below their maximum, justifiable levels, based on a range of
policy considerations.
Legal Context
Consistent with General Plan policy, this Study provides the necessary technical analysis to
support a new schedule of development impact fees up to the calculated justifiable maximum to
be established by Impact Fee Ordinance and Resolution and an updated Parkland Dedication
Ordinance. Fees evaluated include an update to transportation and parks fees and new police,
fire, and general government fees. Collectively, these individual fee programs are referred to as
the Capital Facilities Fee Program.
The City currently has an impact fee ordinance that enables the collection of fees for capital
facilities, pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act and Government Code Section 66000 et seq. The
Mitigation Fee Act sets forth the procedural requirements for establishing and collecting
development impact fees. These procedures require that "a reasonable relationship, or nexus,
must exist between a governmental exaction and the purpose of the condition." The updated
and new fees described in this Study are consistent with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee
Act (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) and the most recent relevant case law. The
updated parkland in-lieu fees are consistent with the Quimby Act (Government Code Section
66477).
The key requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act that determine the structure, scope and amount
of the potential CFF Program are as follows:
Collected for Capital Facility and Infrastructure Improvements Only. Development
impact fee revenue can be collected and used to cover the cost of capital facilities and
infrastructure that are required to serve new development in the City. Impact fee revenue
cannot be used to cover the operation and maintenance costs of these or any other facilities
and infrastructure.
Used to Fund Facility Needs Created by New Development Rather than Existing
Deficiencies. Impact fee revenues can only be used to pay for new or expanded capital
facilities needed to accommodate growth. Impact fee revenue cannot be collected or used to
cover the cost of existing deficiencies in the City’s capital facilities or infrastructure. In other
words, the cost of capital projects or facilities that are designed to meet the needs of the
City’s existing population must be funded through other sources. The costs associated with
improvements that serve the needs of both new development and the existing population
and employment are split on a “fair share” basis according to the proportion attributable to
each. Thus, the CFF Program funding will need to be augmented by the City and other
revenue sources to meet overall funding requirements.
Fee Amount Must Be Based on A Rational Nexus. The amount of an impact fee must be
based on a reasonable nexus, or connection, between new development and the needs and
corresponding costs of the capital facilities and improvements need to accommodate it. As
such, an impact fee must be supported by specific findings that explain or demonstrate this
nexus or relationship. In addition, the impact fee amount must be structured such that the
revenue generated does not exceed the cost of providing the facility or improvement for
which the fee is imposed.
Packet Pg 257
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 3 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
Summary of Maximum Fees
Based on the capital facilities needed to serve future development in the City of San Luis Obispo,
the associated portion of costs that can be allocated to new development, and the proportionate
allocation between different land uses, Table 1 presents the maximum Capital Facilities Fees
that can charged to new development to fund transportation, parks, general government, police,
and fire improvements. The provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act allow jurisdictions to include the
costs of administering the impact fee program in the maximum fee. Administration requirements
include collecting and allocating impact fee revenue, record keeping and reporting of fund
activity, and periodic updates to the fee program. This analysis assumes that administrative
costs will equal 1.75 percent of the total fee program cost.2
The CFF revenues generated by the maximum fee schedule would cover new developments’
share of the infrastructure and improvement needs associated with new development and not
funded by direct developer contributions. The derivation of the maximum fees is provided in the
subsequent chapters, though a brief summary of the planned use of fee revenues is provided
below. As discussed in a subsequent section, to the extent fees are adopted at below their
maximum levels, the requirement for funding from other sources would increase.
Transportation Improvements. The updated transportation component of the CFF would
fund needed additions and improvements to roadways to accommodate future trip generation
projected as a result of new development. Improvements include new interchange
improvements, new intersections and signalizations, new roadways and roadway
improvements, new bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and multimodal facilities, among
others. Under the maximum fee schedule, about $135.9 million in 2018 dollars would be
generated for transportation improvement investments through buildout of the General Plan.
Parkland Acquisition and Parks and Recreation Facilities. The updated Citywide
parkland in-lieu fee and new parks and recreation development impact fees would be used to
acquire parkland consistent with the City’s parkland service standards and to improve new
and existing parks to meet the demand of future residential growth in the City. These
updated/ new park fees will not apply to all areas in the City, so the additional fee revenues
are dependent on the geographic location of new development. For example, all new
development under the MASP and OASP will continue to be subject to the existing,
established standards/ requirements of those Specific Plans. In addition, the Avila Ranch and
San Luis Ranch requirements are/ will be addressed in their respective Development
Agreements.
2 The administrative add-on to the maximum development impact fees varies among California
jurisdictions. Where included, the addition is typically between 1.0 and 3.0 percent. This CFF
Program applies a 1.75 percent factor, in the middle of the range, and below the City’s 2.65 percent
building and planning cost for services fee.
Packet Pg 258
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx Table 1 Maximum CFF Program Fee Schedule GeneralLand Use Transportation (1) Parks (2) Government Police FireResidential Single Family (per Unit) $9,828 $6,030 $690 $1,448 $569$18,566 $18,891Multifamily (per Unit) $7,636 $3,530 $497 $1,043 $410$13,116 $13,345Non-Residential Office (per Sq.Ft.) $11.16 $3.25 $0.46 $0.96 $0.38$16.21 $16.50Service (per Sq.Ft.) $11.16 $1.77 $0.25 $0.52 $0.21$13.92 $14.16Retail (per Sq.Ft.) $34.45 $1.77 $0.25 $0.52 $0.21$37.20 $37.85Industrial (per Sq.Ft.) $6.86 $1.30 $0.18 $0.38 $0.15$8.88 $9.03Institutional (per Sq.Ft.) (4) $11.16 $1.77 $0.25 $0.52 $0.21$13.92 $14.16Lodging (per Room) $9,913 $976 $137 $288 $113$11,428 $11,628(3) Reflects maximum fee calculations described in Chapters 3 – 7 with an additional 1.75 percent administrative fee.(4) Represents maximum justifiable fees under the Mitigation Fee Act. Whether fees are charged may be affected by other legal and policy considerations.Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.TotalMaximum FeeMaximum Fee w/ Admin. (3)(1) The transportation fee represents the maximum citywide transportation development fee that applies in most areas of the City. The exceptions are in the LOVR fee subarea and the SLR area where reduced Citywide fees apply. See Chapter 3 for the full set of maximum fees by area.(2) The parks fees shown for multifamily development reflect maximum fees on multifamily apartments. Parks fees on multifamily condominium developments are different as described in Chapter 4. These park fees do not apply in the MASP, OASP, Avila Ranch, San Luis Ranch areas. Park fees include both Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act fee components which will need to be tracked separately. Packet Pg 25911
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 5 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx Packet Pg 26011
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
General Government/City Administrative Facilities. The general government
component of the CFF would help fund the expansion and addition of administrative facilities.
Based on the forecasts of new development through 2035, fee revenues under the maximum
fee schedule would total $4.3 million in 2018 dollars.
Police Service Facilities and Equipment. The new police component of the CFF would help
fund construction of a new police headquarters facility and the purchase of police-related
equipment to serve new development in the City of San Luis Obispo. Based on the forecasts
of new development through 2035, fee revenues under the maximum fee schedule would
total $8.9 million in 2018 dollars.
Fire Service Facilities and Equipment. The new fire component of the CFF would help
fund construction of a new fire station which will benefit the system as a whole, as well as
the purchase of related fire protection vehicles and equipment to serve new development in
the City of San Luis Obispo. Based on the forecasts of new development through 2035, fee
revenues under the maximum fee schedule would total $3.5 million in 2018 dollars.
CFF Implementation
Fee Schedule Determination
This Study provides the City of San Luis Obispo with the necessary technical documentation to
support the adoption of updated transportation and parks impact fees and new general
government, police, and fire impact fees at the maximum levels shown. The City Council can
choose to adopt fees below these maximum levels. In cases where the maximum fee calculation
is informed by a capital improvement list – for example, transportation, police, and fire – the
adoption of fees below the maximum level requires the City to “backfill” with additional funding
from other sources. This is in addition to the funding required from other funding sources that
will be required to fund the portions of the capital improvement costs that cannot be allocated to
new development.
As discussed in the City Council Study Sessions, there are several economic and policy reasons
why a City might choose to adopt fees below the maximum level.3 One common reason relates
to concerns over development feasibility, where substantial increases in development impact
fees are expected to substantially reduce the feasibility of new development and/or create
substantial disincentives to the types of development that City policy is explicitly seeking to
encourage. The City’s current fee program includes such policy discounts – specifically a 50
percent discount in the retail and hotel transportation development impact fees.
As discussed in the City Council Study Sessions, it is the cumulative set of development fees that
is important to development feasibility (along with real estate market conditions and other
development costs), not just individual fee components. As a result, the collective fee burdens
were considered as part of the development feasibility analysis. This analysis, in addition to
3 When there is concern about fee levels, the first step is to consider the capital improvements lists
that drive the maximum fee levels, where applicable, and ensure all improvements are necessary.
Once the City staff determined that all improvements were required, policy-based discounts are
considered, recognizing the need to “backfill” funding.
Packet Pg 261
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 7 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
stakeholder input, identified potential feasibility concerns around small single family detached
homes and non-residential development, including, but not limited to, retail, industrial, and
service uses.4
Fee Adoption and Implementation
Once selected, the preferred CFF program and fee schedule will be adopted through Ordinance
and Resolution. The new Ordinance will address the primary implementation and administrative
issues and procedures associated with the CFF. Then actual fee levels will be set by Resolution.
The Resolution approach to setting the fee allows periodic adjustments of the fee amount that
may be necessary over time, without amending the enabling Ordinance. A list of the key
implementation and administrative elements as required by Mitigation Fee Act are addressed in
Chapter 8.
Organization of Report
The report is divided into eight chapters, the first of which is this Introduction and Overview.
Chapter 2 provides a summary of the demographic and land use forecasts. Chapters 3 through
7 describe the capital improvements, costs of those improvements and the cost allocation for
transportation, parks, general government, police, and fire facilities. These chapters also
provided the required nexus findings. Key implementation and administrative elements as
required by Mitigation Fee Act are addressed in Chapter 8.
4 Fee comparisons with peer/neighboring jurisdictions also provide insights into potential economic
development implications of new fee levels. A fee comparison was provided as part of the City Council
Study Sessions.
Packet Pg 262
11
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 8 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
2. DEMOGRAPHIC AND LAND USE FORECASTS
This Chapter describes the demographic and land use assumptions utilized in this Study that are
an important driver of the maximum development impact fee estimates. The estimates are used
for the following primary purposes in the fee calculations:
Estimates of existing population and employment levels are used to determine existing,
effective service standards for specific capital improvement categories.
Estimates of future population and employment growth in the City inform the determination
of the future need for specified capital facilities which can be appropriately funded by the fee.
Estimates related to population and employment density (e.g., persons per housing unit or
employees per square foot) are used to allocate costs between land uses.
This Chapter is divided into two main sections as the timeframe used for the transportation
impact fee calculations is different than the timeframe used for the general government, police,
fire, and parks and recreation fee calculations. As described in more detail below, the non-
transportation development impact fees focus on the period through 2035 and are tied to the
General Plan’s growth policies on housing unit/population growth and associated expectations
concerning the relationship between population and job growth. The transportation development
impact fees are tied to City’s transportation model which considers development capacity in the
City under the City’s General Plan. The development capacity provides more growth potential
than the 2035 forecasts and would be built out over a longer, but uncertain timeframe.
The use of different timeframes is reasonable as long as the capital improvements included in the
development impact fee calculations are specifically tied to the growth forecasts/capacities used.
In other words, the non-transportation development impact fees should only consider the capital
improvements required to serve new development through 2035, while the transportation
development impact fees should consider the transportation improvements required to serve new
development through the buildout of the City’s development capacity.
Growth through 2035
The development impact fee calculations for general government, police, fire, and parks and
recreation (as well as the park in-lieu fee) are all driven, in part, by: (1) estimates of current
population, jobs, and service population; (2) the forecast of future population, jobs, and service
population through 2035; and (3) assumed population and employment densities.5 Table 2
shows the 2017 (current) estimates, the forecasted 2035 estimates, and the associated new
growth. Table 3 indicates the population density (persons per housing unit) and employment
5 Service population is a weighted blend of population and jobs. In this case, it weights population at
1.0 and jobs at 0.5. As a metric of capital facilities demand, it effectively gives residents twice the
weight of workers.
Packet Pg 263
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
densities (jobs per 1,000 square feet). The estimates shown in Tables 2 and 3 are described
below along with their sources.
Table 2 Population, Jobs and Service Population
Housing Units
The 2017 City housing unit count is reported as 21,140 housing units by the California
Department of Finance. The City’s Land Use and Circulation Element of its General Plan (LUCE)
states that “the City shall manage the growth of the city’s housing supply so that it does not
exceed one percent per year on average”. This growth limit was articulated as starting in 2013
and allows for a total housing unit count of 25,762 units in 2035. As a result, there is a
forecasted growth of 4,622 housing units between 2017 and 2035 at an average annual rate of
1.1 percent. This represents an increase of 21.9 percent in housing units through 2035.
Population
The 2017 City population is reported as 46,724 persons by the California Department of Finance.
As noted above, the City’s Land Use and Circulation Element of its General Plan (LUCE) states
that “the City shall manage the growth of the city’s housing supply so that it does not exceed
one percent per year on average” and the LUCE provides the limits on the number of persons as
well as the number of housing units that limits population growth to one percent per year. This
growth limit was articulated as starting in 2013 and allows for a total population count of 56,686
residents in 2035. As a result, there is a forecasted growth of 9,962 residents between 2017
and 2035 at an average annual rate of 1.1 percent. This represents an increase of 21.3 percent
in population/residents through 2035.
Increase
Item 2017 2035 Growth over 2017
Housing Units 21,140 25,762 4,622 21.9%
Population 46,724 56,686 9,962 21.3%
Jobs 52,092 63,199 11,107 21.3%
Service Population (1) 72,770 88,286 15,516 21.3%
(1) Service population is a blended measure of population and jobs that assigns a lower weighting to jobs
due to the lower capital facilities demands of workers relative to residents. For the purposes of this
analysis, residents are given a 1.0 service population weighting and jobs/ workers a 0.5 weighting.
Sources: California Department of Finance; City of San Luis Obispo Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE);
LUCE Fiscal Impact Analysis and Public Financing Plan; U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey;
City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Packet Pg 264
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
Jobs
There is more uncertainty over the level of job growth between 2017 and 2035. The LUCE Fiscal
Impact Analysis and Public Facilities Financing Plan indicated a potential increase of 13,967 jobs
between 2014 and 2035, while SLOCOG provided a range of forecasts indicating a range of
additional jobs from 3,733 to 9,548 between 2015 and 2035. City Community Development staff
indicated that in recent years, job growth has outpaced population growth, while the LUCE
indicates that “the Council shall consider establishing limits for the rate of non-residential
development if the increase in non-residential floor area for any given five-year period exceeds
five percent”. Based on recent trends and City policy, it was assumed that the pace of job
growth would be the same as the rate of population growth (1.1 percent) between 2017 and
2035. The 2017 job count of 52,092 was based on a modest increase over the SLOCOG job
estimate for 2015. The 2035 job count was then estimated at 63,199, representing a growth of
11,107 between 2017 and 2035. This represents an increase of 21.3 percent in jobs through
2035.
Service Population
The service population represents a combined weighting of population and jobs. This measure
allows for allocations of demand for capital facilities across residential and non-residential land
uses. A common basic approach used in development impact fees in California is to give new
employment/jobs half the weight of a new resident. In other words, it is assumed that residents,
because they are in the City for larger portions of their days, will generate twice the demand for
capital facilities (police, fire, parks, city administration) than workers. As a result, service
population is calculated by giving residents a weighting of 1.0 and workers a weighting of 0.5.
As shown in Table 2, the 2017 service population estimate is 72,770 and the 2035 service
population is 88,286. This represents an increase of 15,516 in service population or 21.3
percent.
Population Density
When the LUCE-allowed population and housing unit growth are considered in conjunction with
the City’s current housing occupancy rate of 92.5 percent6 and the ratio between single family
and multifamily population density in the City7, the resulting persons per housing unit estimates
are 2.51 persons per single family unit and 1.81 persons per multifamily unit (see Table 3).
Employment Density
The gross building square feet of workspace required on average to accommodate jobs in
different land use categories was identified in the LUCE Fiscal Impact Analysis and the Public
Financing Plan. These estimates are generally consistent with employment densities used in
other studies and are reflected in Table 3. As shown, the average square feet required per job
ranges from 300 square feet on average for office development to 750 square feet on average
for industrial development. Stated in another way, office developments are assumed to have the
highest employment density with about 3.3 jobs per 1,000 square feet relative to 1.33 jobs per
6 California Department of Finance
7 US Census American Community Survey
Packet Pg 265
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 11 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
1,000 square feet of industrial development. The LUCE analysis did not provide specific
employment densities for service and institutional land uses, which are assumed to be consistent
with the employment density for retail development for the purposes of this analysis.
Table 3 Population and Employment Densities
Development Capacity
The development impact fee calculations for transportation facilities are driven by a different set
of future development forecasts that are tied to the City’s development capacity. The
development capacity encompasses a larger amount of overall development as it is not
constrained to the 2035 time horizon, but considers the overall amount of development that
could occur through buildout of the existing development capacity under the current General
Plan.8 Development capacity was used for the transportation impact fee for consistency
purposes, as this is the growth forecast incorporated into the City’s transportation model which is
a key determinant of other components of the transportation impact fee calculation.
8 City staff has made adjustments to the development capacity estimates to include major
development projects in the pipeline such as Avila Ranch, Froom Ranch, and San Luis Ranch.
Item
Residential (1)
Single Family Units 2.51 persons per housing unit
Multifamily Units 1.81 persons per housing unit
Non-Residential (2)
Office 300 gross building square feet/ employee
Retail 550 gross building square feet/ employee
Industrial 750 gross building square feet/ employee
Institutional 550 gross building square feet/ employee
Service 550 gross building square feet/ employee
Lodging 1.0 lodging rooms/ employee
(1) Derived from LUCE, California Department of Finance, and U.S. Bureau data.
(2) From the LUCE Fiscal Impact Analysis and Public Financing Plan, except for
Institutional and Service uses which assume the same employment density as Retail.
Sources: California Department of Finance; City of San Luis Obispo LUCE; LUCE Fiscal Impact Analysis;
U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey; City of San Luis Obispo Community Development
Department; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Density
Packet Pg 266
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 12 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
City Public Works/Transportation staff provided the existing development, the capacity buildout
development, and associated level of future development capacity included in the City’s
transportation model (see Table 4).
Table 4 Development Capacity in City Transportation Model
As shown in Table 4, there is substantial capacity for new single family, multifamily, office,
services, and retail development. Industrial and institutional development capacity is more
modest. There is also capacity for a number of new hotels, including in the Downtown area and
elsewhere. As expected, development capacity is higher than the forecasted development
through 2035 (see Table 2). For example, there is a total development capacity of 6,136 new
housing units compared to an estimated potential growth of 4,622 units through 2035.
Table 5 provides the definitions of the different land uses associated with the City’s development
capacity estimates. These are the same definitions applied to the other development impact
fees, except where specifically noted.
Changes in Growth Forecasts/Development Capacity
Over time, it may become apparent that the growth forecasts through 2035 and the
development capacity estimates require refinement. Business and real estate market cycles,
growth management policies, and changes in land use designations could all affect the
expected/potential level of growth and development. Consistent with other development impact
fee programs, these changes are captured in the periodic updates to Capital Facilities Fee
Programs that support a re-calibration of fee program assumptions as conditions change over
time.
Land Use Existing Growth Buildout % Growth
Residential (Dwelling Units)
Single Family 8,289 3,102 11,391 37%
Multifamily 12,084 3,034 15,118 25%
Total Residential Units 20,373 6,136 26,509 30%
Non-Residential (Sq.Ft.)
Office/Service 2,487,603 3,911,560 6,399,163 157%
Retail 5,290,842 1,043,493 6,334,335 20%
Industrial 2,987,985 115,185 3,103,170 4%
Institutional 340,771 44,439 385,210 13%
Total Non-Residential Sq.Ft.11,107,201 5,114,677 16,221,878 46%
Lodging (Rooms)2,183 651 2,834 30%
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
are greater than the General Plan growth forecasts that focus on potential growth through 2035.
(1) Transportation model growth forecasts based on development capacity. As a result, growth forecasts
Packet Pg 267
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 13 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
Table 5 Land Use Category Descriptions
Land Use Category Description and Examples [1]
Single Family Single family detached dwelling units, single family attached dwelling units
including Townhome-style units. A single Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) is
allowed as part of the construction of a single family home and is not
charged separate impact fees.
Multifamily Multifamily attached dwelling units and mobile homes.
Office Uses include professional services, financial institutions, administration-type
uses, including administration of private-sector utilities, and certain types of
services, such as tax return preparation, advertising agencies, photography
studios, pest control, building maintenance, employment agencies, security
and computer-related services.
Services Uses include offices and clinics of medical and health practitioners, religious
organizations, membership organizations, certain transportation uses,
beauty/barber shops, funeral services, and repair shops.
Retail Uses include regional- and neighborhood-serving retail establishments,
including retail as part of mixed-use developments. Specific uses include
restaurants, gas stations and auto care, movie theaters, fitness facilities,
warehouse stores, department stores, grocery stores, and amusement and
recreation services.
Industrial Uses include construction, manufacturing, and transportation uses, as well
as warehousing and storage. Ancillary office space included as part of
industrial development is included.
Institutional Uses include City, County, and State offices and facilities, health care
facilities such as Mental Health and Public Health services, Social services
such as County Social Services, CA Employment Development and
Rehabilitation, Homeless shelters, and cultural and public recreation
facilities.
Lodging Uses include resorts, hotels, motels, and bed and breakfast inns.
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo Parcel Data SIC Correspondence; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
[1] This table provides a summary only. For more specific direction, refer to the City of San Luis Obispo Parcel Data
SIC Correspondence table.
Packet Pg 268
11
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 14 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
3. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE
This Chapter establishes the maximum transportation impact fees under the Mitigation Fee Act
that could be required of new development in the City of San Luis Obispo. These fees would
represent an update to the existing transportation impact fee programs in the City. The fees will
apply to all new development in the City unless project-specific terms or agreements may apply.
The updated transportation component of the CFF is intended to address the need for
transportation facilities to accommodate new development in the City of San Luis Obispo. These
include multimodal projects such as regional interchanges, intersection improvements, street
widening and extension projects, pedestrian and bicycle improvements, and transit
improvements. As noted previously, it is the City’s policy to ensure that new development pays
for its fair share of the cost of transportation improvements, and the transportation impact fee
program is one of the City’s key strategies for doing so.
Mitigation Fee Act Nexus Findings
Nexus findings are provided below addressing: 1) the purpose of the fee; 2) the specific use of
fee revenue; 3) the relationship between the facility and the type of development; 4) the
relationship between the need for the facility and the type of development; and 5) the
relationship between the amount of the fee and the proportionality of cost specifically
attributable to development. The technical information and calculations provided below support
these nexus findings/requirements.
Purpose
The revenue collected from the transportation fee program will help maintain adequate levels of
transportation service in the City of San Luis Obispo by mitigating the impact that new
development will have on the City’s transportation system.
Use of Fee
Fee revenue will be used to help fund City transportation improvements or the City’s share of
regional improvements, including regional interchanges, intersection improvements, street
widening and extension projects, pedestrian and bicycle improvements, and transit
improvements, as well as the reimbursement of upfront investments from other City funds for
transportation improvements required to serve future growth. A detailed project list is included
in Appendix A of this study.
Relationship
New residential and commercial development in the City of San Luis Obispo will increase the
average number of daily trips in the City, thereby increasing demands for and travel on the City’s
transportation network. Average daily trip data by land use category underscores the relationship
between the type of new development and the needed transportation facilities.
Packet Pg 269
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 15 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
Need
Each new development project will add to the incremental need for transportation capacity and
improvements in the City. The transportation improvements considered in this study are
considered necessary to meet the City's future transportation needs under General Plan buildout.
Proportionality
The maximum fee levels are tied to fair share cost allocations to new development in the City
using the City’s transportation model or proportional growth forecasts as appropriate for each
improvement item.
Background
The City’s existing transportation impact fees include a Citywide transportation fee as well as
fees applicable to sub-areas of the City, which generally correspond to the Specific Plan areas.
The City’s transportation impact fee program was originally established in 1995. In 2006, the
first comprehensive update in over 10 years was completed by MuniFinancial. Apart from annual
adjustments to the fees, the citywide program has not been updated since 2006.
Over the years, the transportation fee evolved into a relatively complex fee program with a
Citywide fee, three subarea fees associated with the different growth areas, and an additional
subarea-fee associated with an individual transportation improvement. A map of the current
transportation subareas is provided as Figure 1. The “Triple Fee Zone” is a geographic subarea
in the City where the Citywide fee, the LOVR subarea fee, and the AASP fee apply to new
development.
Figure 1 Map of Current Transportation Fee Subareas
Packet Pg 270
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 16 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
The variation in fees between geographic subareas, the lack of consistency of land use categories
between subareas, the specifics of the allocations of improvement costs for some improvements,
and lack of clarity in terms of which fees apply have resulted in questions concerning whether
the existing fee program could be improved from administrative efficiency, economic
development, and other perspectives.
In a series of Council study sessions in 2014, the Council directed staff to work with consultants
to update the transportation impact fee, and in so doing, to work towards simplifying the existing
fee programs where possible (e.g., reconcile land use categories, reduce geographic fee level
variations).
Geography of Transportation Fee Program
In response to this direction, this fee update creates a citywide fee geography that subsumes the
Airport Area Specific Plan and Margarita Area Specific Plan subarea transportation impact fee
programs. The Los Osos Valley Road Subarea and the Orcutt Area Specific Plan Subarea remain
in place, such that new development in either of those two areas will pay the appropriate
Citywide fee plus the applicable subarea fee.
Figure 2 below presents the revised geographies associated with the updated transportation fee
program.
Figure 2 Revised Geographic Areas of Updated Transportation Fee Program
Packet Pg 271
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 17 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
Land Use Categories and Growth Assumptions
Within this citywide fee geography, a simplified and consistent set of land use categories was
identified. The land use categories are:
Residential
— Single family
— Multifamily
Non-Residential
— Office/Service
— Retail
— Industrial
— Institutional
— Lodging
For the transportation fee, the “office” and “service” categories are combined due to the
similarity of uses. Examples of types of development anticipated within each of these land use
categories are provided in Table 6.
Packet Pg 272
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 18 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
Table 6 Land Use Category Definitions
Land Use Category Description and Examples [1]
Single Family Single family detached dwelling units, single family attached dwelling units
including Townhome-style units. A single Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) is
allowed as part of the construction of a single family home and is not
charged separate impact fees.
Multifamily Multifamily attached dwelling units and mobile homes.
Office Uses include professional services, financial institutions, administration-type
uses, including administration of private-sector utilities, and certain types of
services, such as tax return preparation, advertising agencies, photography
studios, pest control, building maintenance, employment agencies, security
and computer-related services.
Services Uses include offices and clinics of medical and health practitioners, religious
organizations, membership organizations, certain transportation uses,
beauty/barber shops, funeral services, and repair shops.
Retail Uses include regional- and neighborhood-serving retail establishments,
including retail as part of mixed-use developments. Specific uses include
restaurants, gas stations and auto care, movie theaters, fitness facilities,
warehouse stores, department stores, grocery stores, and amusement and
recreation services.
Industrial Uses include construction, manufacturing, and transportation uses, as well
as warehousing and storage. Ancillary office space included as part of
industrial development is included.
Institutional Uses include City, County, and State offices and facilities, health care
facilities such as Mental Health and Public Health services, Social services
such as County Social Services, CA Employment Development and
Rehabilitation, Homeless shelters, and cultural and public recreation
facilities.
Lodging Uses include resorts, hotels, motels, and bed and breakfast inns.
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo Parcel Data SIC Correspondence; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
[1] This table provides a summary only. For more specific direction, refer to the City of San Luis Obispo Parcel Data
SIC Correspondence table.
Packet Pg 273
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 19 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
Transportation Improvements and Cost Estimates
The improvements that are the basis for the transportation impact fee update are derived from
several sources:
The 2014 Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE)
The City’s existing citywide transportation impact fee program, which was adopted in 2006
The Los Osos Valley Road Subarea Transportation Impact Fee
The Margarita Area Specific Plan Subarea Transportation Impact Fee
The Airport Area Specific Plan Subarea Transportation Impact Fee
The Orcutt Area Specific Plan Subarea Transportation Impact Fee
Total Project Costs
The infrastructure identified in this Study has been identified because the improvements are
necessary to support buildout of the current General Plan, for consistency with General Plan
policy, and/or because there are reimbursement commitments in place. Table 7 provides a
summary of improvements and costs by broad category.
Table 7 Summary of Types of Transportation Improvements and Costs
The detailed project improvement list is provided as Appendix A. The project list was prepared
by City staff and reviewed at the request of Council to make sure the scope of the improvements
is consistent with the amount of development that is expected under General Plan buildout. Full
project cost estimates for each improvement are presented. For regional projects, cost estimates
are prepared by CalTrans; in other cases, cost estimates are provided by developers who will
have responsibility for building the improvements; and still, in other cases, cost estimates are
provided by Wallace Group, a cost estimator consultant to the City. For those projects for which
Improvement Category Cost Percentage
Interchanges $57,660,377 21.2%
Intersection $50,380,000 18.5%
Street Widening $46,371,495 17.1%
Street Extension $53,667,341 19.8%
Pedestrian/ Bicycle $54,166,000 19.9%
Transit $6,500,000 2.4%
Other $2,900,000 1.1%
Total $271,645,214 100.0%
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; Wallace Group; Cambridge Systematics; and
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Packet Pg 274
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 20 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
financing costs are included, those cost estimates were provided by the City’s engineering and
cost consultant. All costs are provided in 2018 dollars. It is important to note that the capital
improvement list represents a current list of transportation improvements for the purposes of the
calculation of the development impact fee and broader financial planning. Over time, as part of
the periodic, formal updates, it is possible that new projects may be added and current projects
modified.
Costs Included in Fee Program
The full project costs associated with each improvement are not necessarily included in the
transportation fee program. For example, for some project-specific improvements that are
adjacent to new development, a portion of the construction cost will be borne by developers with
property fronting or adjacent to the improvement in the form of development exactions. Aside
from developer exactions, funding from other sources is also assumed for certain projects,
including funding from SLOCOG and other grant sources, to the extent these sources are known
at this time. Where other funding sources are available, that available funding is subtracted from
the total project costs and only the balance of the project costs is included in the fee program.
As presented in Table 8, the total cost for all transportation-related improvements is estimated
to be $271.6 million, and the share of this cost that is included in the City’s CFF program is
$216.6 million. For each improvement item, Appendix A provides detailed information of the
costs allocated to the fee program (CFF Cost).
Table 8 Summary of Cost Allocations
Cost Allocation to New Development
The allocation of costs between new and existing development and by land use is a critical
component of the fee nexus analyses. All of the transportation improvements included in the
CFF, listed in Appendix A and summarized in Table 7, will benefit new development in the City.
While each of the improvements on the project list benefits new development in the City to some
degree, in some cases an identified improvement may benefit new development in the larger
region, such as an interchange improvement, and some improvements also may benefit existing
development in the City or the region. To ensure that new development in the City is not paying
on behalf of existing development in the City, future regional development, or to mitigate
existing deficiencies in the transportation network, only the share of costs that is proportionally
Item Amount
Total Transportation Project Costs (Including Financing) $271,645,214
Direct Developer Contribution $31,265,720
Grants/Other Sources $23,800,000
Costs Included in Fee Program $216,579,494
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; Wallace Group; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Packet Pg 275
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 21 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
related to the benefit received by new development is included in the fee program. This detailed
allocation, which varies by improvement, is shown in Appendix A and illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 3 Allocation to New Development
Fee Calculation
The fee calculations are based on an average cost per trip that is the result of dividing the costs
of the improvements that are attributable to new development by the number of average daily
trips (ADT) that are generated by the projected new development. The average cost per trip is
then multiplied by the ADT associated with each land use category to calculate maximum fees by
land use category. These steps are described in more detail below.
Geographic Area Adjustments
Prior to calculating the fees, two geographic area adjustments are made. Due to the pre-existing
Los Osos Valley Road subarea fee which was established in 2003 and which is proposed to
remain in place and due to a direct contribution that the San Luis Ranch development is making
towards the Prado Road interchange, adjustments to the Citywide fee are made for these two
areas to avoid over-charging for the same project costs.
To calculate these adjustments, three steps, labeled A through C, are required:
A. Base Citywide Fee. The base Citywide fee is calculated based on the cost of all
improvements except the Los Osos Valley Road Interchange and the Prado Road Interchange
and using the full growth forecast.
B. Prado Road Interchange Add-on. An adjustment for the San Luis Ranch project is made
because the San Luis Ranch developer has a 28 percent fair share allocation obligation
towards the Highway 101/Prado Road Interchange improvements plus related financing.
Because the developer is paying this obligation directly, the developer should not also pay Total Project Costs $271.6 MillionRegional Funding:
$23.9 Million
Developer Contribution:
$31.3 Million
Grants/Other Sources:
$23.8 Million
Existing Development:
$49.3 Million
New Development:
$143.4 Million
Less Fees Collected:
$135.5 Million
Packet Pg 276
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 22 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
the component of the citywide fee that is attributable to the Prado Road Interchange project.
The San Luis Ranch add-on is calculated based on the cost of the Prado Road Interchange
(net of San Luis Ranch’s direct obligation) and using the Citywide growth forecast less the
development anticipated as part of the San Luis Ranch project. This add-on applies to all new
development in the City except the San Luis Ranch project.
C. Los Osos Valley Road Interchange Add-on. New development in the Los Osos Valley
Road subarea will pay a Citywide fee plus the existing Los Osos Valley Road subarea fee,
which funds a portion of the Highway 101/Los Osos Valley Road Interchange improvements
plus related financing. Therefore, new development in the Los Osos Valley Road subarea
should not pay the LOVR subarea fee plus the component of the citywide fee that is
attributable to the Los Osos Valley Road Interchange improvement. The Los Osos Valley Road
Interchange add-on is calculated based on the cost of the interchange improvement (beyond
the cost that is already the basis of the LOVR subarea fee) and using the citywide growth
forecast less the development anticipated in the Los Osos Valley Road subarea. This add-on
applies to all new development in the City except for new development in the Los Osos Valley
Road subarea.
Citywide Growth Projections and Trip Generation
Citywide growth projections indicate new development of 6,136 residential units, 651 hotel
rooms, and 5.1 million square feet of non-residential uses, as shown on Table 9. Average Daily
Trip (ADT) generation rates were provided by City staff in collaboration with the City’s
transportation consultant and based on trip generation data from the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE). Based on the development forecast assumed in the transportation model,
Citywide growth is forecast to generate 233,000 new trips, consisting of 89,000 new trips
attributable to residential growth and 144,000 new trips attributable to non-residential growth.
Table 10 presents the trip rate estimates by land use category and total trips based on the
growth forecasts.
Packet Pg 277
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 23 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
Table 9 Citywide Growth Projections
Land Use Existing Growth Buildout % Growth
Residential (Dwelling Units)
Single Family 8,289 3,102 11,391 37%
Multifamily 12,084 3,034 15,118 25%
Total Residential Units 20,373 6,136 26,509 30%
Non-Residential (Sq.Ft.)
Office/Service 2,487,603 3,911,560 6,399,163 157%
Retail 5,290,842 1,043,493 6,334,335 20%
Industrial 2,987,985 115,185 3,103,170 4%
Institutional 340,771 44,439 385,210 13%
Total Non-Residential Sq.Ft.11,107,201 5,114,677 16,221,878 46%
Lodging (Rooms)2,183 651 2,834 30%
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
are greater than the General Plan growth forecasts that focus on potential growth through 2035.
(1) Transportation model growth forecasts based on development capacity. As a result, growth forecasts
Packet Pg 278
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 24 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
Table 10 Citywide Trip Generation
Cost per Trip
The cost allocation to new development divided by the total new trips generated by new
development results in average cost per trip of approximately $410 for the Citywide base fee, as
shown on Table 11. The average cost per trip for the Prado Road Interchange is approximately
$136, and the average cost per trip for the Los Osos Valley Road Interchange is approximately
$60.
Land Use Existing Growth
Residential
Single Family 16.24 per unit 134,611 50,376 184,986
Multifamily 12.62 per unit 152,467 38,281 190,748
Subtotal 287,078 88,656 375,735
Non-Residential
Office/Service (1) 18.45 per 1,000 sq.ft. 45,885 72,151 118,036
Retail (2)56.92 per 1,000 sq.ft. 301,140 59,393 360,532
Industrial 11.33 per 1,000 sq.ft. 33,852 1,305 35,157
Institutional (3)18.45 per 1,000 sq.ft. 6,286 820 7,105
Lodging (4)16.38 per room 35,758 10,663 46,421
Subtotal 422,921 144,332 567,252
Total Trips 709,999 232,988 942,987
% of Total Buildout Trips 75.29% 24.71% 100.00%
(1) Trip generation rates based on an average of office and service trip rates provided by the City of San
Luis Obispo.
(2) Trip generation rates based on an average of low and medium retail trip rates provided by the City of
San Luis Obispo.
(3) Trip generation rates based on office/service trip rates provided by the City of San Luis Obispo.
(4) Trip generation rates based on motel trip rates provided by the City of San Luis Obispo.
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Rates Buildout
Trip Generation
Packet Pg 279
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 25 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
Table 11 Average Cost per Trip
Fees by Land Use Category
Using the calculated cost per trip and the average daily trips for each land use category, the
maximum justifiable fees for the Citywide base fee component are calculated and presented in
Table 12. The San Luis Ranch and the Los Osos Valley Road subarea add-ons are shown on the
same table.
In combination, these three steps are the components of the maximum Citywide fees.
Specifically, the maximum Citywide fee is the sum of the base Citywide fee, the Los Osos Valley
Road Interchange add-on, and the Prado Road Interchange add-on (Step A + Step B + Step C).
For new development in the Los Osos Valley Road subarea, the maximum Citywide fee is the
base Citywide fee plus the Prado Road Interchange add-on (Step A + Step B). For the San Luis
Ranch project, the maximum Citywide fee is the sum of the base Citywide fee and the Los Osos
Valley Road Interchange add-on (Step A + Step C). The resulting maximum fees are shown
below in Table 13.
New Trips2 Average Cost
Geography/Improvement Total Costs Net Costs
1 (ADT) per Trip
Citywide Base $103,077,781 $95,480,903 232,988 $409.81
Prado Road Interchange $28,663,545 $28,663,545 211,038 $135.82
Los Osos Valley Road Interchange $11,636,833 $11,636,833 195,346 $59.57
Total $143,378,158 $135,781,280
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Cost Allocations to New
Development
1 Removes existing transportation impact fee fund balances from the total costs allocated to new growth. Latest fee
balances available from City (June 30, 2017) indicate a total fee balance of about $7.6 million, including $6.1 million in
Citywide Transportation Impact Fee fund, $1.1 million in Airport Area Impact Fee Fund, and $417,300 in the Margarita
Area Specific Plan Fund. The fund balance of $129,400 for Los Osos Valley Road is not included.
2 For the Prado Road Interchange, the estimate of new trips is the number of Citywide trips less the trips associated with
the San Luis Ranch project. Similarly, for the Los Osos Valley Road Interchange, the estimated of new trips is the
number of Citywide trips less the trips associated with anticipated new development in the Los Osos Valley Road
subarea.
Packet Pg 280
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 26 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx Table 12 Trip Generation Rates and Components of Maximum Fee Calculations Land UseAverage Cost per TripResidential Single Family 16.24 per unit $6,655.19 per Unit $2,205.71 per Unit $967.41 per UnitMultifamily 12.62 per unit $5,170.70 per Unit $1,713.71 per Unit $751.62 per Unit Non-Residential Office/Service (1) 18.45 per 1,000 sq.ft. $7.56 per Sq.Ft. $2,505.32 per Sq.Ft. $1,098.81 per Sq.Ft.Retail (2) 56.92 per 1,000 sq.ft. $23.33 per Sq.Ft. $7,730.60 per Sq.Ft. $3,390.58 per Sq.Ft.Industrial 11.33 per 1,000 sq.ft. $4.64 per Sq.Ft. $1,538.79 per Sq.Ft. $674.90 per Sq.Ft.Institutional (3) 18.45 per 1,000 sq.ft. $7.56 per Sq.Ft. $2,505.32 per Sq.Ft. $1,098.81 per Sq.Ft.Lodging (4) 16.38 per room $6,712.69 per Room $2,224.76 per Room $975.76 per Room(1) Trip generation rates based on an average of office and service trip rates provided by City staff and Cambridge Systematics.(2) Trip generation rates based on an average of low and medium retail trip rates provided by City staff and Cambridge Systematics.(3) Trip generation rates based on office/service trip rates provided by City staff and Cambridge Systematics.(4) Trip generation rates based on motel trip rates provided by City staff and Cambridge Systematics.Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; Cambridge Systematics; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.Trip (ADT)Generation RatesCitywide Base$409.81Prado Road Add-on$135.82Step A Step B Step CLos Osos Valley Road Interchange Add-on$59.57Packet Pg 28111
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 27 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx Table 13 Summary of Maximum Citywide Transportation Fees Land UseCitywide (1)Los Osos Valley Road Subarea (2)San Luis Ranch Subarea (3)Step A + Step B + Step CStep A + Step BStep A + Step CResidential Single Family (per Unit)$9,828.31$8,860.90$7,622.60Multifamily (per Unit)$7,636.02$6,884.40$5,922.31Non-Residential Office/Service (per Sq.Ft.)$11.16$10.06$8.66Retail (per Sq.Ft.)$34.45$31.06$26.72Industrial (per Sq.Ft.)$6.86$6.18$5.32Institutional (per Sq.Ft.) $11.16$10.06$8.66Lodging (per Room) $9,913.22$8,937.45$7,688.45Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.(1) Schedule of maximum fees to be paid by new development outside of the San Luis Ranch project area and the Los Osos Valley Road subarea.(2) Schedule of maximum fees to be paid by new development in the Los Osos Valley Road subarea. In addition, development in this subarea will pay the existing LOVR subarea fee as well. (3) Schedule of maximum fees to be paid by the San Luis Ranch development. In addition, San Luis Ranch development also pays a direct contribution toward the Prado Road Interchange costs.Packet Pg 28211
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 28 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
4. PARKLAND IN-LIEU FEE AND PARKS AND RECREATION
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
This Chapter establishes the maximum parkland in-lieu fees under the Quimby Act and the
maximum parks and recreation capital facilities fees under the Mitigation Fee Act (parks
development impact fees) that could be required of new development in the City of San Luis
Obispo. These fees would represent an update to the existing parkland in-lieu fees and the
establishment of new parks development impact fees.
Any updated/new adopted fees will apply to all new development (unless particular exceptions
are specified in adoption) in the City, outside of areas with Specific Plans and/or under
Development Agreements that specify different requirements for parkland and park capital
facilities. For example, the Margarita Area Specific Plan, the Orcutt Area Specific Plan, and the
Avila Ranch project within the Airport Area Specific Plan all have specified park requirements
through their Specific Plans or Development Agreements
The City currently has a parkland in-lieu fee established under the Quimby Act (California
Government Code 66477) within the Subdivision Map Act that applies to new single family
developments and multifamily condominium developments in the City of San Luis Obispo. The
parkland in-lieu fees were first established in 1994 and have been updated periodically since.
The City currently has no parks development impact fees under the Mitigation Fee Act (California
Government Code 66000 et seq.). The parks development impact fees could require new rental
multifamily and non-residential development to contribute for their impacts on demand for
parkland and parks and recreation capital facilities as well as for new single family and
condominium development to contribute for its impacts on parks and recreation capital facilities.
The City is embarking on a Citywide Park and Recreation Master Plan that, when completed, will
provide detailed information on the specific investments in new parkland and parks and
recreation facilities that will be undertaken. Once the Master Plan is completed, the new
information developed will be useful to the future update of any adopted parks development
impact fees.
Service Standards and Cost Estimates
The existing, effective park service standards and average parkland and park recreation facilities
costs estimates are important determinants of both the maximum park in-lieu fees and the
maximum park development impact fees. These fee determinants are described below.
Existing Parks Service Standards
For the purpose of both Quimby Act parkland in-lieu fees and Mitigation Fee Act parks and
recreation development impact fees, the City’s existing parks service standard - as defined by
the relationship between the existing inventory of parkland and facilities and the current
population/service population – is important. Table 14 shows the inventory of existing parks
Packet Pg 283
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 29 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
Table 14 Current Parkland and Recreation Facilities Land
Existing Park and Recreation Land * Acreage
Existing Parklands
Damon Garcia Sports Field, Broad @Tank Farm 22.0
Chinese Garden, Santa Rosa @ Marsh 0.3
DeVaul Park , west end of Madonna 0.9
Emerson Park, Nipomo @ Pacific 3.3
French Park, Poinsettia @ Fuller 10.0
Laguna Hills Park, San Andriano Ct.3.2
Demonstration Garden, South @ Broad 0.1
Vista lago Park, Vista del lago 0.2
Stoneridge Park, 535 Bluerock Dr 1.0
Buena Vista Park, Buena Vista Ave.0.5
Sinsheimer Park/ Sports Complex, 900 Southwood 21.7
Mitchell Park, Osos @ Bucheon 3.0
Anholm Park, Mission St 0.1
Throop Park, Cuesta @ Cerro Romauldo 3.0
Santa Rosa Park, Santa Rosa @Oak 11.0
Johnson Park, Augusta 5.0
Meadow Park, South @ Meadow 16.0
Ellsford Park, San Luis Drive near California 1.0
Osos Triangle Park, Osos @ Church 0.2
Las Praderas Park, Las Praderas and Mariposa 0.4
Priolo-Martin Park, Vista del Collados & Vista del Arroyo 0.5
Laguna Lake Park, 500 Madonna Rd 40.0
Jack House Gardens, Marsh @ Beach 0.8
Laguna Lake Golf Course, 11175 LOVR 27.0
Railroad Bike Path, Orcutt to Jennifer 10.0
Poinsettia Creek Walk, Poinsettia @ Rosemary 2.0
Total Existing Parklands 183.2
Existing Recreational Facilities
Rodriguez Adobe, Purple Sage Lane 1.4
Islay Hills Park, Tank Farm @ Orcutt 6.0
Canet Adobe, 464 Dana St.0.5
Mission Plaza, Broad @ Monterey 3.0
Ludwick Center, Santa Rosa @ Mill 1.0
Jack House, 536 Marsh St 0.1
Senior Center, 1445 Santa Rosa St 0.1
Meadow Park Center, 2333 Meadow St 0.1
Total Existing Recreational Facilities 12.2
Total Existing Parklands and Recreational Facilities 195.4
* This does not include the substantial inventory of City open space.
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Packet Pg 284
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 30 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
and recreation facilities land as developed by City staff, excluding the City’s substantial inventory
of open space. As shown, the City’s parks and recreation facilities are spread across 195.4 acres
of land, including 183.2 acres associated with existing parks and an additional 12.2 acres
associated with additional recreation facilities.
For the purposes of parks fee calculations, this inventory is then converted into a parks standard
per 1,000 residents and per 1,000 service population. As shown in Table 15, the effective parks
standard is 4.18 acres per 1,000 residents and 2.69 acres per 1,000 service population. As
discussed in Chapter 2, service population is a metric that takes into account both residents and
workers that captures their relative demand for capital facilities.
Table 15 Effective Parks Standards
For the calculation of City of San Luis Obispo parks fees, both of these service standards are
important as follows:
Parkland In-Lieu Fees. Under the Quimby Act, all cities can establish parkland in-lieu fees
using a base standard of 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents. To the extent a city provides a
service standard above 3.0 acre per 1,000 residents, the City may use this higher standard,
but cannot use a standard above 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents. For the City of San Luis
Obispo, the maximum park in-lieu fee estimates are therefore based on the standard of 4.18
acres per 1,000 residents.
Park Development Impact Fees. For development impact fees under the Mitigation Fee
Act, if the City establishes its maximum fee schedule based on the current, effective service
standard, the City ensures new development is paying its proportional share with no fee-
related requirement to backfill for existing deficiencies. City staff has indicated that parks
and recreation facilities are used by both residents and workers, so the service standard of
2.69 acres per 1,000 service population is used (rather than the per 1,000 resident standard)
Item
2017 City Residents
2017 Jobs
2017 City Service Population (1)
2017 Park and Recreation Land 195.39 acres
Park Acres per 1,000 Residents 4.18 acres
Park Acres per 1,000 Service Population 2.69 acres
(1) Service population is a measure of relative demand between residents and employees
Jobs/ employees are given half the weight of a resident.
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; California Department of Finance (population);
SLOCOG (jobs); Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
46,724
52,092
72,770
Amount
Packet Pg 285
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 31 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
to establish the maximum development impact fees on new residential and non-residential
development.9
Cost Estimates
The fee estimates are driven by costs, including estimated average per acre land value costs for
parkland and average per acre costs of parkland improvements. The costs of acquiring land for
parks and the costs of improving parkland vary on a project-by-project basis. The City recently
evaluated the value of land and the cost of parkland improvements in the Orcutt Area and these
estimates are considered reasonable average planning-level cost estimates for the purposes of
this fee update/establishment. Based on the information provided by City staff, the average cost
estimates are as follows:
Parkland. Average land cost of $300,000 per acre.
Parkland Improvements. Average improvement cost of $427,000 per acre.
Park In-Lieu Fee
Under the Quimby Act, the parkland in-lieu fee is applied to single family development and
multifamily condominium development through the Subdivision Map Act. The Quimby Act
requires the maximum parkland in-lieu fee to be established based on: (1) parkland service
standard per 1,000 residents; (2) land value estimates; and, (3) persons per household.
As shown in Table 16, the existing standard is 4.18 acres per 1,000 residents (see Table 15),
the existing land cost is $300,000 per acre (see above), and the persons per unit are 2.51
persons per single family unit and 1.81 persons per multifamily/condominium unit (see Chapter
2).
As shown, the resulting, parkland cost per new resident is about $1,255, which translates into
the following maximum parkland in-lieu fees under the Quimby Act:
Single Family Development. $3,151 per unit.
Condominium Development. $2,269 per unit.
9 It is important to note that, because single family and multifamily condominium development, will
pay the parkland in lieu fee to cover their parkland impacts, they would only pay the park and
recreation capital facilities portion of the new park development impact fees (i.e. not the parkland
portion).
Packet Pg 286
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 32 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
Table 16 Maximum Park In-Lieu Fees
Mitigation Fee Act Nexus Findings
Development impact fees can be charged to new development under the Mitigation Fee Act.
Nexus findings are provided below addressing: 1) the purpose of the fee; 2) the specific use of
fee revenue; 3) the relationship between the facility and the type of development; 4) the
relationship between the need for the facility and the type of development; and 5) the
relationship between the amount of the fee and the proportionality of cost specifically
attributable to development. The technical information and calculations provided below support
these nexus findings/requirements.
Purpose
The fee will support provision of adequate levels of parkland and parks and recreation facilities in
the City as new development occurs and will help ensure that new development pays its fair
share of capital facilities costs consistent with City policy.
Use of Fee
Fee revenue will contribute funding towards acquisition of parkland and the improvement of
existing and newly acquired parkland.
Item Source/ Calculation
Existing Standard (a)4.18 acres/ 1,000 persons See Table 15
Cost/ Acre (1)(b)$300,000 per acre City Staff/ Orcutt Area
Cost/ 1,000 persons (c)(c) = (a) * (b)
(d)(d) = (c) / 1,000
Single Family (e)2.51 persons/ housing unit
Multifamily (f)1.81 persons/ housing unit
Single Family (g)$3,151 per unit (g) = (d) * (e)
Parkland In-Lieu Fee
Multifamily/ Condominiums (h)$2,269 per unit (h) = (d) * (f)
Parkland In-Lieu Fee
(1) Per acre land and improvement costs provided by City staff based
on recent values from the Orcutt Area.
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
$1,254.54
Parkland
In-Lieu Fee
Cost per Person
$1,254,537
Packet Pg 287
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 33 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
Relationship
New residential and non-residential development and the associated new residents and workers
in San Luis Obispo will increase the City’s demand for parkland and parks and recreation
facilities. Fee revenue from this new development will be used to provide acquire additional
parkland and improvements thereby increasing the availability of improved parkland consistent
with the demand of the new residents and workers.
Need
Each new residential and non-residential development project will add to the incremental
demand/need for parkland and parks and recreation facilities. As a result, new parkland
acquisition and improvements are necessary to maintain the City's existing level of service.
Proportionality
The existing, effective parks service standard in the City is used to ensure that new development
is required to fund sufficient parkland and parkland improvements to maintain the existing
service standards in the City, but no more. In this way, the contribution of new development is
proportional to its impact and is not expanded beyond its appropriate share.
Impact Fee Technical Analysis
The Mitigation Fee Act maximum parks development impact fee calculations are driven by: (1)
the parkland service standard per 1,000 service population; (2) the land value and parkland
improvement cost estimates; and (3) the persons per household/employment densities.
As shown in Table 17, the existing parks service standard is 2.69 per 1,000 service population.
The service population service standard is applied as it appropriately distributes demand between
residential and non-residential development. When this service standard is combined with the
cost estimates (described above), an average cost of about $806 per new service population is
estimated for parkland acquisition and an average cost of about $1,147 per new service
population is estimated for parkland improvements. For land uses, where parkland and parkland
improvements will be part of the new maximum development impact fee (i.e., all land uses
except single family development and multifamily/condominium development where the parkland
in-lieu fee applies), both of these fee components will apply.
Packet Pg 288
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 34 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
Table 17 Parkland and Improvements Cost Multiplier
Item
Parks Standard 2.69 acres/ 1,000
serv. pop.
2.69 acres/ 1,000
serv. pop.
Cost/ Acre $300,000 per acre $427,000 per acre $727,000 per acre
Cost/ 1,000 Service Population
Service Population
(1) Per acre land and improvement costs provided by City staff based on recent values from the Orcutt Area.
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
$805,512
$806
$1,146,512
$1,147
$1,952,024
$1,952
Land (1)Improvements (1)
Average Cost per New
(Mitigation Fee Act) (Mitigation Fee Act)Total
Packet Pg 289
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 35 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx Table 18 Service Population Generation by Land Use Persons per Unit/Service PopulationPersons per Unit/ Jobs per 1,000 Sq. Ft./ Service Population per Unit/ 1,000 Sq. Ft./ItemSq. Ft. per Job (1)per RoomMultiplier (2)per Room Residential (per Unit)Single Family2.512.511.002.51Multifamily (Condominiums)1.811.811.001.81Multifamily (Apartments)1.811.811.001.81Non-ResidentialOffice3003.330.501.67Retail/ Service/ Institutional5501.820.500.91Industrial7501.330.500.67Lodging (per Room)1.01.000.500.50(1) See Chapter 2 for the sources of population and employment densities.(2) Service population is a measure of relative demand between residents and employees. Jobs/ employees are given half the weight of a resident.Sources: San Luis Obispo General Plan/ LUCE; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.Packet Pg 29011
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 36 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
To determine the maximum parks and recreation development impact fees, the per service
population cost is applied to the relevant service population generation per residential unit type
or per non-residential square foot or room (for hotels/motels). Table 18 shows the estimated
service populations. As shown, the persons per household and employment density (square feet
per job) estimates, derived in Chapter 2, are converted into service population factors using the
service population multipliers (i.e. one worker represents 50 percent of the demand of one
resident). In Table 19, these service population generation factors are then applied to the cost
per service population estimates in Table 17, for parkland and park improvements as
appropriate, to derive the maximum development impact fees applicable to the different land
uses.
Table 19 Maximum Parks Development Impact Fees by Land Use
As shown, the maximum development impact fees are:
Single Family. $2,880 per single family unit for parkland improvements (cost of parkland
impacts covered through separate parkland in-lieu fee).
Multifamily (Condominiums). $2,074 per multifamily/condominium unit for parkland
improvements (cost of parkland impacts covered through separate parkland in-lieu fee).
Multifamily (Apartments). $3,530 per multifamily/apartment unit in total, including
$1,457 per unit for parkland and $2,074 per unit for parkland improvements.
Item Land (1) Improvements Total
Residential (per Unit)
Single Family na $2,880 $2,880
Multifamily (Condominiums)na $2,074 $2,074
Multifamily (Apartments)$1,457 $2,074 $3,530
Non-Residential (Per Sq. Ft.)
Office $1.34 $1.91 $3.25
Retail/ Service/ Institutional $0.73 $1.04 $1.77
Industrial $0.54 $0.76 $1.30
Lodging (per room)$403 $573 $976
(1) Single Family and Multifamily/ Condominiums do not pay parkland component of development
impact fee. Their parkland requirements are covered through the Parkland In-Lieu Fee under
the Quimby Act.
Sources: San Luis Obispo General Plan/ LUCE; City of San Luis Obispo; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Parks Development Impact Fee
Packet Pg 291
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 37 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
Office. $3.25 per office building square foot for both parkland and parkland improvements.
Retail/Service/Institutional. $1.77 per retail/service/institutional building square foot for
both parkland and parkland improvements.
Industrial. $1.30 per industrial building square foot for both parkland and parkland
improvements.
Hotel. $976 per hotel room for both parkland and parkland improvements.
While these maximum parks development impact fees are driven by the existing service
standard (and not on a capital improvement list), the City has provided some examples of
envisioned new investment in parkland acquisition and parkland improvements to indicate the
potential use of the fees. City Parks Department staff indicated the following as examples of
envisioned future developments that parks development impact fees could contribute to (more
detailed plans will be developed as part of City’s upcoming Parks Master Plan):
Parkland. Pocket Park (Toro @ Marsh), Cheng Park Expansion (Santa Rosa @ Marsh).
Recreational Facilities. Margarita Area Sports Fields, Rosa Butron Adobe and Grounds,
Creek Plaza (Higuera @ Nipomo), Emerson Parks public restrooms, Mission Plaza
performance platform.
Community Landscaped Improvements. Mission Plaza Creek Walk/Linear Park, Mission
Plaza renovation.
Combined Schedule of Park Fees
The park in-lieu fees and park development impact fees addressed in this Chapter and described
above are adopted under two distinct California codes. Table 20 shows both the maximum park
in-lieu fees and park development impact fees together in a schedule for the pertinent land uses
so the overall maximum fees can be viewed together.
Packet Pg 292
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 38 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
Table 20 Parkland In-Lieu/Parks Development Impact Fee Combined Schedule
Item Land Improvements
Residential (per Unit)
Single Family $3,151 $2,880 $6,030 per unit
Multifamily (Condominiums)$2,269 $2,074 $4,342 per unit
Multifamily (Apartments)$1,457 $2,074 $3,530 per unit
Non-Residential
Office $1.34 $1.91 $3.25 per sq.ft.
Retail/ Service/ Institutional $0.73 $1.04 $1.77 per sq.ft.
Industrial $0.54 $0.76 $1.30 per sq.ft.
Lodging $403 $573 $976 per room
(1) Shows both Park In-Lieu fees under the Quimby Act and Park Development Impact Fees
under the Mitigation Fee Act.
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Total
Maximum Parks Fees (1)
Packet Pg 293
11
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 39 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
5. GENERAL GOVERNMENT IMPACT FEE
This Chapter establishes the maximum general government fees under the Mitigation Fee Act
that could be required of new development in the City of San Luis Obispo. The general
government portion relates to the administrative functions of the City associated with serving the
public.
Mitigation Fee Act Nexus Findings
Nexus findings are provided below addressing: 1) the purpose of the fee; 2) the specific use of
fee revenue; 3) the relationship between the facility and the type of development; 4) the
relationship between the need for the facility and the type of development; and 5) the
relationship between the amount of the fee and the proportionality of cost specifically
attributable to development. The technical information and calculations provided below support
these nexus findings/requirements.
Purpose
The fee will support provision of adequate levels of general government facilities in the City as
new development occurs and help ensure that new development pays its fair share of
administrative capital facilities costs consistent with City policy.
Use of Fee
Fee revenue will contribute funding for expansion of general government facilities to maintain the
existing service general government service levels for new growth.
Relationship
New residential and non-residential development and the associated new residents and workers
in San Luis Obispo will increase the City’s demand for general government services, and thus
require additional facilities to maintain existing service standards for new growth.
Need
Each new residential and non-residential development project will add to the incremental
demand/need for general government services and facilities. As a result, new general
government space is necessary to maintain the City's existing level of service.
Proportionality
The identified general government investments are required to ensure new development can be
served without reducing the quality of service to the existing service population. As a result, the
full cost of maintaining existing service standards is allocated to new development. Costs are
allocated between land uses based on their relative service populations.
Service Standards and Cost Assumptions
Since most general government services serve both the needs of residents and businesses
(employees), it is assumed that both residential and non-residential development will pay a
general government impact fee. Thus a service population is used to determine existing service
Packet Pg 294
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 40 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
standards. As described in Chapter 2, the service population gives a resident equivalent
weighting of 1.0 for residents and 0.5 for employees (i.e. two employees generate the equivalent
demand of general government space as one resident).
The cost of the general government capital facilities is based on maintaining existing service
standards for new growth. City staff identified that existing general government services are
currently provided through the 40,000 square feet of administrative facilities which includes
23,000 square feet of City Hall space, and 17,000 square feet of Public Works/Community
Development office space. Based on the existing service population of 72,800, the existing
citywide service standard is approximately 549 square feet per 1,000 service population. This
same standard of space per service population is applied to the new growth of 15,500 service
population, as estimated in Chapter 2, resulting in the need for an additional 8,500 square feet
of general government facilities space. Although construction costs vary by project, EPS used an
average construction cost estimate of $500 per square feet resulting in a total construction cost
of approximately $4.3 million.
Cost Allocation and Fee Calculations
As mentioned, the general government capital facility cost is calculated based on maintaining the
same level of service for new development as is currently provided to existing service population.
As shown in Table 21 the total cost of maintaining service standards for new growth is $4.3
million and is allocated entirely to new growth. This $4.3 million is then divided by the new
service population of 15,500 to reach an average cost per new service population of $274.64.
This average cost per service population is used to derive the general government impact fee
based on relative demand from residents and employees for each land use, as shown in Table
22.
Table 21 General Government Cost Estimates and New Growth Allocation
City Hall 22,971
Public Works/ Community Development Office 17,000
Total Existing Administrative Facilities 39,971
Existing Service Population (1)
Implied Citywide Existing Service Standard 549 Sq.Ft./1,000 Serv. Pop.
New Service Population (1)
Square Footage Allocated to New Growth 8,522
Average Administrative Facilities Construction Cost $500
Development Cost Allocated to New Growth
Average Cost per New Service Population
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Item Assumptions
72,770
15,516
Sq.Ft.
Sq.Ft.
$274.64
$4,261,246
Sq.Ft.
per Sq.Ft.
Sq.Ft.
Packet Pg 295
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 41 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx Table 22 General Government Facilities Fee Calculation ItemAverage Cost per New Service Population (a)Residential (d) (e)=(c)*(d)Single Family 2.51 Persons/Unit 2.51 Persons/Unit 1.0 2.5 $689.77 per UnitMultifamily 1.81 Persons/Unit 1.81 Persons/Unit 1.0 1.8 $496.70 per UnitNon-Residential Office 300 Sq.Ft./Emp. 3.33 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft. 0.5 1.7 $0.46 per Sq.Ft. Retail 550 Sq.Ft./Emp. 1.82 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft. 0.5 0.9 $0.25 per Sq.Ft.Industrial 750 Sq.Ft./Emp. 1.33 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft. 0.5 0.7 $0.18 per Sq.Ft.Institutional 550 Sq.Ft./Emp. 1.82 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft. 0.5 0.9 $0.25 per Sq.Ft.Service 550 Sq.Ft./Emp. 1.82 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft. 0.5 0.9 $0.25 per Sq.Ft.Lodging 1.0 Emp./Room 1.0 Emp./Room 0.5 0.5 $137.32 per Room(1) Non-Residential assumptions are based on the LUCE Fiscal estimates (page 7) except for Institutional and Service uses which assume the same employment density as Retail.Sources: 2035 Land Use & Circulation Update: LUCE Fiscal Impact Analysis and Public Financing Plan; City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.(c) = 1,000/(b)$274.64(b) (c) (f)=(a)*(e)Assumptions (1)Service Population MultiplierService Pop. per Unit/ 1,000 Sq.Ft./ Per RoomMaximum FeePersons per Unit/ Sq.Ft./JobPersons per Unit/ Jobs per 1,000 Sq.Ft./ per RoomPacket Pg 29611
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 42 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
While these maximum general government development impact fees are driven by the existing
service standard (and not on a capital improvement list), the City has provided some examples
of envisioned new investment in general government improvements to indicate the potential use
of the fees. For example, City Staff indicated that the funds collected could contribute to the
repurposing of the City Hall Annex (The Little Theater) to expand City Hall facilities.
Packet Pg 297
11
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 43 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
6. POLICE IMPACT FEE
This Chapter establishes the maximum police fees under the Mitigation Fee Act that could be
required of new development in the City of San Luis Obispo. The City of San Luis Obispo’s Police
Department is responsible for a range of services in the City, including patrol services, 911-
dispatch, a traffic safety unit, neighborhood services, records unit, and investigations.
Mitigation Fee Act Nexus Findings
Nexus findings are provided below addressing: 1) the purpose of the fee; 2) the specific use of
fee revenue; 3) the relationship between the facility and the type of development; 4) the
relationship between the need for the facility and the type of development; and 5) the
relationship between the amount of the fee and the proportionality of cost specifically
attributable to development. The technical information and calculations provided below support
these nexus findings/requirements.
Purpose
The fee will help ensure there are sufficient police facilities and vehicles to serve new
development.
Use of Fee
Fee revenues will be used to help construct a new police headquarters and purchase vehicles to
maintain the existing ratio of police vehicles to service population.
Relationship
New development in the City will increase demand for police services thereby contributing to the
need for an expanded police headquarters facility and the need for police vehicles.
Need
Each new residential and non-residential development project will add to the incremental
demand/need for police facilities and vehicles. As a result, improvements to facilities as well as
the need for additional police vehicles in order to maintain existing service standards are
required.
Proportionality
Vehicles: The identified new police vehicles reflect the required investments to maintain existing
police vehicle service standards in the City. As a result, the full cost of these vehicles is allocated
to new development.
Construction of New Police Headquarters: Construction of a new police headquarters will
serve both the existing service population and the new service population. The allocation of the
police headquarters cost is tied to the proportional demand attributable to new growth.
Capital Improvements and Cost Estimates
The Police Department identified two primary improvement types that would help serve new
growth, including construction of a new police headquarters for the City and police vehicles.
Packet Pg 298
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 44 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
Police Vehicle Improvements
The total cost of new police vehicle purchases is based on the City’s existing service standards.
Currently, the Department identified 44 police vehicles for 59 sworn officers, resulting in a ratio
of 0.75 police vehicle(s) to one sworn officer. These 59 sworn officers serve an existing service
population of 72,800, resulting in a ratio of 0.81 sworn officers per 1,000 service population.
With projected service population growth of 15,500, and a service standard of 0.81 officers per
1,000 service population, approximately 13 new officers will be required. Based on the ratio of
0.75 police vehicles to one sworn officer, new growth would require approximately 9 to 10 new
vehicles to maintain the existing police vehicle service standard.
Police Department Staff estimated that an average cost per new police vehicle, including tactical
vehicles, is approximately $65,000. This cost per vehicle is applied to the 9 to 10 new vehicles
required to maintain existing service standards for new growth, totaling $609,800, as shown in
Table 23.
Table 23 New Police Vehicle Cost Estimates
Construction of New Police Headquarters
At present, the Police Department occupies a space of 15,000 square feet for 79 personnel,
including sworn officers and civilian staff. Four traffic enforcement staff are also currently
housed in an old Victorian house nearby. As a result of the limited and inadequate facility space,
the Department is looking to replace the existing facilities with a 40,000 square foot police
headquarters to accommodate Police Department staff as the City grows. The City’s 10-Year
Capital Improvements Program reflects a planning level construction estimate of $47.4 million
for the new police headquarters, shown on Table 24.
Formula Assumptions
Existing Police Vehicles a 44
Existing Sworn Officers b 59
Police Vehicles/Sworn Officers c=a/b 0.75
Existing Service Population d 72,770
Sworn Officers/1,000 Serv. Pop.e=b/(d/1,000)0.81
Net New Service Population f
Implied New Sworn Officers g=(e(f/1,000))12.58
Implied New Vehicles (1)h=g*c 9.38
Estimated Cost per Vehicle i $65,000
Police Vehicle Cost to Serve New Development j=i*h $609,800.26
(1) Average cost includes range of vehicles such as tactical vehicles.
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Item
15,516
Packet Pg 299
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 45 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
Table 24 Police Headquarter Cost Estimate
Total Vehicle and Police Headquarter Improvement Costs
Total costs related to police service vehicles and facilities are estimated to be $48.0 million as
shown in Table 25.
Table 25 Total Police Capital Costs
Cost Allocation
The cost allocation to new development for the required for the purchases of new police vehicles
and construction of the new Police Headquarters differ based on cost estimation methodologies.
However, for both improvement costs, EPS uses an allocation basis of service population. Since
most police services serve both the needs of residents and businesses (employees), it is
assumed that both residential and non-residential development will pay a police impact fee, thus
a service population is used to determine existing service standards. More specifically, the
service population calculated for this fee gives a resident equivalent weighting of 1.0 for
residents and 0.5 for employees (i.e., two employees generate the equivalent demand of police
facilities space/vehicles as one resident).
Police Vehicle Improvements
The total cost estimate of $609,800 for new vehicle purchases is based on maintaining current
service standards to serve population and employment growth through buildout of the General
Plan. As a result, 100 percent of the police vehicle cost is allocated to the future service
population, as shown in Table 26.
Sq.Ft.
New Police Headquarters (New Construction) (1) 40,000 $47,435,000
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Item Total Capital Cost
(1) Total capital cost as reflected in the current 10-Year Capital Improvments Program.
Item Total
Police Vehicles $609,800
Police Headquarters $47,435,000
Total $48,044,800
Source: City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Packet Pg 300
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 46 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
Construction of New Police Headquarters
The new police headquarters would serve the existing service population and the new growth.
Therefore, the cost estimate for the total construction of the new headquarters must be allocated
in fair share proportion to existing service population and new service population. Cost allocation
for the 40,000 square foot police headquarters is allocated based on the proportions of the
existing service population of 72,800 and the new growth service population of 15,500. As shown
in Table 26, approximately 17.6 percent of the police headquarter cost, or $8.9 million is
allocated to new growth and included in the fee calculations.
Total Costs Allocated to New Growth
Table 26 summarizes the total costs, including purchases of new vehicles and construction of
the new police headquarters, allocated to new development for the new police improvements.
The total costs allocated to new development for police facilities are $8.9 million of the total
$48.0 million.
Table 26 Police Capital Improvement Cost Allocations
Fee Calculation
To calculate the police fee, the fair share cost allocated to new development of $8.9 million is
divided by the future growth of 15,500 to determine the average cost per new service
population, resulting in an average cost per service population of $576.59. This average cost per
service population is used to derive the general government impact fee based on relative
demand from residents and employees for each land use, as shown in Table 27.
Item Total Existing New Growth
Service Population 88,286 72,770 15,516
Allocation for Construction of Police Headquarters 100.0%82.4%17.6%
Improvement/ Vehicle Costs
Police Vehicles $609,800 $0 $609,800
Police Headquarters $47,435,000 $39,098,533 $8,336,467
Total $48,044,800 $39,098,533 $8,946,267
New Growth Improvement Costs $8,946,267
Service Population Growth 15,516
Average Cost per New Service Population $576.59
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Packet Pg 301
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 47 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
Packet Pg 302
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 48 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx Table 27 Police Services Facilities Fee Calculation ItemAverage Cost per New Service Population (a)Residential (d) (e)=(c)*(d)Single Family 2.51 Persons/Unit 2.51 Persons/Unit 1.0 2.5 $1,448.15 per UnitMultifamily 1.81 Persons/Unit 1.81 Persons/Unit 1.0 1.8 $1,042.80 per UnitNon-Residential Office 300 Sq.Ft./Emp. 3.33 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft. 0.5 1.7 $0.96 per Sq.Ft. Retail 550 Sq.Ft./Emp. 1.82 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft. 0.5 0.9 $0.52 per Sq.Ft.Industrial 750 Sq.Ft./Emp. 1.33 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft. 0.5 0.7 $0.38 per Sq.Ft.Institutional 550 Sq.Ft./Emp. 1.82 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft. 0.5 0.9 $0.52 per Sq.Ft.Service 550 Sq.Ft./Emp. 1.82 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft. 0.5 0.9 $0.52 per Sq.Ft.Lodging 1.0 Emp./Room 1.0 Emp./Room 0.5 0.5 $288.30 per Room(1) Non-Residential assumptions are based on the LUCE Fiscal estimates (page 7) except for Institutional and Service uses which assume the same employment density as Retail.Sources: 2035 Land Use & Circulation Update: LUCE Fiscal Impact Analysis and Public Financing Plan; City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.Assumptions (1)Service Population MultiplierService Pop. per Unit/ 1,000 Sq.Ft./ Per RoomMaximum FeePersons per Unit/ Sq.Ft./JobPersons per Unit/ Jobs per 1,000 Sq.Ft./ per Room(c) = 1,000/(b)$576.59(b) (c) (f)=(a)*(e)Packet Pg 30311
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 49 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
7. FIRE IMPACT FEE
This Chapter establishes the maximum fire fees under the Mitigation Fee Act that could be
required of new development in the City of San Luis Obispo. The City of San Luis Obispo’s Fire
department is a full-service fire department with six functional areas, including fire
administration, emergency response, prevention and education, training, technical services, and
disaster preparedness.
Mitigation Fee Act Nexus Findings
Nexus findings are provided below addressing: 1) the purpose of the fee; 2) the specific use of
fee revenue; 3) the relationship between the facility and the type of development; 4) the
relationship between the need for the facility and the type of development; and 5) the
relationship between the amount of the fee and the proportionality of cost specifically
attributable to development. The technical information and calculations provided below support
these nexus findings/requirements.
Purpose
The fee will help ensure there are sufficient fire facilities, equipment and vehicles to serve new
development.
Use of Fee
Fee revenues will be used to renovate Fire Stations 1, 2, 3, and 4 and construct Fire Station 5
and replace the fire vehicles and equipment needed to serve the City through General Plan
buildout.
Relationship
New development in the City will increase demand for fire services thereby contributing to the
need for fire facilities, equipment, and vehicles. Fee revenues will be used to ensure that the
City’s Fire Department can service new growth at the City’s current level of service.
Need
Each new residential and non-residential development project will add to the incremental
demand/need for fire facilities and vehicles. As a result, new facilities, improvements to existing
facilities, as well as new and replacement equipment and vehicles that are needed to maintain
existing service standards are required.
Proportionality
Renovation/construction of the fire stations and the purchase of replacement fire vehicles will
serve both the existing service population and the new service population as the City grows. As a
result, the allocation of the fire improvement costs is tied to the proportional demand
attributable to new growth.
Packet Pg 304
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 50 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
Capital Improvements and Cost Estimates
The City of San Luis Obispo has identified a number of fire service facility improvements required
to meet service demands and serve existing and future development in the City through buildout
of the General Plan. Table 28 and Table 29 presents the projected the needs for fire facilities,
equipment, and vehicles.
Fire Station Improvements
In particular, staff identified the remodeling of Fire Station 1, 2, 3 and 4, and new construction of
Fire Station 5. The Fire Service Master Plan and the 2009 Citygate Report details that Fire
Station 1, built over fifty years ago by the Southern California Gas Company, lacks the depth,
width and height to accommodate the repair and maintenance of newer heavy duty fire
apparatus. Fire Stations 2 and 3 require more living and dorm space, totaling a cost of $7.5
million. Fire Station 4 requires remodeling due to its lack of adequate space for storage and
other operational needs. Fire Station 5 is a new construction aimed at serving the City’s southern
growth area. In total, the cost of remodeling and construction for the five stations is
approximately $14.4 million.
Table 28 Fire Station Improvements and Estimated Costs
Purchases of Replacement Fire Vehicles
The Fire Department also plans to purchase approximately $5.6 million in replacement fire
service vehicles and personal protective equipment to serve the City as a whole, shown in
Table 29.
Fire Station 1 Fire Apparatus Repair Facility (Remodel)
Fire Station 2 and 3
Fire Station 4 Remodel of Dorm and
Construction of Multi- Purpose Building (Remodel)
Fire Station 5 (New Construction)
Fire Pumper
Total
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; Fire Service Master Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo
Fire Department 2009 and 2016; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Item
$14,372,037
Capital Cost
$550,000
$7,500,000
$400,000
$5,322,037
$600,000
Packet Pg 305
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 51 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx Table 29 Fire Services Vehicles, Equipment, and Estimated Costs Fire DepartmentVehicle Assigned Acquisition Replacement Number of ReplacementCost Average Total ThroughIdentification Description ProgramYearYearUnitsLifeper UnitAnnual Cost BuildoutVehiclesFord F150Pickup Truck, 1/2 TonTraining Services200220171.015.0$58,000$3,867$69,600Pierce LanceFire Truck, PumperEmergency Response200320181.015.0$624,000$41,600$748,800Ford RangerPickup Truck, CompactFire Administration200520201.015.0$40,000$2,667$48,000Ford F550Medium Duty Truck, w/Utility Bed Emergency Response200820211.013.0$110,000$8,462$152,308Ford F550Medium Duty Truck, w/Utility BedEmergency Response200820211.013.0$110,000$8,462$152,308Ford F150Pickup Truck, 1/2 TonHazard Prevention200820211.013.0$65,000$5,000$90,000International Navistar Fire Truck, Heavy DutyEmergency Response200720221.015.0$550,000$36,667$660,000Chevrolet SilveradoPickup Truck, 1/2 TonHazard Prevention200720231.016.0$50,000$3,125$56,250Chevrolet SilveradoPickup Truck, 1/2 TonHazard Prevention200720231.016.0$50,000$3,125$56,250Ford F550Medium Duty Truck, Crew Cab 4x4 w/Hooklift Bed Emergency Response200120251.024.0$58,255$2,427$43,691Toyota 4RunnerSUVEmergency Response201420261.012.0$65,000$5,417$97,500Toyota 4RunnerSUVEmergency Response201420261.012.0$65,000$5,417$97,500Chevrolet SuburbanSUV, 1/2 Ton 4x4n/a201420261.012.0$65,000$5,417$97,500Onan DQHAB-750033 Generator, Stationaryn/a200920291.020.0$140,000$7,000$140,000Onan DGCA-5748767 Generator, Stationaryn/a200620261.020.0$50,000$2,500$50,000Onan DGCA-5748767 Generator, Stationaryn/a200620261.020.0$50,000$2,500$50,000Toyota Rav4SUVFire Prevention201520281.013.0$50,000$3,846$69,231Toyota Rav4SUVFire Prevention201520281.013.0$40,000$3,077 $55,384.62Chrevrolet Suburban SUV, 1/2 Ton 4x4Emergency Response201620291.013.0$40,000$3,077$55,385PierceFire Truck, Quint 75'Emergency Response201720361.019.0$900,000$47,368$852,632Pierce Fire Truck, Tiller Quint 100'Emergency Response201020291.019.0 $1,250,000$65,789 $1,184,211Pierce Fire Truck, PumperEmergency Response201520301.015.0$640,000$42,667$768,000Mitsubishi FG50CN1 Forklfit, 10KEmergency Response201520341.019.0$48,000$2,526$45,474Total Vehicles 23.0 $5,118,255 $312,001 $5,640,022Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; Fire Service Master Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department 2009 and 2016; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.Packet Pg 30611
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 52 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
Total Fire Costs Allocated to New Growth
Table 30 summarizes the total costs, including renovation and construction of Fire Stations 1 to
5, and replacement costs associated with fire vehicles and equipment. Fire improvements and
vehicle/equipment replacements to serve the City through General Plan buildout is approximately
$20 million.
Table 30 Fire Improvement/Vehicle Replacement Costs
Cost Allocation
Because the remodeling of Fire Station 1, 2, 3, and 4 will benefit both existing and new
development, the cost of renovations is allocated to new development on the basis of service
population growth relative to future service population. Although Fire Station #5 will primarily
serve the new development of the City’s South area, it also will affect station service boundaries
and increase the service capacity of the fire department overall, resulting in faster response
times Citywide. Based on the professional judgment of City staff, it is assumed that the cost of
these facility improvements is also allocated to new development on the basis of service
population growth relative to future service population.
In addition, fire vehicle and equipment costs were determined based on a replacement schedule
for the entire City. The allocation of fair share costs to new growth is based on the ratio between
existing service population and new service population.
Table 31 summarizes the costs allocated to new development for fire service facilities to be
constructed and associated equipment. The total costs allocated to new development for fire
services are approximately $3.5 million of the total Citywide costs of $20.0 million.
Item Total
Fire Station Improvements $14,372,037
Fire Vehicles $5,640,022
Total $20,012,059
Sources: 2035 Land Use & Circulation Update: LUCE Fiscal Impact Analysis and Public Financing
Plan; City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Packet Pg 307
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 53 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
Table 31 Fire Costs and Cost Allocation
Fee Calculation
To calculate the fire fee, the fair share cost allocated to new development of $3.5 million is
divided by the future growth of 15,500 to determine the average cost per new service
population, resulting in an average cost per service population of $226.67. This average cost per
service population is used to derive the general government impact fee based on relative
demand from residents and employees for each land use, as shown in Table 32.
Item Total Existing New Growth
Service Population 88,286 72,770 15,516
Allocation 100.0%82.4%17.6%
Improvement/ Vehicle Costs
Fire Station Improvements $14,372,037 $11,846,222 $2,525,815
Fire Vehicles $5,640,022 $4,648,816 $991,206
Total $20,012,059 $16,495,039 $3,517,021
New Growth Improvement Costs $3,517,021
New Service Population 15,516
Average Cost per New Service
Population $226.67
Sources: 2035 Land Use & Circulation Update: LUCE Fiscal Impact Analysis and Public Financing
Plan; City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Packet Pg 308
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 54 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx Table 32 Fire Services Facilities Fee Calculation ItemAverage Cost per New Service Population (a)Residential (d) (e)=(c)*(d)Single Family 2.51 Persons/Unit 2.51 Persons/Unit 1.0 2.5 $569.31 per UnitMultifamily 1.81 Persons/Unit 1.81 Persons/Unit 1.0 1.8 $409.95 per UnitNon-Residential Office 300 Sq.Ft./Emp. 3.33 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft. 0.5 1.7 $0.38 per Sq.Ft. Retail 550 Sq.Ft./Emp. 1.82 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft. 0.50.9$0.21 per Sq.Ft.Industrial 750 Sq.Ft./Emp. 1.33 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft. 0.50.7$0.15 per Sq.Ft.Institutional 550 Sq.Ft./Emp.1.82 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft.0.50.9$0.21 per Sq.Ft.Service 550 Sq.Ft./Emp.1.82 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft.0.50.9$0.21 per Sq.Ft.Lodging 1.0 Emp./Room1.0 Emp./Room0.50.5$113.34 per Room(1) Non-Residential assumptions are based on the LUCE Fiscal estimates (page 7) except for Institutional and Service uses which assume the same employment density as Retail.Sources: 2035 Land Use & Circulation Update: LUCE Fiscal Impact Analysis and Public Financing Plan; City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.(b)(c)(f)=(a)*(e)(c) = 1,000/(b)$226.67Assumptions (1)Maximum FeePersons per Unit/ Sq.Ft./JobPersons per Unit/ Jobs per 1,000 Sq.Ft./ per RoomService Population MultiplierService Pop. per Unit/ 1,000 Sq.Ft./ Per RoomPacket Pg 30911
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 55 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
8. IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF CFF
The updated CFF and corresponding fee schedule will need to be adopted by City Resolution as
enabled by the City’s Fee Ordinance. The existing Ordinance allows the City Council to adopt, by
Resolution, a fee schedule consistent with supporting technical analysis and findings provided in
this Report. The Resolution approach to setting the fee allows periodic adjustments of the fee
amount that may be necessary over time, without amending the enabling Ordinance. It is
anticipated that the City will update the existing CFF Ordinance as part of this study process.
This updated ordinance addresses the primary implementation and administrative issues and
procedures associated with the CFF. A brief summary of the key implementation and
administrative elements is provided below.
Fee Collection and Amount
Applicable Land Uses
All new development that occurs within the City of San Luis Obispo, except as specifically
exempted by the CFF Ordinance, shall pay the CFF based on requirements of the subarea in
which the new development is located. While the maximum fee amount will be determined by
the Mitigation Fee Act Study, the City may elect to charge less for a variety of reasons and under
certain circumstances, as described in the Ordinance. In any case, the applicable fees will be
published in a Fee Schedule made available by the City and updated periodically. The amount
will vary by land use, as shown in Table 1.
It is possible that certain projects may not fit neatly into the categories defined in Table 5. In
cases were such ambiguity exists, the City Community Development Director will need to make a
determination as to the applicable fees. The Fee Ordinance articulates guidelines for resolving
discrepancies and/or disputes.
Fee Escalation
The City Fee Ordinance allows for an automatic adjustment of the CFF to keep pace with
inflationary increases in construction costs. This allows the fee level to keep pace with inflation
without requiring an annual approval process. This adjustment is based on the Construction Cost
Index (CCI) published by the Engineering News Record (ENR), a source widely used in the
construction industry, and by many jurisdictions as a basis for making annual inflation
adjustments to their development impact fees. ENR’s CCI has been published consistently every
month since 1967. As such ENR is one of the most reliable and consistent indices that track
trends in construction costs.
Timing and Manner of Payment
The City CFF Ordinance addresses issues related to the timing and manner of payment for the
CFF including the potential for fee deferrals, payment plans, credits and reimbursements,
exemptions, and related adjustments.
Packet Pg 310
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 56 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
Annual Review, Accounting, and Updates
Annual review
This Report and the technical information it contains should be maintained and reviewed
periodically by the City as necessary to ensure Impact Fee accuracy and to enable the adequate
programming of funding sources. To the extent that improvement requirements, costs, or
development potential changes over time, the Fee Program will need to be updated. Specifically,
AB 1600 (at Gov. Code §§ 66001(c), 66006(b)(1)) stipulates that each local agency that requires
payment of a fee make specific information available to the public annually within 180 days of
the last day of the fiscal year. This information includes the following:
A description of the type of fee in the account
The amount of the fee
The beginning and ending balance of the fund
The amount of fees collected and interest earned
Identification of the improvements constructed
The total cost of the improvements constructed
The fees expended to construct the improvement
The percent of total costs funded by the fee
If sufficient fees have been collected to fund the construction of an improvement, the agency
must specify the approximate date for construction of that improvement. Because of the
dynamic nature of growth and infrastructure requirements, the City should monitor development
activity, the need for infrastructure improvements, and the adequacy of the fee revenues and
other available funding. Formal annual review of the Fee Program should occur, at which time
adjustments should be made. Costs associated with this monitoring and updating effort are
included in the Impact Fee.
Surplus Funds
AB 1600 also requires that if any portion of a fee remains unexpended or uncommitted in an
account for five years or more after deposit of the fee, the City Council shall make findings once
each year: (1) to identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put, (2) to demonstrate a
reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it was charged, (3) to identify
all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete
improvements, and (4) to designate the approximate dates on which the funding identified in (3)
is expected to be deposited into the appropriate fund.
If adequate funding has been collected for a certain improvement, an approximate date must be
specified as to when construction on the improvement will begin. If the findings show no need
for the unspent funds, or if the conditions discussed above are not met, and the administrative
costs of the refund do not exceed the refund itself, the local agency that has collected the funds
must refund them.
Internal Loaning of Funds
Loans between the Capital Facilities Fee Funds may be used from time to time to facilitate the
construction of CFF facilities and assure adequate cash flow. Any such loan shall be made in
accordance with applicable law, as interpreted by the City Attorney of the City of San Luis
Packet Pg 311
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 57 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
Obispo, and all funds shall be placed in separate accounts on either a facility or geographic basis.
The additional following requirements are also placed on loans between CFF funds:
1. Funds may be transferred between accounts to expedite the construction of critical
projects/facilities.
2. A mechanism to repay accounts shall be established.
3. Interest charged on each loan shall be based upon the Local Agency Investment Fund rate in
effect at the time of the loan and shall be deposited into the account providing the loan.
4. Inter-fund loan repayments shall take precedence over reimbursements to developers.
Five-Year Update
Fees will be collected from new development within the City immediately; however, use of these
funds may need to wait until a sufficient fund balance can be accrued. Per Government Code
Section 66006, the City is required to deposit, invest, account for, and expend the fees in a
prescribed manner. The fifth fiscal year following the first deposit into the Fee account or fund,
and every five years thereafter, the City is required to make all of the following findings with
respect to that portion of the account or fund remaining unexpended:
Identify the purpose for which the fee is to be put;
Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is
charged;
Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing in incomplete
improvements; and
Designate the approximate dates on that the funding referred to in the above paragraph is
expected to be deposited in the appropriate account or fund.
Once sufficient funds have been collected to complete the specified projects, the City must
commence construction within 180 days. If they fail to do this, the City is required to refund the
unexpended portion of the fee and any accrued interest to the then current owner.
Securing Supplemental Funding
The Impact Fee is not appropriate for funding the full amount of all capital costs identified in this
Fee Study. As a result, the City will have to identify funding and pay for improvements related
to existing developments and improvements not funded by the Fee Program or any other
established funding source. Examples of such sources include the following:
General Fund Revenues. In any given year, the City could allocate a portion of its General
Fund revenues for discretionary expenditures. Depending on the revenues generated relative
to costs and City priorities, the City may allocate General Fund revenues to fund capital
facilities costs not covered by the Fee Program or other funding sources.
Packet Pg 312
11
Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Administrative Draft Report 03/20/18
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 58 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Report\161187_Admin Draft_SLOCFF Nexus Study_2018_03_20.docx
Assessments and Special Taxes. The City could fund a portion of capital facilities costs
using assessments and special taxes. For example, the establishment of a Mello-Roos
Community Facilities District would allow the City to levy a special tax to pay debt service on
bonds sold to fund construction of capital facilities or to directly fund capital facilities. The
City could also seek voter approval of a special tax through ballot initiative to provide funding
for a range of capital improvements.
Regional, State or Federal Funds. The City might seek and obtain grant of matching
funds from Regional, State and Federal sources to help offset the costs of required capital
facilities and improvements. As part of its funding effort, the City should research and
monitor these outside revenue sources and apply for funds as appropriate.
Other Grants and Contributions. A variety of grants or contributions from private donors
could help fund a number of capital facilities. For example, private foundations and/or
charity organizations may provide money for certain park and recreation or cultural facilities.
As part of the adoption of the fee, the City is likely to adopt a finding that it will obtain and
allocate funding from various other sources for the fair share of the costs of improvements
identified in this Report that are not funded by the Fee Program as well any additional funding
required to “backfill” any policy-based fee reductions. Any supplemental funding identified will
be incorporated into the CFF as part of the next five-year update.
Packet Pg 313
11
APPENDIX A:
Transportation Impact Fee
Improvement List and Cost Allocation
Packet Pg 314
11
Appendix ATransportation Improvement List, Cost Estimates, and AllocationsSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187DescriptionEstimate InformationRegional Existing New Regional Existing NewCITYWIDE BASEIntersection ImprovementsProject #3 Broad & South-Santa Barbara Intersection ImprovementsIntersection Improvements Widen southbound approach to provide a 100' right-turn lane; OR Improve the westbound approach to include two left-turn lanes and a shared through/right turn lane.Wallace estimates Project No. 20 $680,000 total with $550k const, $130k Capital Support.$680,000$680,000 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%$0$0 $680,000Project #4 Orcutt & Tank Farm Intersection ImprovementsIntersection Improvements Near-Term: Minor realignment of the Tank Farm Road/Orcutt Road intersection to correct the existing skewed alignment and addition of a 200' southbound right-turn lane.Long-Term: Install Roundabout.Roundabout Cost based on similar Roundabout designs and estimates at California @ Taft and Orcutt @ Righetti.$1,700,000$1,700,000 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%$0$0 $1,700,000Project #5 Broad & Tank Farm Intersection ImprovementsIntersection Improvements Establish time-of-day timing plans.Add SB dual left-turn lane, NB dedicated right-turn lane and WB dedicated right-turn lane. Augment bicycle facilities and improve transit headways on Broad Street.Wallace estimates Project No. 33 $1,490,000. $1,500,000$1,500,000 15.0% 0.0% 85.0% $225,000$0 $1,275,000Project #6 Johnson & Orcutt Intersection Improvements Intersection Improvements Install roundabout.Wallace estimates Project No. 18 of $2,000,000 total with $2,000,000 const no ROW.$2,000,000$2,000,000 25.0% 0.0% 75.0% $500,000$0 $1,500,000Project #7 Higuera & Tank Farm Intersection ImprovementsIntersection Improvements Add NB right-turn lane, WB dual right-turn lanes, dual SB lefts,& median on Tank Farm between Higuera and Long.Wallace estimates Project No. 35 of $1,650,000 total with $1,650,000 const no ROW. Plus $350,000 for SB Dual Lefts.$2,000,000$2,000,000 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%$0$0 $2,000,000Project #8 S. Broad Street IntersectionIntersection Improvements Control Upgrades at 3 intersections.From S. Broad Street Corridor Plan with adjustments (cost based upon Roundabout Control, Medians, and ROW at $2.25 million each for two Intersections and $500,000 for Bicycle Pedestrian Hybrid Crossing Signal & Median and curb extensions at a third.$5,000,000$5,000,000 20.0% 0.0% 80.0% $1,000,000$0 $4,000,000Project #9 Misc. Intersection Control Upgrades Intersection Improvements 15 Intersections Control upgrades as identified in the GP Circ. Element and EIR.15 Intersections at average of $1.0 million each that proposes mixture of signals, roundabout control, ada/pedestrian enhancements to meet LOS requirements.$15,000,000$15,000,000 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%$0$0 $15,000,000Project #10 Orcutt Rd/UPRR Grade Separation Intersection Improvements Grade Separation of Orcutt Road and Laurel Lane at the Union Pacific Railroad including the relocation of Bullock Lane and potential relocation of the Bullock Bridge. Wallace estimates Project No. 41 of $20,000,000 does not include ROW - one property still needs to be acquired. Local Match only that could be used for prop acquis if necessary.$20,000,000$16,000,000 $4,000,000 10.0% 0.0% 90.0% $400,000$0 $3,600,000Project #11 Prado Rd/Higuera & Prado Intersection Improvements - Final Phase Dual LT's and NB RTStreet Widening and Intersection ImprovementsIntersection Improvements: Add second westbound through lane. Add second northbound left-turn lane. Add second eastbound through lane.Project cost estimated on Project #15 (see below) that are 25% construction plans - forecast for future conditions.$2,500,000$2,500,0000.0% 0.0% 100.0%$0$0$2,500,000Subtotal$50,380,000$0$16,000,000$34,380,000$2,125,000$0$32,255,000Street Widening ImprovementsProject #12 Higuera Widening: High St to Marsh St Street WideningAcquire property and widen to allow four travel lanes, center turn lane, bike lanes, etc. & implement Downtown Plan concepts (See Mid-Higuera Plan).Wallace estimates Project No. 44 of $2,150,000 does not include ROW - $1.760M in Const, $390k in const support.$2,150,000$2,150,000 0.0% 75.3% 24.7%$0 $1,618,790 $531,210Project #13 Higuera Widening: Madonna Rd to City LimitsStreet WideningWiden Higuera to 4 lanes, with a center turn lane, Class II bikeways from Madonna to southern City Limits.Wallace estimates Project No. 27 of $5,370,000 does not include ROW - $4.4M in Const, $970k in const support.$5,400,000$5,400,000 55.0% 0.0% 45.0% $2,970,000$0 $2,430,000Project #14 Tank Farm Road WideningStreet WideningWiden Tank Farm Road as a Parkway Arterial with 2 lanes in each direction, a center turn lane/landscaped median, Class II bike lanes, sidewalks and Class I bike lanes from Horizon to Santa Fe & Roundabout at Santa Fe.Combination of Wallace estimates Project No. 51 of $23,380,000 does not include ROW - $15.3M in Const, $3.370k in const support. Adds to that the roundabout and misc work at Sante Fe and Horizon Lane intersections. $3,000,000 in direct dev contribution in for adjacent development to pay for c/g/s and bike lanes along frontage.$22,000,000$3,000,000$19,000,000 30.0% 0.0% 70.0% $5,700,000$0 $13,300,000Project #15 Prado Rd Bridge Widening: West of Higuera St and Higuera & Prado Intersection Improvements (NB Dual LT)Street Widening and Intersection ImprovementsIntersection Improvements: Add second westbound through lane. Add second northbound left-turn lane. Add second eastbound through lane.See Wallace project No. 40 & Preliminary Cost Estimates for Bridge. Assumes HBR program will pick up to 60% (modified to excluse non eligible improvements).$13,000,000$7,800,000 $5,200,000 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%$0$0 $5,200,000Project #15F Prado Rd. Bridge W of HigueraFinancing$3,821,495$3,821,4950.0% 0.0% 100.0% $0$0$3,821,495Subtotal$46,371,495$3,000,000$7,800,000$35,571,495$8,670,000$1,618,790$25,282,706Street Extension ImprovementsProject #16a Santa Fe Road Extension North of Tank FarmStreet ExtensionRealign and Extend Santa Fe Road as a Commercial Collector from Tank Farm to Prado Road including construction of a new bridge at Acacia Creek. (See AASP) Chevron responsible for 66% ($1,620,000) to reflect local access needs. New cost estimate reduced by this amount.See Wallace project No. 52. Roundabout cost in Wallace estimate moved to TankFarm Road Widening Project #14.$1,080,000$1,080,000 60.0% 0.0% 40.0% $648,000$0 $432,000Project #16b Santa Fe Road Extension South of Tank FarmStreet ExtensionRealign and Extend Santa Fe Road as a Commercial Collector from Hoover Avenue to Tank Farm including construction of a new bridge at Acacia Creek. Chevron responsible for 50% to reflect local access needs.See Wallace project No. 52. Roundabout cost in Wallace estimate moved to TankFarm Road Widening Project #14.$2,500,000$2,500,000 60.0% 0.0% 40.0% $1,500,000$0 $1,000,000Project #17 Horizon Lane Extension South of Tank Farm Street ExtensionConstruct new commercial collector Tank Farm to Buckley with roundabout control at Tank farm.1,300 LF at $775 per LF plus $2m for Roundabout. $3,000,000$3,000,000 10.0% 0.0% 90.0% $300,000$0 $2,700,000Grant or Other SourcesPFFP Cost EstimateAllocation - CitywideAllocation - CitywideProject Number NameType (e.g., Geographic Area of Benefit)New Cost EstimateDirect Development ContributionPacket Pg 31511
Appendix ATransportation Improvement List, Cost Estimates, and AllocationsSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187DescriptionEstimate InformationRegional Existing New Regional Existing NewGrant or Other SourcesPFFP Cost EstimateAllocation - CitywideAllocation - CitywideProject Number NameType (e.g., Geographic Area of Benefit)New Cost EstimateDirect Development ContributionProject #18 Bishop St Extension to Roundhouse Street ExtensionExtend Bishop Street west over R.R. tracks. The City shall conduct a detailed subarea traffic analysis to determine if secondary measures can be made to allow for elimination of the Bishop Street Extension and protection of neighborhood traffic levels; and recommend improvements, if any.Wallace estimates Project No. 43 of $13,200,000 does not include ROW - All construction cost.$13,200,000$13,200,000 5.0% 71.5% 23.5% $660,000 $9,441,684 $3,098,316Project #19 Prado Rd Extension South Higuera to Broad Street, including Broad Street & Prado Extension Intersection ImprovementsStreet Extension and Intersection ImprovementsWiden and extend Prado Rd. as an Highway/Regional Route Arterial with 2 lanes in each direction, a center turn lane/landscaped median, Class II bike lanes, sidewalks and Class I bike lanes (where feasible) from US 101 to Broad Street. ROW Limitations east of Higuera outside of the MASP area may limit the City’s ability to install Class I facilities. (See MASP) Construct a second northbound left-turn lane at Broad and Prado.Assumes new Prado Extension cost of $25,936,200 based upon Serra Meadows actuals. Adjacent development funds c/g/s, bike lanes, center turn lane/median and one through lane. AB 1600 funds one lane in each direction.$26,526,200$16,509,720$10,016,480 20.0% 0.0% 80.0% $2,003,296$0 $8,013,184Project #19F Prado Rd Extension South Higuera to Broad Street, including Broad Street & Prado Extension Intersection ImprovementsFinancing$7,361,141$7,361,1410.0% 0.0% 100.0%$0$0$7,361,141Subtotal$53,667,341$16,509,720$0$37,157,621$5,111,296$9,441,684$22,604,641Pedestrian/ Bicycle ImprovementsProject #20 Bob Jones TrailPedestrian/Bike Projects Class I Trail from Marsh Street to Prado paralleling SLO Creek / Higuera Street, Calle Joaquin to Oceanaire behind Target & Auto Dealers Along Creek, and Los Osos Valley Road to S. Higuera along creek.14,000 LF Estimated at $785 per LF including Design, ROW, Permitting, Environmental Review / Mitigation, Retaining Walls & Bridges. Based on Final Bob Jones Prado to LOVR costs.$11,000,000$11,000,000 0.0% 75.3% 24.7%$0 $8,282,179 $2,717,821Project #21 Railroad Safety Trail Pedestrian/Bike Projects Completing gaps in Class I Trail paralleling UPRR right of way, with connections and bridges, from CalPoly to Southern City Limit.15,300 LF Estimated at $785 per LF including Design, ROW, Permitting, Environmental Review / Mitigation, Retaining Walls & Bridges.. Based on Final Bob Jones Prado to LOVR costs.$12,000,000$12,000,000 0.0% 75.3% 24.7%$0 $9,035,104 $2,964,896Project #22 Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard / Anholm Bikeway Including Broad St. Ramp Closure & Bike/Ped OverpassPedestrian/Bike Projects Mixture of bikeway and pedestrian enhancements connecting downtown area to schools north of Foothill. Includes CalTrans project development work for closure of the SB US 101 Ramps, grade separation of US 101 and misc mitigation at US 101/HWY1.$3,000,000 for Anholm Bikeway per Page 36 of adopted Anholm Bikeway Plan. $2,000,000 For CalTrans PSR, PA&ED, and PS&E of Broad Street Ramp Closure.$5,000,000$5,000,000 0.0% 75.3% 24.7%$0 $3,764,627 $1,235,373Project #23 Fixilini & Flora Bike BoulevardPedestrian/Bike Projects Connects neighborhoods north of Johnson Avenue along Flora Avenue from Lizzie to Southwood (also along Sequoia to County parcels) including gap closure between Bishop and Fixlini. Ref. Bike Plan A-61 - 65.950 LF Class I @ $325 per LF., $125k for traffic diverter islands and $15k for miscellaneous traffic calming.$450,000$450,000 0.0% 75.3% 24.7%$0 $338,816 $111,184Project #24 Ella Street Bike BoulevardPedestrian/Bike Projects Connects neighborhoods north of Johnson Avenue along Ella and other streets from the Jennifer Street Bridge to Flora BB. Ref. Bike Plan A-66,67.2000 LF @ $25 per LF.$50,000$50,000 0.0% 75.3% 24.7%$0 $37,646 $12,354Project #25 Jennifer Street Bridge Morro St. Expansion Pedestrian/Bike Projects Provides direct connection from Jennifer Street Bridge to Morro Street Bike Boulevard at Santa Rosa with new bridge ramp and ADA improvements. Estimated based on Original Jennifer Street Bridge Construction with CPI.$500,000$500,000 0.0% 75.3% 24.7%$0 $376,463 $123,537Project #26 Boyson Ped Bike Separated Xing & Class I Highland-Santa Rosa BypassPedestrian/Bike Projects Traffic Safety project to separate ped/bike crossings at Boyson/HWY 1 (by under/overpass) and connecting to N. Chorro. Bike Plan A-27, A-28.Estimate provided in Hwy 1 Major Investment Study. $3,500,000$3,500,000 0.0% 75.3% 24.7%$0 $2,635,239 $864,761Project #27 Class I Path Broad to Marsh (W side of Hwy 101)Pedestrian/Bike Projects Class I path connecting Broad Street Bike Boulevard to Marsh Street and the Cerro San Luis Trail head/Madonna Bike Path and beyond. Bike Plan A-36.4,000 LF Estimated at $475 per LF including Design, ROW, Environmental Review / Mitigation, & Retaining Walls. Based on Final Bob Jones Prado to LOVR Costs.$2,000,000$2,000,000 0.0% 75.3% 24.7%$0 $1,505,851 $494,149Project #28 Los Osos Valley Road Interchange Class I UnderpassPedestrian/Bike Projects Grade separation of Bob Jones Trail/LOVR bike and pedestrians using one of the culverts of the SLO Creek bridge or via Caltrans ROW. Bike Plan A-90.Estimates based on Early LOVR Interchange design which initially included this connection but was later removed.$1,000,000$1,000,000 0.0% 40.0% 60.0%$0 $400,000 $600,000Project #29 Madonna Class I (Hwy 101 to Oceanaire)Class I or IV bike facility on North side of Madonna connecting Madonna Bike Path to Laguna Lake Park then to Oceanaire. Bike Plan A-126, A-127.1,000 LF of Widening Sidewalk to Class I Facility Estimated $850 per LF per Laurel & Orcutt Class I Final Cost. In addition to 2,000 LF of Class I Estimated at $325 per LF construction only.$1,500,000$650,000$850,000 0.0% 40.0% 60.0%$0 $340,000 $510,000Project #30 Broad St. Class I (Rockview to Damon Garcia Park)Pedestrian/Bike Projects Class 1 Path on west side of Broad Street connecting Rockview to MASP and Damon Garcia park. See MASP and Bike Plan A-99 to A-101.1700 LF Estimated at $475 per LF including Design, ROW, Mitigation, & Culverts / Retaining Walls.$800,000$800,000 0.0% 40.0% 60.0%$0 $320,000 $480,000Project #31 Downtown Bikeways & Bike BlvdsPedestrian/Bike Projects Misc. bicycle and pedestrian enhancements as contained in the Downtown Concept Plan (2017).Signal Modifications & Corner Reconstruction at 9 Intersections estimated at $150,000 each. 3500 LF of Class IV Bikeways estimated at $185 per LF. Including Design & Construction.$2,000,000$2,000,000 0.0% 75.3% 24.7%$0 $1,505,851 $494,149Project #32 Cerro Romaulda Class I (Tassajara to Chorro)Pedestrian/Bike Projects Connects N. Choro to Ferinni and Pacheco School to Cal Poly. Bike Plan A-26.525 LF Estimated at $185 per LF including Design & Construction. $650,000 in ROW.$750,000$750,000 0.0% 75.3% 24.7%$0 $564,694 $185,306Project #33 Vachell Lane Class II LanesPedestrian/Bike Projects Constructs Class II bicycle lanes from S. Higuera to Buckley Road. Does not include ROW costs. Bike Plan A-113, Avila Ranch SP.Estimate Provided By Avila Ranch.$650,000$650,000 0.0% 40.0% 60.0%$0 $260,000 $390,000Project #34 Tank Farm Creek Class I (Buckley to Tank FarmPedestrian/Bike Projects Constructs Class 1 trail from Santa Fe Road at Tank Farm across the Chevron property through the Avila Ranch project and connects to Vachell at Buckley Road. Bike Plan A-111, AASP, Avila Ranch SP.Estimate Provided By Avila Ranch.$1,800,000$1,800,000 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%$0$0 $1,800,000Packet Pg 31611
Appendix ATransportation Improvement List, Cost Estimates, and AllocationsSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187DescriptionEstimate InformationRegional Existing New Regional Existing NewGrant or Other SourcesPFFP Cost EstimateAllocation - CitywideAllocation - CitywideProject Number NameType (e.g., Geographic Area of Benefit)New Cost EstimateDirect Development ContributionProject #35 Buckley Road Extension Class 1Pedestrian/Bike Projects Constructs Class 1 trail Vachell at Buckley Road to the Bob Jones Trail at S. Higuera and the Octagonal Barn property. Bike Plan A-112, AASP, Avila Ranch. Estimate Provided By Avila Ranch.$800,000$800,000 0.0% 40.0% 60.0%$0 $320,000 $480,000Project #36 Tank Farm & UPRR Bike BridgePedestrian/Bike Projects Connects RRST across Tank Farm Road to City limits. Funds citywide component of project, OASP funds remaining. Bike Plan A-58, OASP.See Wallace Eng. Estimate. 11-15-2016 Council Report for OASP PFFP.$1,008,000$252,000$756,000 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%$0$0 $756,000Project #37 Laguna Lake BikewaysPedestrian/Bike Projects Connects Laguna/LOVR area to Foothill area and Cal Poly via a series of Class I trail connections. Bike Plan A-122 to A-125.11,000 LF at $325 per LF construction only.$3,500,000$3,500,000 0.0% 40.0% 60.0%$0 $1,400,000 $2,100,000Project #38 Misc. Class II Bike LanesPedestrian/Bike Projects Miscellaneous Class II improvements as identified in the City Bicycle Plan.80,000 LF Estimated at $25 per LF.$2,000,000$2,000,000 0.0% 75.3% 24.7%$0 $1,505,851 $494,149Project #39 Misc. Class III Bike Signs & Markings Pedestrian/Bike Projects Miscellaneous Class III improvements as identified in the City Bicycle Plan.50,000 LF Estimated at $5 per LF.$250,000$250,000 0.0% 75.3% 24.7%$0 $188,231 $61,769Project #40 Misc. Ped/Bike X-Ing ControlsPedestrian/Bike Projects Miscellaneous Traffic Control upgrades at Ped and Bike crossings needed in future (Signal or other control).10 locations estimated at $150,000 each.$1,500,000$1,500,000 0.0% 40.0% 60.0%$0 $600,000 $900,000Project #41 Class I Overpass Industrial & UPRR Pedestrian/Bike Projects Connects growth areas of OASP, MASP and Broad Street industrial areas by installing a grade separation under/over the UPRR train tracks at Industrial Way. Funds citywide component of project, OASP funds remaining. Bike Plan A-57, OASP.See Wallace Eng. Estimate. 11-15-2016 Council Report for OASP PFFP.$2,108,000$1,054,000$1,054,0000.0% 0.0% 100.0%$0$0$1,054,000Subtotal$54,166,000$1,956,000$0$52,210,000$0$33,380,552$18,829,448Transit ImprovementsProject #42 Fleet Expansion: 4 BusesTransit ProjectsPer SRTP future forecast of vehicles needed to serve expansion areas. Recovers 25% local match requirement only.$1,500,000$1,500,000 0.0% 75.3% 24.7%$0 $1,129,388 $370,612Project #43 Transit CenterTransit ProjectsConstructs Transit Center in Downtown providing enhanced mobility and access for new development and businesses in Downtown, includes transfer locations for RTA and other regional providers. Recovers 25% local match requirement only.Estimate provided by SLOCOG. In excess of $12m. PFFP Cost capped at $5m pursuant to current TIFF program.$5,000,000$5,000,0000.0% 75.3% 24.7%$0$3,764,627$1,235,373Subtotal$6,500,000$0$0$6,500,000$0$4,894,015$1,605,985OtherProject #44 Traffic Volume Count Program and Traffic ModelMisc.Conducts biannual traffic counts and traffic model updates for use in development Traffic Impact Studies. Counts estimated @ $40K biannually for 20 years, Traffic Model update every 5 years at $100K ea.$900,000$900,000 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%$0$0 $900,000Project #45 S. Broad Street MediansCorridor Improvements Medians from South to Orcutt Per S. Broad Street Corridor Plan. 200 LF Estimated at $1,000 per LF.$2,000,000$2,000,00020.0% 0.0% 80.0% $400,000$0$1,600,000Subtotal$2,900,000$0$0$2,900,000$400,000$0$2,500,000CITYWIDE BASE SUBTOTAL$213,984,836$21,465,720$23,800,000$168,719,116$16,306,296$49,335,040$103,077,781PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE ADD-ONInterchange ImprovementsProject #2 Hwy 101/Prado Rd InterchangeInterchange Improvements Build full interchange at 101. Development of San Luis Ranch (Dalidio) Area shall include a circulation analysis of alternatives to a full access interchange, an analysis of compact interchange designs that minimize open space / ag. land impacts, and an analysis of potential incremental phasing of the interchange elements.Estimate is based on median range of the preliminary Project Study Report (PSR) estimates.$35,000,000$9,800,000 $6,000,000 as part of regional funding$25,200,000 30.0% 0.0% 70.0% $7,560,000$0 $17,640,000Project #2F Hwy 101/Prado Rd InterchangeFinancing $11,023,545 $11,023,545 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%$0$0 $11,023,545PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE ADD-ON BASE SUBTOTAL$46,023,545$9,800,000 $36,223,545$7,560,000$0$28,663,545LOVR INTERCHANGE ADD-ONProject #1 Hwy 101/LOVR Interchange Improvements Interchange Improvements Estimate is based on actual final cost.$7,134,172 $7,134,172 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%$0$0 $7,134,172Project #1F Hwy 101/LOVR Interchange Improvements Financing $4,502,661 $4,502,661 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%$0$0 $4,502,661LOVR INTERCHANGE ADD-ON BASE SUBTOTAL$11,636,833 $11,636,833$0$0$11,636,833TOTAL $271,645,214$31,265,720 $23,800,000 $216,579,494$23,866,296 $49,335,040 $143,378,158Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; Cambridge Systematics; Wallace Group; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.Packet Pg 31711
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2018 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING WATER AND WASTEWATER
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
WHEREAS, Chapter 4.20.140 of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code established
water and wastewater development impact fees and provides for the setting of the fee amounts and
other matters by resolution of the Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved the Water Resource Recovery Facility
Facilities Plan including regulatory requirements and capacity improvements necessary to
accommodate growth under the City’s General Plan; and
WHEREAS, on February 10, 2004 the Council for the City of San Luis Obispo directed
staff to proceed with participating in the Nacimiento Pipeline Water Supply Project to provide
additional water supplies for new development and service reliability for existing customers; and
WHEREAS, on March 7, 2006 the Council approved the Water Treatment Plant Master
Plan improvements which provided additional treatment process and capacity to meet General
Plan build-out; and
WHEREAS, updated cost information for capital projects necessitate updated the fees to
address new development’s share of the cost for lift stations and other capital projects; and
WHEREAS, modification of rates and charges by public agencies is statutorily exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15273 of the Public
Resources Code because the change in fees in not intended to fund expansion of capital projects
not otherwise evaluated under CEQA. All Master Plans were evaluated for their respective impacts
to the environment and this action to adjust fees merely provides a mode equitable distribution of
costs associated with envisioned infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, an analysis of the required amendments to both the water and wastewater
development impact fees to support the City’s operations, maintenance and debt service in the
Nacimiento Pipeline Water Supply Project, the facility and system improvements identified in the
Water Resource Recovery Facility Facilities Plan, the Water Treatment Plant Master Plan, and
updated cost information for lift stations and other capital projects have been completed and
amended fees identified as included in the attached Exhibits A and B.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows/or that (whatever action is needed):
SECTION 1. Findings
a) The purpose of development impact fees is to protect the public health, safety, and
general welfare by providing adequate water supply, treatment, distribution and
Packet Pg 318
11
Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 2
wastewater collection and treatment facilities to satisfy the needs of new
development and to mitigate the impacts of new development on the City’s water
and wastewater facilities and improvements.
b) The development impact fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used
only to pay for facilities and improvements identified in the development impact
fee analysis and shall not be in lieu of any other fee or tax as may be required by
the Municipal Code.
c) There is a reasonable relationship between the types of development on which the
development impact fees are imposed and the use of the development impact fees
and the need for the facilities and improvements. All new development requires
adequate water supply, treatment and distribution as well as wastewater collection
and treatment facilities to protect the public health and safety.
d) As required by Government Code Section 66001 et seq., there is a reasonable
relationship between the amount of the development impact fee and the cost of the
facilities and improvements attributable to the developments on which the
development impact fees are imposed. The estimated costs of facilities and
improvements, including financing costs, to be paid for as shown in the 2017 Water
and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Study prepared by HDR
Engineering, Inc. the findings and analysis of which are hereby incorporated by
reference, have been allocated to new development on the basis of dwelling unit
size and type (residential) or water meter size (non-residential).
SECTION 2. Cost Estimates
At any time that the actual or estimated costs of facilities identified in the development
impact fee analysis changes, the Finance Director shall review the development impact fee and
determine whether the change affects the amount of the development impact fees. If the
development impact fees are significantly affected, the Finance Director shall, within thirty (30)
days, recommend to the Council a revised fee for their consideration.
SECTION 3. Amount of Development Impact Fees
Effective July 1, 2018, water and wastewater development impact fees shall be in the
amounts set forth in Exhibits A and B attached hereto. Unless otherwise acted upon by the Council,
the amount of the development impact fees will automatically be adjusted on July 1 of each
subsequent year by the Municipal Cost Index for the prior year.
SECTION 4. Time of Payment
a) Development impact fees for any development project or portion thereof shall be
payable prior to issuance of building permits required for that development or later
as determined by the Community Development Director and shall be collected by
the Building Official. Under Government Code Section 66007(b), the City is
authorized to collect the development impact fee at the time of building permit
issuance or at a subsequent date because the development impact fees are for public
facilities and improvements for which an account has been established and funds
Packet Pg 319
11
Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 3
appropriated, and for which the City has adopted a proposed construction schedule,
or the development impact fees are to reimburse the City for expenditures
previously made.
b) For any development project or portion thereof, development impact fees shall be
assed at the time of application and remain valid for as long as the application is
proceeding through valid processing as per the Uniform Administrative Code.
SECTION 5. Exemptions
a) Fire Protection. Upgrading existing water services and/or meters for the sole
purpose of providing new or improved fire protection facilities shall be exempt
from any development impact fee provided for in this resolution.
b) Landscape Irrigation. Any water services and/or meters installed solely for
landscape irrigation purposes for properties with existing water service shall be
exempt from any development impact fees provided for in this resolution. However,
if an increase in water demand is required, the Utilities Director shall impose a
water development impact fee.
SECTION 6. Separate Accounts.
The Finance Director shall deposit fees collected under this resolution in separate water
development impact fee and wastewater development impact fee accounts as required by
Government Code Section 66006. Within sixty (60) days of the close of each fiscal year, the
Finance Director shall make available to the public an accounting of the fund, and the City Council
shall review that information at its next regular public meeting.
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:
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
Acting City Clerk
Packet Pg 320
11
Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 4
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 ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
Acting City Clerk
Packet Pg 321
11
Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 5
EXHIBIT A
WATER DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
Effective July 1, 2018
Equivalent
Dwelling Unit
(EDU)
Water Development
Impact Fee
Residential (by Unit Size)
Residential Unit (1,201 square feet or more) 1.0 $11,872
Residential Unit (801-1200 square feet or more) 0.8 $9,498
Residential Unit (451 to 800 square feet) 0.7 $8,310
Mobile Home 0.6 $7,123
Studio Unit (450 square feet or less) 0.3 $3,562
Non-Residential (by Meter Size)
¾” 1.0 $11,872
1” 1.7 $20,182
1.5” 3.4 $40,365
2” 5.4 $64,109
3” 10.7 $127,030
4” 16.7 $198,262
6” 33.4 $396,525
EXHIBIT B
WASTEWATER DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
Effective July 1, 2018
Equivalent
Dwelling Unit
(EDU)
Wastewater
Development
Impact Fee
Residential (by Unit Size)
Residential Unit (1,201 square feet or more) 1.0 $10,721
Residential Unit (801-1200 square feet or more) 0.8 $8,577
Residential Unit (451 to 800 square feet) 0.7 $7,505
Mobile Home 0.6 $6,433
Studio Unit (450 square feet or less) 0.3 $3,216
Non-Residential (by Meter Size)
¾” 1.0 $10,721
1” 1.7 $18,226
1.5” 3.4 $36,451
2” 5.4 $57,893
3” 10.7 $114,715
4” 16.7 $179,041
6” 33.4 $358,081
Packet Pg 322
11
FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
Residential and Non-Residential Prototypes
Packet Pg 323
11
RESIDENTIAL Pro totypes
(Outside of Expansion Areas and Specific Plan Areas)
Packet Pg 324
11
Single Family Prototype 3
Square Feet: 1,100
Price/Unit: $525,000
10% of Avg.
Sale Price
15% of Avg.
Sale Price
20% of Avg.
Sale Price
(Outside of Expansion Areas and Specific Plan Areas)
Key
Other fee obligations
include school district fees,
public art in-lieu fee, and
the affordable housing fee
where applicable. These
fees are not part of this
current fee update.
Outside of the expansion
area, the “proxy”
affordable housing fee is
calculated at 5% of the
building permit valuation,
estimated at 50% of sales
price.
Maximum wastewater and
water fees are based on
Option 1 for Water and
Option 3 for Wastewater
for a 1,,100 sq.ft unit.
Packet Pg 325
11
Single Family Prototype 3 (reflects transp. discount for smaller units)
Square Feet: 1,100
Price/Unit: $525,000
10% of Avg.
Sale Price
15% of Avg.
Sale Price
20% of Avg.
Sale Price
(Avila Ranch
Example)
Key?
Existing Wastewater cost
includes costs for the Tank
Farm catchment area.
The existing transportation fee
reflects the LOVR Base fee,
MASP Sub-area fee, MASP
Area Plan Prep fee.
Yellow outline is shown as
visual reminder of other
infrastructure costs outside of
the fee program that new
development is required to
pay. This amount is lower or
equal in the revised maximum
calculations, reflecting that
some of these infrastructure
costs are being incorporated
and formalized in the fee
program as part of this update.
LOVR Interchange cost reflects
the LOVR Sub-area fee.
Other fee obligations include
school district fees, public art
in-lieu fee, and the affordable
housing fee where applicable.
These fees are not part of this
current fee update.
Outside of the expansion area,
the “proxy” affordable housing
fee is calculated at 10% of the
building permit valuation,
estimated at 50% of sales price.
Maximum wastewater and
water fees are based on
Option 1 for Water and
Option 3 for Wastewater
for a 1,100 sq.ft unit.
The existing parks fee is based
on the DA.
Packet Pg 326
11
Multifamily Prototype (reflects transp. discount for smaller units)
Square Feet/ Unit: 800
Price/Unit: $400,000
Key
5% of Avg.
Sale Price
10% of Avg.
Sale Price
15% of Avg.
Sale Price
(Outside of
Specific Plan Areas)
Other fee obligations
include school district
fees, public art in-lieu
fee, and the affordable
housing fee where
applicable. These fees
are not part of this
current fee update.
Maximum wastewater and
water fees are based on
Option 1 for Water and
Option 3 for Wastewater
for a 800 sq.ft. unit.
Packet Pg 327
11
Non-RESIDENTIAL
Prototypes
(Outside of Specific Plan Areas)
Packet Pg 328
11
Office/Business Park Prototype (w/ 15% transp. discount)
Square Feet: 10,000
Price/Square Foot: $425
5% of Avg.
Sale Price
7.5% of Avg.
Sale Price
10% of Avg.
Sale Price
(Outside of
Specific Plan Areas)
Key
Maximum wastewater and
water fees are based on
Option 1 for Water and
Option 3 for Wastewater
for a 10,000 sq.ft. building.
Other fee obligations
include school district fees,
public art in-lieu fee, and
the affordable housing fee
where applicable. These
fees are not part of this
current fee update.
Outside of the expansion
area, the “proxy” affordable
housing fee is calculated at
5% of the building permit
valuation, estimated at 50%
of per square foot sales
price.
Packet Pg 329
11
Office/Service Prototype (w/ 15% transp. discount)
Square Feet: 10,000
Price/Square Foot: $300
5% of Avg.
Sale Price
7.5% of Avg.
Sale Price
10% of Avg.
Sale Price
(Outside of Specific Plan Areas)
Key
Maximum wastewater and
water fees are based on
Option 1 for Water and
Option 3 for Wastewater
for a 10,000 sq.ft. building.
Other fee obligations
include school district fees,
public art in-lieu fee, and
the affordable housing fee
where applicable. These
fees are not part of this
current fee update.
Outside of the expansion
area, the “proxy” affordable
housing fee is calculated at
5% of the building permit
valuation, estimated at 50%
of per square foot sales
price.
Packet Pg 330
11
Industrial Prototype (w/ 15% transp. discount)
Square Feet: 17,424
Price/Square Foot: $200
5% of Avg.
Sale Price
7.5% of Avg.
Sale Price
10% of Avg.
Sale Price
(Outside of Specific Plan Areas)
Key
Maximum wastewater and
water fees are based on
Option 1 for Water and
Option 3 for Wastewater
for a 17,424 sq.ft. building.
Other fee obligations
include school district fees,
public art in-lieu fee, and
the affordable housing fee
where applicable. These
fees are not part of this
current fee update.
Outside of the expansion
area, the “proxy” affordable
housing fee is calculated at
5% of the building permit
valuation, estimated at 50%
of per square foot sales
price.
Packet Pg 331
11
Retail Prototype (w/ 60% transportation discount)
Square Feet: 10,000
Price/Square Foot: $300
5% of Avg.
Sale Price
7.5% of Avg.
Sale Price
10% of Avg.
Sale Price
(Outside of Specific Plan Areas)
Key
Maximum wastewater and
water fees are based on
Option 1 for Water and
Option 3 for Wastewater
for a 10,000 sq.ft. building.
Other fee obligations
include school district fees,
public art in-lieu fee, and
the affordable housing fee
where applicable. These
fees are not part of this
current fee update.
Outside of the expansion
area, the “proxy” affordable
housing fee is calculated at
5% of the building permit
valuation, estimated at 50%
of per square foot sales
price.
Packet Pg 332
11
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
City of San Luis Obispo
Capacity and Connection Fees
for Water and Wastewater
September 2017
Packet Pg 333
11
hdrinc.com
500 108th Ave NE, Suite 1200, Bellevue, WA 98004
T 425-450-6200
September 26, 2017
Ms. Jennifer Metz
Utilities Projects Manager
Public Utilities
879 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2710
Subject: DRAFT FINAL - Development of the City’s Water and Wastewater Capacity and
Connection Fees
Dear Ms. Metz:
HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) was retained by the City of San Luis Obispo (City) to conduct a
study to develop cost-based water and wastewater capacity and connection fees (previously
referred to as development impact fees). Enclosed please find HDR’s draft final report for this
study. The conclusions and recommendations contained within this report should enable the
City to implement cost-based water and wastewater capacity and connection fees that meet
the City’s growth and financial policy objectives. The City has historically established cost-
based capacity and connection fees and this report is a continuation of those past practices.
This report has been prepared using “generally accepted” financial, rate setting, and
engineering principles. The City’s financial, budgeting and engineering data were the primary
sources for much of the data contained in this report. This report was developed with
significant participation and input by City management and staff.
HDR appreciates the opportunity to assist the City in this matter. We also would like to thank
you and your staff for assistance provided to us.
Very truly yours,
HDR Engineering, Inc.
Shawn Koorn
Associate Vice President
Packet Pg 334
11
Table of Contents i
City of San Luis Obispo – Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
Abbreviations and Acronyms
Capacity and Connection Fee Definitions
Executive Summary
Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1
Capacity and Connection Fee Approach ..................................................................... 2
Water Capacity and Connection Fee .......................................................................... 2
Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee ................................................................. 5
1 Introduction
1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 10
1.2 Organization of Report............................................................................................. 10
1.3 Disclaimer ............................................................................................................... 10
2 Overview of Capacity and Connection Fees
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 11
2.2 Defining Capacity and Connection Fees ................................................................... 11
2.3 Economic Theory and Capacity and Connection Fees ............................................... 11
2.4 Capacity and Connection Fees Criteria ..................................................................... 11
2.5 Overview of the Capacity and Connection Fee Methodology ................................... 13
2.6 Summary ................................................................................................................ 16
3 Legal Considerations in Establishing Capacity and Connection Fees
3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 17
3.2 Requirements under California Law ......................................................................... 17
3.3 Proposition 218 and 26 and Capacity and Connection Fees...................................... 18
3.4 Summary ................................................................................................................ 19
4 Determination of the City’s Water Capacity and Connection Fees
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 20
4.2 Overview of the City’s Water System ....................................................................... 20
4.3 Current Water Capacity and Connection Fees .......................................................... 21
4.4 Calculation of the Allowable Water Capacity and Connection Fees ......................... 21
4.4.1 Water System Planning Criteria .................................................................... 22
4.4.2 Calculation of Water Capacity and Connection Fee by Components ............. 23
4.5 Net Allowable Water Capacity and Connection Fees ............................................... 25
4.6 Key Water Capacity and Connection Fee Assumptions ............................................. 27
4.7 Implementation of the Proposed Water Capacity and Connection Fees ................... 28
4.8 Consultant Recommendations ................................................................................. 28
Table of Contents
Packet Pg 335
11
Table of Contents ii
City of San Luis Obispo – Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
4.9 Summary ................................................................................................................. 28
5 Determination of the City’s Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 29
5.2 Overview of the City’s Wastewater System .............................................................. 29
5.3 Current City Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees .......................................... 29
5.4 Calculation of the Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees ................................. 31
5.4.1 System Planning Criteria and Equivalent Dwelling Units ........................... 31
5.4.2 Calculation of Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee by Component . 32
5.5 Proposed Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees .............................................. 34
5.6 Key Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Assumptions ................................... 38
5.7 Implementation of the Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee ........................... 38
5.8 Consultant Recommendations ................................................................................. 39
5.9 Summary ................................................................................................................. 39
Technical Appendices
Water Capacity Fee and Connection Fees
Exhibit W-1 Development of the Water Capacity and Connection Fee
Exhibit W-2 Development of EDUs
Exhibit W-3 Supply Capacity and Connection Fee
Exhibit W-4 Treatment Capacity and Connection Fee
Exhibit W-5 Distribution Capacity and Connection Fee
Exhibit W-6 Summary of Debt Service
Exhibit W-7 Summary of Reserve Funds
Exhibit W-8 Development of Future Capital Improvement Projects
Exhibit W-9 Allowable Water Capacity and Connection Fees
Exhibit W-10 Summary of Water Capacity and Connection Fee Schedule
Wastewater Capacity Fee and Connection Fees
Exhibit S-1 Development of the Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee
Exhibit S-2 Development of EDUs
Exhibit S-3 Treatment Capacity and Connection Fee
Exhibit S-4A Development of Collection Capacity and Connection Fee
Exhibit S-4B Summary of Existing Catchment Assets
Exhibit S-5 Summary of Debt Service
Exhibit S-6 Summary of Reserve Funds
Exhibit S-7 Development of Future Capital Improvement Projects
Exhibit S-8 Allowable Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
Exhibit S-9 Summary of Catchment Calculation
Exhibit S-10 Summary of Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Schedule
Packet Pg 336
11
Abbreviations and Acronyms iii
City of San Luis Obispo – Water and Sewer Capacity and Connection Fees
The following abbreviations and acronyms are used within this report.
ADWF Average dry weather flow
City City of San Luis Obispo
CCI Consumer Cost Index
CF Capacity Fee
CIP Capital Improvement Plan
COP Certificates of participation
CPI Consumer Price Index
EDU Equivalent dwelling unit
ENR Engineering News Record
G.O. General Obligation (Bond)
GPD Gallons per day
MGD Million gallons per day
OC Original Cost
OCLD Original Cost Less Depreciation
RC Replacement/Reproduction Cost
RCLD Replacement/Reproduction Cost Less Depreciation
RCNLD Replacement/Replacement Cost New Less Depreciation
WRRF Water Resource Recovery Facility
WTP Water Treatment Plant
Abbreviations and Acronyms
Packet Pg 337
11
Capacity Fee Definitions iv
City of San Luis Obispo – Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
The following definitions related to the development of the City’s capacity and connection fees
are as follows:
“Allowable” Capacity and Connection Fee: Based upon the calculated fee, it is the maximum
cost-based fee which can be charged. As a matter of policy, a capacity and connection fee
which is less than the “allowable” capacity and connection fee may be charged.
Buy-In Methodology: A generally accepted methodology used to calculate a capacity and
connection fee which considers only the value of the existing assets of the utility.
Capacity and Connection Fee: A one-time fee paid by new development to finance
construction of public facilities needed to serve them.
Capacity and Connection Fee Eligible: The plant assets and value of that plant which are
included within the calculation of the capacity and connection fee. For example, the value of
any contributed or donated assets are not “capacity and connection fee eligible” and are
excluded from the calculation of the capacity and connection fee.
Combined Methodology: A generally accepted methodology used to calculate a capacity and
connection fee which considers both the value of the existing assets of the utility along with the
value of any future capacity/expansion related improvements.
Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU): One EDU is the level of service in gallons per day for an
average residential dwelling.
Existing Facilities: Plant assets which are currently in service and booked as an asset on the
City’s plant asset records.
Future/Expansion Facilities: Future planned assets which will be built to accommodate future
customer growth and the need for expanded capacity.
Gallons Per Day (GPD): The average gallons per day (gpd) that a customer or group of
customers use. Gallons per day may be further defined as being related to average day use or
peak day use.
Master Plan: A planning document used by the utility to assess current and future conditions
and needs, particularly as they relate to future customer growth and expansion infrastructure.
A master plan is typically accepted and adopted by the utility governing body.
Rational Nexus: A legal test to determine whether there is a reasonable connection (nexus)
between the burden of new development on the existing or new or expanded facilities required
to accommodate new or expanded development, and the appropriate apportionment of the
cost to the new or expanded development in relation to the benefits reasonably received.
Capacity Fee Definitions
Packet Pg 338
11
Executive Summary 1
City of San Luis Obispo – Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
Introduction
Water Systems Consulting Inc. (WSC) and HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) were retained by the City
of San Luis Obispo (City) to conduct a comprehensive study to review and update the City’s
water and wastewater development impact fees. On February 7, 2017, the City Council
supported the name change to “capacity and connection” fees to more clearly communicate
the service provided and therefore this report will incorporate the name change.
This report (the “Report”) documents the results of the water and wastewater capacity and
connection fee study. The purpose of capacity and connection fees is to recover the costs of
public facilities in existence at the time the fee is imposed and/or for new public facilities to be
acquired or constructed in the future that are of proportional benefit to the person or property
being charged. These fees are charged to new customers connecting to the system, or to
existing customers increasing their demand (i.e., capacity requirement).
By establishing cost-based capacity and connection fees, the City will be taking an important
step in providing adequate infrastructure to meet growth-related needs and, more importantly,
providing this required infrastructure to new customers in a cost-based, fair and equitable
manner. The current water and wastewater fees were adopted in 2013. The fees adopted in
2013 were based only on specific growth related future projects and the costs associated with
financing those projects. The fees did not include existing infrastructure and capacity in the
existing system. Per City policy, and generally accepted approaches, the City has been updating
the fees, on an annual basis, using the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
Since the 2013 fee update the City has adopted several key infrastructure planning documents
which are major components in the development of the fees. Following the adoption of the
General Plan’s updated Land Use Element in December 2014, the City completed master plans
to identify and prioritize necessary capital improvements, including those projects to provide
capacity to serve future growth. The City’s Financial and Capital Improvement Plan provide the
basis for identifying future project capital costs along with the following documents:
x The Potable Water Distribution System Master Plan (2015)
x The Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy (2015)
x The Water Resource Recovery Facility Facilities Plan (2015)
x The Recycled Water Master Plan (2017)
This Report provides the basis for the City to implement cost-based capacity and connection
fees and includes a detailed determination of the capacity and connection fees using “generally
accepted” engineering and rate setting principles, while incorporating City specific information
on assets, customer base, and growth related capital projects.
Executive Summary
Packet Pg 339
11
Executive Summary 2
City of San Luis Obispo – Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
Capacity and Connection Fee Approach
The City’s capacity and connection fees in the Report are based upon the value of both existing
and future capital infrastructure needed to accommodate future growth, divided by the
number of equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) served by that capacity. This methodology is called
the combined approach and is outlined in the American Water Works Association (AWWA) M1
Manual, Principles of Water Rates, Fees and Charges. Given that the City has previously used
only specific future projects or the “incremental methodology” for calculating the fees, the
current approach along with the combined approach was developed for the City to consider.
The combined approach is based on a blended value of both the existing and expanded
system’s capacity. This method is typically used where there is capacity available in parts of the
existing system (e.g., source of supply), but new or incremental capacity will need to be built in
other parts (e.g., transmission and distribution pipelines) to serve new development at some
point in the future.”1 The calculations also take into account the financing mechanisms of
capital improvements. Based on the sum of the existing and future component costs, the net
allowable utility capacity and connection fee is determined. “Net” refers to the calculated
“gross” capacity and connection fee, net of any debt service credits. “Allowable” refers to the
concept that the calculated capacity and connection fees are the City’s maximum cost-based
charge. The City, as a matter of policy, may charge any amount up to the cost-based maximum
allowable capacity and connection fee, but not in excess of that amount. Charging an amount
greater than the “allowable” capacity and connection fee would not meet the nexus test of a
cost-based capacity and connection fee related to the benefit derived by the customer.
Capacity and connection fees must be implemented according to the capacity requirement, or
impact, each new development has on the utility system. By doing so, the capacity and
connection fee is directly related to the impact the customer places on the system, and to the
proportional benefit the customer derives from the service (i.e., facilities) provided.
Water Capacity and Connection Fee
The City charges new customers connecting to the water system a one-time water capacity and
connection fee. The current City ordinance governing the imposition of capacity and
connection fees provides a capacity and connection fee according to type of use. The EDU is
based on a residential customer and applied to other customer classes based on generally
accepted flow assumptions by customer type.
The City, per City resolution, updates the fees each year by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The
City’s current water capacity and connection fees for 2017-18, as of July 1, 2017, are shown
below in Table ES-1.
1 AWWA M-1 Manual, p 6th Edition, p. 265-266.
Packet Pg 340
11
Executive Summary 3
City of San Luis Obispo – Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
Table ES - 1
Current Water Capacity and Connection Fees – $/Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU)
Land Use Type
EDU
Unit
Current
Capacity and
Connection
Fee $/EDU [1]
Residential (per unit)
Single Family Residential 1.0 $11,322.16
Multi-Family Residential 0.7 7,925.51
Mobile Home 0.6 6,793.30
Studio Unit (450 s.f. or less) 0.3 3,396.65
Non-Residential
5/8” to 3/4" 1.0 $11,322.16
1-inch 1.7 19,247.68
1-1/2 inch 3.4 38,495.36
2-inch 5.4 61,138.45
3-inch 10.7 121,145.00
4-inch 16.7 185,076.96
6-inch 33.4 378,153.92
[1] – City’s current water capacity and connection fees effective July 1, 2017.
In this Report, the City updated the projections for future residential and non-residential
development in equivalent dwelling units based on reduction in average water use since 2013
from the City’s utility billing data. This reduction is from 150 gallons per day (gpd) per
residential equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) to 134 gallons per day per EDU based on the City’s
three-year average for single family residential units. Based on the City owned wastewater
treatment capacity average dry weather flow of 4.93 MG, the existing average dry weather flow
of 4.15 MGD which includes projected flow for vested and pending projects under construction,
and the 134 gallons per day per equivalent dwelling unit, there are 5,821 equivalent dwelling
units, or “EDUs,” that can be accommodated in the City.
In the 2013 Fee Study, a new fee category was added to reflect water demand for units 450
square feet or less at 0.30 of a full EDU. Based on water demand of similar units, this fee
category is proposed to remain. In this Report, the residential category is modified as water
demand correlates more closely to unit size than a single- or multi-family unit designation as
shown in Table ES-2. Fee categories are proposed to correspond to residential units between
451 and 800 square feet and 801 square feet or more. New State regulations allow accessory
dwelling units within single-family residential zones, these units would not be assessed a
capacity and connection fee. Although no impact fee would be assessed, separate water
metering may still apply, if required by the City’s Municipal Code. Provided in Table ES-2 is a
summary of the residential equivalency factors.
Packet Pg 341
11
Executive Summary 4
City of San Luis Obispo – Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
Table ES - 2
Residential Equivalency Factors
Residential Unit Type
Average Annual Water
Consumption
Equivalency Factor
Residential Unit (801 square feet or more) 0.17 1.0
Residential Unit (451 to 800 square feet) 0.12 0.7
Mobile Home 0.10 0.6
Studio Unit (450 square feet or less) 0.05 0.3
Similar to the 2013 Study, fees for non-residential EDUs in this Report are based on water
meter safe operating capacity ratios from the American Water Works Association (AWWA)
specifications.
On February 7, 2017, the City Council directed staff to explore the following options for the
water capacity and connection fee update.
x Option 1 - Utilize a similar methodology to the 2013 Fee Study which only includes
growth related projects and financing costs.
x Option 2 - Utilize the combined methodology that includes the buy-in to both existing
and future water infrastructure.
Option 1 - The fees calculated in Option 1 are based on a similar methodology to the 2013 Fee
Study where only specific growth related projects and the financing costs are included in the
fee calculation. This option reflects the increased capital costs of these specific projects as well
as the new capital projects related to growth and expansion on the water system. Option 1
does not include a buy-in component to existing water infrastructure. The capacity and
connection fee under Option 1 is $11,872 per EDU.
Option 2 - The water capacity and connection fees calculated for Option 2 are based on the
combined methodology, as outlined in the AWWA M1 Manual, which values the cost of all
existing and future water assets and the proportion allocable to new growth on the system.
The growth related assets are attributed to existing and future development, 84 percent and 16
percent respectively. This split is based on future EDUs to total EDUs (5,821/36,971 = 16%).
The capacity and connection fee under Option 2 is $15,780 per EDU.
Packet Pg 342
11
Executive Summary 5
City of San Luis Obispo – Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
Table ES - 3
Option 1 and 2
Water Capacity and Connection Fees – $/Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU)
Land Use Type EDU Current Option 1 Option 2
Residential (per unit)
Residential Unit [1] 1.0 $11,322.16 $11,872 $15,780
Residential Unit [2] 0.7 7,925.51 8,310 11,046
Mobile Home 0.6 6,793.30 7,123 9,468
Studio Unit (450 s.f. or less) 0.3 3,396.65 3,562 4,734
Non-Residential
3/4-inch 1.0 $11,322.16 $11,872 $15,780
1-inch 1.7 19,247.68 20,182 26,826
1-1/2 inch 3.4 38,495.36 40,365 53,652
2-inch 5.4 61,138.45 64,109 85,212
3-inch 10.7 121,145.00 127,030 168,846
4-inch 16.7 189,076.96 198,262 263,526
6-inch 33.4 378,153.92 396,525 527,052
[1] Residential unit 1.0 defined as 801 square feet or more.
[2] Residential unit 0.7 defined as 451 to 800 square feet.
Option 1 is not recommended since the fees does not represent the total infrastructure costs
(capacity) necessary to serve new development or offer the greatest protection to the water
ratepayer. Option 2 is recommended, at $15,780 per EDU, as this fee represents the costs
associated with both existing and future infrastructure needed to serve future development
and offers the greatest protection to the water ratepayer.
Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee
The City charges new customers connecting to the wastewater system a one-time wastewater
capacity and connection fee. The current City ordinance governing the imposition of capacity
and connection fees provides a capacity and connection fee according to type of use. The EDU
is based on a residential customer and applied to other customer classes based on generally
accepted flow assumptions by customer type. The EDU equivalency factors shown in water are
the same for wastewater. The City currently has a system wide fee, with additional charges for
catchment areas. The catchment areas are regions in the City served by sewer mains, lift
stations, and force mains. The catchment area fee varies based on area located due to pumped
flow, and land use served.
For the wastewater capacity and connection fee, the City’s gallons per day, per EDU, were
adjusted from 150 gallons per day (gpd) per residential equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) to 134
gallons per day per EDU. Based on the City owned wastewater treatment capacity average dry
weather flow of 4.93 MG, the existing average dry weather flow of 4.15 MGD which includes
projected flow for vested and pending projects under construction, and the 134 gallons per day
Packet Pg 343
11
Executive Summary 6
City of San Luis Obispo – Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
per equivalent dwelling unit, there are 5,821 equivalent dwelling units, or “EDUs,” that can be
accommodated in the City.
The City, per City resolution, updates the fees each year by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The
City’s current wastewater capacity and connection fees for 2017-18, as of July 1, 2017, are
shown below in Table ES-4. It should be noted that there is a wastewater fee for City Wide as
well as additional fees for specific catchment area improvements. For those customers in a
catchment area, the City Wide fee is charged along with the appropriate catchment area fee.
Table ES - 4
Current Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees – $/Equivalent Dwelling Unit
(EDU)
Type of Use
City
Wide
Margarita
Tank Farm
Silver City
Calle
Joaquin
Laguna
Residential (per unit)
SF Residential $3,830.21 $2,819.50 $3,728,52 1,392.80 $1,878.64 $503.30
MF Residential 2,681.14 1,973.65 2,609.96 974.96 1,315.05 352.31
Mobile Home 2,298.12 1,691.70 2,237.11 835.68 1,127.18 301.98
Studio Unit 1,149.06 845.85 1,118.56 417.84 563.59 150.99
Non-Residential
3/4-inch $3,830.21 $2,819.50 $3,728.52 $1,392.80 $1,878.64 $503.30
1-inch 6,511.35 4,793.15 6,338.48 2,367.76 3,193.69 855.61
1-1/2 inch 13,022.70 9,586.30 12,676.96 4,735.53 6,387.37 1,711.22
2-inch 20,683.11 15,225.30 20,134.00 7,521.13 10,144.65 2,717.81
3-inch 40,983.19 30,168.64 39,895.14 14,902.98 20,101.44 5,385.30
4-inch 63,964.42 47,085.64 62,266.25 23,259.79 31,373.27 8,405.09
6-inch 127,928.85 94,171.28 124,532.51 46,519.58 62,746.54 16,810.17
[1] – City’s current wastewater capacity and connection fee effective July 1, 2017.
On February 7, 2017, the City Council directed the following options for the wastewater
capacity and connection fee.
x Option 1 - Utilize a methodology which includes specific growth related infrastructure
and financing costs only plus the catchment area fees.
x Option 2 - Utilize the combined methodology that includes fair share buy-in to both
existing and future infrastructure plus the catchment area fees.
x Option 3 - Option 1 with area-specific wastewater catchment area fees eliminated and
one citywide wastewater capacity and connection fee.
x Option 4 - Option 2 with area-specific wastewater catchment area fees eliminated and
one citywide wastewater capacity and connection fee
Option 1 - The fees calculated in Option 1 are based on a similar methodology to the 2013 Fee
Study where only specific growth related infrastructure and financing costs are included in the
Packet Pg 344
11
Executive Summary 7
City of San Luis Obispo – Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
fee calculation. This option reflects the increased capital costs of these projects as well as new
growth related capital projects. Option 1 does not include a buy-in component to existing
wastewater infrastructure. The capacity and connection fee under Option 1 is $8,165 per EDU.
The catchment area fees would be in addition to the city wide fee where applicable.
This option does not include all wastewater infrastructure costs (capacity) necessary to serve
new development or offer the greatest protection to the wastewater ratepayer. Therefore
Option 1 is not being recommended.
Option 2 - The wastewater capacity and connection fees calculated for Option 2 are based on
the combined methodology that values the cost of all existing and future wastewater assets
allocated to new growth. The growth related assets are attributed to existing and future
development, 84 percent and 16 percent. This split is based on future EDUs to total EDUs
(5,821/36,971 = 16%). The capacity and connection fee under Option 2 is $9,522 per EDU and
additional wastewater catchment area fees would apply, where applicable.
Option 3 - The wastewater capacity and connection fees calculated for Option 3 include those
fees calculated in Option 1, and include the cost of all catchment area improvements, for a
single fee for all customers connecting to the City’s system. In this option, the approximately
$15 million in capital improvements would be attributed to all approximately 5,800 future EDUs
in the City. The capacity and connection fee under Option 3 is $10,721 per EDU
Option 3 is not recommended. Like Option 1, Option 3 does not include all wastewater
infrastructure costs (capacity) necessary to serve new development and thereby does not offer
the greatest protection to the wastewater ratepayer.
Option 4 – This option uses the combined methodology from Option 2 with the catchments
area improvement costs included in total, for a single wastewater capacity and connection fee
for all customers connecting to the City’s system.
Option 4 is recommended, at $12,602 per EDU, as this fee represents the costs associated with
both existing and future infrastructure needed to serve future development, offers the greatest
protection to the wastewater ratepayer, and simplifies implementation of the City’s
wastewater capacity and connection fees.
The City’s proposed wastewater capacity and connection fees for Options 1, 2, 3 and 4 are
shown below in Table ES-5. Options 1 and 2 is the city wide fee and the additional catchment
fee shown in Table ES-6 would apply where applicable. Options 3 and 4 are single fees for all
customers regardless of the location.
Packet Pg 345
11
Executive Summary 8
City of San Luis Obispo – Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
Table ES - 5
Options 1,2 , 3, and 4
Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees – $/Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU)
Type of Use
Equiv.
Dwelling
Unit (EDU)
Option 1
City
Wide [1]
Option 2
City
Wide [1]
Option 3
Full Cost [2]
Option 4
Full Cost [2]
Residential (per unit)
Residential [3] 1.00 $8,165 $9,522 $10,721 $12,602
Residential [3] 0.70 5,715 6,666 7,505 8,821
Mobile Home 0.60 4,899 5,713 6,433 7,561
Studio Unit 0.30 2,449 2,857 3,216 3,781
Non-Residential
5/8” to 3/4" 1.00 $8,165 $9,522
1-inch 1.70 13,880 16,188 $10,721 $12,602
1-1/2 inch 3.40 27,759 32,375 18,226 21,423
2-inch 5.40 44,088 51,420 36,452 42,847
3-inch 10.70 87,360 101,887 57,895 68,051
4-inch 16.70 136,347 159,021 114,718 134,841
6-inch 33.40 272,695 318,041 179,046 210,453
[1] City wide does not include additional catchment fee.
[2] Option 3 and 4 include catchment area costs and are a full cost fee.
[3] Residential EDU unit defined as 1.0 = 801 square feet or more; 0.70 = 451 to 800 square feet.
Packet Pg 346
11
Executive Summary 9
City of San Luis Obispo – Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
Table ES – 6
Option 1 and 2 - Additional Catchment Area Charges
Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees – $/Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU)
Additional Catchment Area Charges [1]
Type of Use
Margarita
Tank
Farm
Silver
City
Calle
Joaquin
Laguna
Airport
[2]
Foothill
[2]
Buckley
[2]
Residential (per unit)
Residential [3] $3,830 $3,192 $2,429 $2,898 $434 $6,372 $22,319 $643
Residential [3] 2,681 2,234 1,700 2,029 304 4,460 15,623 450
Mobile Home 2,298 1,915 1,457 1,739 261 3,823 13,391 386
Studio Unit 1,149 958 729 870 130 1,912 6,696 193
Non-Residential
5/8” to 3/4" $3,830 $3,192 $2,429 $2,898 $434 $6,372 $22,319 $643
1-inch 6,511 5,426 4,129 4,927 738 10,833 37,943 1,093
1-1/2 inch 13,022 10,852 8,259 9,855 1,477 21,665 75,885 2,187
2-inch 20,683 17,236 13,117 15,651 2,345 34,409 120,523 3,473
3-inch 40,982 34,153 25,990 31,013 4,647 68,181 238,815 6,882
4-inch 63,963 53,304 40,565 48,403 7,253 106,414 372,730 10,741
6-inch 127,925 106,608 81,129 96,807 14,506 212,828 745,460 21,483
[1] – These fees are in addition to the city wide fees in Options 1 and 2.
[2] – Airport, Foothills, and Buckley are new catchment area fees.
[3] Residential EDU unit defined as 1.0 = 801 square feet or more; 0.70 = 451 to 800 square feet.
The detailed development of the City’s water capacity and connection fee is presented in
Section 4. The development of the wastewater capacity and connection fee is presented in
Section 5. Technical appendices are included within this Report to document the technical
analyses which were undertaken as a part of the study.
Packet Pg 347
11
Introduction 10
City of San Luis Obispo – Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
“By establishing cost-based
capacity and connection fees
the City maintains an
approach of having “growth
pay for growth” and existing
utility customers should, for
the most part, be sheltered
from the financial impacts of
growth.”
1.1 Introduction
HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) was retained by the City of San Luis Obispo (City) to conduct a
study to review and update its water and wastewater capacity and connection fees. The
objective of the study is to calculate cost-based capacity and connection fees for new
customers connecting to the utility system, or those customers requesting additional capacity.
These fees provide the means of balancing the cost requirements for utility infrastructure
between existing customers and new customers. The
portion of existing infrastructure and future capital
improvements that will provide service (i.e., capacity) to
new customers is included in the calculation of the capacity
and connection fees. In contrast to this, the City has future
capital improvement projects that are related to renewal
and replacement of existing infrastructure in service. These
infrastructure costs are included within the rates of the
water and wastewater service fees charged to the City’s
customers, and are not included within the calculation of
the proposed capacity and connection fees. By establishing cost-based capacity and connection
fees the City maintains an approach of having “growth pay for growth” and existing utility
customers should, for the most part, be sheltered from the financial impacts of growth.
1.2 Organization of Report
This Report documents the methodology, approach and technical analysis undertaken by HDR
and the City in conducting the study and developing the City’s water and wastewater capacity
and connection fees. The Report is divided into five sections. Section 1 provides a brief
introduction and overview of the study. Given this brief introduction, Section 2 provides a
general overview of the development of capacity and connection fees and the criteria and
general methodology that should be used to calculate and establish cost-based fees. Next,
Section 3 provides an overview of the requirements under California law for determining
capacity and connection fees. Section 4 reviews the City specific calculations of the cost-based
water capacity and connection fee. Finally, Section 5 reviews the development and calculation
of the wastewater capacity and connection fee.
1.3 Disclaimer
HDR, in its calculation of the water and wastewater capacity and connection fees presented in
this Report, has used “generally accepted” engineering and ratemaking principles. This should
not be construed as a legal opinion with respect to California law. HDR recommends that the
City have its legal counsel review the capacity and connection fees as forth in this Report to
ensure compliance with California law.
Introduction
Packet Pg 348
11
Overview of Capacity and Connection Fees 11
City of San Luis Obispo – Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
2.1 Introduction
An important starting point in establishing capacity and connection fees is to have a basic
understanding of the purpose of these fees, along with the criteria and general methodologies
that are used to establish cost-based fees. Presented in this section of the Report is an
overview of these fees and the criteria and general methodologies that may be used to develop
cost-based capacity and connection fees.
2.2 Defining Capacity and Connection Fees
The first step in establishing cost-based capacity and connection fees is to gain a better
understanding of what a capacity and connection fee is. Simply stated, a capacity and
connection fee is a contribution of capital to either reimburse existing customers for the
available capacity in the existing system, or help finance planned future growth-related capacity
improvements. The objective of these charges is to provide funds to the utility to finance all or
a part of the existing or new capital improvements needed to serve and accommodate new
customer growth. Absent these fees, many utilities would likely be unwilling to build growth-
related facilities (i.e., burden existing rate payers with the entire cost of growth-related capacity
expansion).
2.3 Economic Theory and Capacity and Connection Fees
Capacity and connection fees are generally imposed as a condition of service. The objective of
a capacity and connection fee is not merely to generate money for a utility, but to ensure that
all customers seeking to connect to or requiring additional capacity in the utility’s system bear
an equitable share of the cost of capacity that is invested in both the existing system and any
future growth-related expansions. Through the implementation of fair and equitable capacity
fees, existing customers should not be unduly burdened with the cost of new development.
By establishing cost-based fees, the City will be taking an important step in providing adequate
infrastructure to meet growth-related needs, and more importantly, providing the
infrastructure required to serve new customers in a cost-based, fair and equitable manner.
2.4 Capacity and Connection Fee Criteria
In the determination and establishment of the capacity and connection fees, a number of
different criteria are often utilized by public agencies, including the following:
Customer understanding
System planning criteria
Financing criteria, and
State/local laws
Overview of Capacity and Connection Fees
Packet Pg 349
11
Overview of Capacity and Connection Fees 12
City of San Luis Obispo – Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
“System planning criteria
provides the “rational
nexus” between the
amount of infrastructure
necessary to provide
service and the charge to
the customer.”
The component of customer understanding implies that the fee is easy to understand. This
criterion has implications on the way that the fees are implemented and assessed to the
customer. For water systems, the fee is generally based on specific customer usage (demand)
or meter size. The other implication of this criterion is that the methodology is clear and
concise in its calculation of the amount of infrastructure necessary to provide service.
The use of system planning criteria is one of the more important
aspects in the determination of capacity and connection fees.
System planning criteria provides the “rational nexus” between
the amount of infrastructure necessary to provide service and
the charge to the customer. The rational nexus test requires that
there be a connection (nexus) established between the burden of
new development on the existing or new or expanded facilities
required to accommodate new or expanded development, and
the appropriate apportionment of the cost to the new or
expanded development in relation to benefits reasonably received.
To comply with the rational nexus test the calculated fees require the following:
1. “A connection be established between new development and the new or expanded
facilities required to accommodate such development. This establishes the rational basis
of public policy.
2. Identification of the cost of these new or expanded facilities needed to accommodate
new development. This establishes the burden to the public of providing new facilities to
new development and the rational basis on which to hold new development accountable
for such costs. This may be determined using the so-called Banberry factors. [Banberry
Development Company v. South Jordan City (631 P.2d 899, Utah 1981)].
3. Appropriate apportionment of that cost to new development in relation to benefits it
reasonably receives. This establishes the nexus between the fees being paid to finance
new facilities that accommodate new development and benefit new development
receives from such new facilities.”1
The first requirement of the rational nexus test requires the establishment of a rational basis of
public policy. This implies the planning and capital improvement studies that are used to
establish the need for new facilities to accommodate growth. Adopted master plans or facility
plans should firmly meet this first test since these plans assess existing facilities and capacity,
project future capacity requirements, and determine the future capital infrastructure and new
facilities needed to accommodate growth.
The second requirement of the rational nexus test discusses the Banberry Factors. In summary,
“consideration must be given to seven factors to determine the proportionate share of costs to
be borne by new development:
1. The cost of existing facilities
1 Arthur C. Nelson, System Development Charges for Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater Facilities, Lewis
Publishers, New York, 1995, p. 16 and 17.
Packet Pg 350
11
Overview of Capacity and Connection Fees 13
City of San Luis Obispo – Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
“One of the driving
forces behind
establishing cost-
based capacity and
connection fees is
that “growth pays
for growth.”
2. The means by which existing facilities have been financed
3. The extent to which new development has already contributed to the cost of providing
existing excess capacity
4. The extent to which existing development will, in the future, contribute to the cost of
providing existing facilities used community wide or non-occupants of new development
5. The extent to which new development should receive credit for providing, at its cost,
facilities the community has provided in the past without charge to other development in
the service area.
6. Extraordinary costs incurred in serving new development
7. The time-price differential inherent in fair comparisons of amount of money paid at
different times.”2
The final portion of the rational nexus test is the reasonable apportionment of the cost to new
development in relation to benefits it reasonably receives. This is accomplished in the
methodology to establish the capacity and connection fees, which is discussed in more detail
within this section.
One of the driving forces behind establishing cost-based capacity and connection fees is that
“growth pays for growth.” Therefore, these fees are typically established as a means of having
new customers, and those requiring additional capacity in the utility
system, pay an equitable share of the cost of the infrastructure
(capacity) required to serve them. The financing criteria for
establishing the fees relates to the method used to finance
infrastructure on the system and assures that customers are not
paying twice for infrastructure – once through the capacity and
connection fees and again through water or wastewater service
fees. The double payment can come in through the imposition of
growth-related infrastructure debt service within a customer’s
rates. The financing criteria also reviews the basis under which main line extensions were
provided and assures that the customer is not charged for infrastructure that was provided
(contributed) by developers.
Under California law, and as described in Section 3 of this Report, the amount of a capacity and
connection fee imposed by a public agency does not need to be mathematically exact, but it
must bear a reasonable relationship to the cost burden imposed and benefits received. As
discussed above, the utilization of the planning and financing criteria and the actual costs of
construction and the planned costs of construction provide the nexus for the reasonable
relationship requirement.
2.5 Overview of the Capacity and Connection Fee Methodology
In establishing capacity and connection fees, there are differing methodologies. The AWWA M-
1 Manual discusses three generally accepted methods;
2 Ibid, p. 18 and 19.
Packet Pg 351
11
Overview of Capacity and Connection Fees 14
City of San Luis Obispo – Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
x “The buy-in method is based on the value of the existing system’s capacity. This method
is typically used when the existing system has sufficient capacity to serve new
development now and into the future.
x The incremental cost method is based on the value or cost to expand the existing
system’s capacity. This method is typically used when the existing system has limited or
no capacity to serve new development now and into the future.
x The combined approach is based on a blended value of both the existing and expanded
system’s capacity. This method is typically used where some capacity is available in
parts of the existing system (e.g., source of supply) and new or incremental capacity will
need to be built in other parts (e.g., transmission and distribution) to serve new
development at some point in the future.”3
For the development and calculation of the City’s capacity and connection fees the “combined
approach” was used since there is available capacity in the existing system and the need for
future (capacity) expansion. Historically the City has used the incremental cost method for
specific growth projects and has not included the backbone infrastructure of the system. For
the combined approach, the value of City assets will be determined and then be divided by the
total number of existing and future EDUs. The expanded capacity projects will be determined
and divided by the number of additional future EDUs. The two components will then be
combined to determine the total capacity and connection fee.
Capacity and Connection Fee Equation:
Where:
A = Value of existing facilities
B = Depreciation of existing facilities
C1 = Value of future growth-related City-constructed facilities
D = Existing City EDUs
E = Purchased, but not installed, EDUs
F = Future EDUs to ultimate buildout
Regardless of the overall methodology selected, a common denominator of the technical
analyses is the various steps undertaken. These steps are as follows:
Determination of system planning criteria
Determination of equivalent dwelling unit equivalents (EDUs)
Calculation of existing system costs
Determination of any credits
3 AWWA M-1 Manual, 6th Edition, p. 265-266.
(A - B) C1 Total City Facilities at Buildout Future Growth Related Facilities
_______D + E + F F Total Customers at Buildout Future EDUs at Buildout
=++
Packet Pg 352
11
Overview of Capacity and Connection Fees 15
City of San Luis Obispo – Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
The first step in establishing capacity and connection fees is the determination of the system
planning criteria. This implies calculating the amount of water or wastewater capacity required
by a single-family residential customer in the terms of an equivalent dwelling unit (EDU). The
number of EDUs provides the linkage between the amounts of infrastructure necessary to
provide service to a set number of customers.
Once the number of EDUs or capacity components for the system is determined, a component-
by-component system analysis is undertaken to determine the portion of the capacity and
connection fee attributable in dollars per EDU. In this process, the existing assets must be
valued. Existing assets may be valued in a number of different ways. These methods may
include the following:
9 Original Cost (OC)
9 Original Cost Less Depreciation (OCLD)
9 Replacement Cost New (RCN)
9 Replacement Cost New Less Depreciation (RCNLD)
Given these four different methods for valuing the assets, the selection of the valuation
method certainly arises. The American Water Works Association M-1 Manual notes the
following concerning these generally accepted valuation methods:
“Using the OC and OCLD valuations, the [capacity fee] reflects the original investment in
the existing capacity. The new customer “buys in” to the capacity at the OC or the net
book value cost (OCLD) for the facilities and as a result pays an amount similar to what
the existing customers paid for the capacity (OC) or the remaining value of the original
investment (OCLD).
Using the RCN and the RCNLD valuations, the [capacity fee] reasonably reflects the cost
of providing new expansion capacity to customers as if the capacity was added at the
time the new customers connected to the water system. It may be also thought of as a
valuation method to fairly compensate the existing customers for the carrying costs of
the excess capacity built into the system in advance of when the new customers connect
to the system. This is because, up to the point of the new customer connecting to the
system, the existing customers have been financially responsible for the carrying costs of
that excess capacity that is available to development.”4
As a point of reference for this Report, the City’s water and wastewater capacity and
connection fee analysis will use an RCNLD methodology for all assets. The City’s existing assets
are escalated to replacement dollars and then depreciated using a simple straight-line method
based on the useful life of each historical asset, respectively. The total existing assets are then
divided by the sum of existing EDUs and additional future EDUs to determine the “gross existing
capacity and connection fee”.
After the existing infrastructure is analyzed, the future expansion projects are then added to
the total cost component. This total future cost is divided by the total future EDUs to
4 Ibid., p. 268
Packet Pg 353
11
Overview of Capacity and Connection Fees 16
City of San Luis Obispo – Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
determine the “gross future capacity and connection fee”. The existing and future capacity and
connection fees are combined or added together for a total capacity and connection fee.
2.6 Summary
This section of the Report has provided an overview of capacity and connection fees; the basis
for establishing cost-based fees, considerations in establishing the fees, the burden
development places on the system and the technical or analytical steps typically taken in the
development of the fees. In the development of the City’s capacity and connection fee study,
the issues identified in this section of the Report have been addressed and will be discussed in
more detail in later sections of the Report. The next section of the Report provides a brief
overview of the legal considerations in establishing capacity and connection fees as they relate
to California law.
Packet Pg 354
11
Legal Considerations in Establishing Capacity and Connection Fees 17
City of San Luis Obispo – Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
“The laws for the
enactment of capacity and
connection fees in
California are found in
California Government
Code sections 66013,
66016, and
66022 within the
‘Mitigation Fee Act.’”
3.1 Introduction
An important consideration in developing a capacity and connection fee is any legal
requirements at the state or local level. The legal requirements often provide the authority to
establish the fees, but also may provide a general methodology around which the capacity and
connection fees must be calculated or how the funds must be used. Given that, it is important
for the City to understand these legal requirements and develop and adopt fees which comply
with those legal requirements. This section of the Report provides an overview of the legal
requirements for establishing capacity and connection fees under California law. A discussion
of the applicability of Proposition 218 and Proposition 26, as it relates to these fees, is also
provided.
The discussion within this section of the Report is intended to be a summary of our
understanding of the relevant California law as it relates to establishing capacity and
connection fees. It in no way constitutes a legal interpretation of California law by HDR.
3.2 Requirements under California Law
Many states have specific laws regarding the establishment, calculation and implementation of
capacity and connection fees. The main objective of most state laws is to assure that these
charges are established in such a manner that they are fair, equitable and cost-based. In other
cases, state legislation may have been needed to provide the legislative powers to the utility to
establish the charges.
The laws for the enactment of capacity and connection fees in
California are codified in California Government Code sections
66013, 66016, and 66022, which are interspersed within the
‘Mitigation Fee Act.’ The above sections set forth the various
requirements for imposition of capacity and connection fees in
California: calculation of the fees, noticing, accounting and
reporting requirements, and processes for judicial review.
Although contained within the Mitigation Fee Act, capacity and
connection fees are not development fees.
Legal Considerations in Establishing
Capacity and Connection Fees
Packet Pg 355
11
Legal Considerations in Establishing Capacity and Connection Fees 18
City of San Luis Obispo – Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
A summary of the relevant statutes required in the calculation of capacity and connection fees
is as follows:
“66013 (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when a local agency imposes
fees for water connections or sewer connections, or imposes capacity charges, those fees
or charges shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for
which the fee or charge is imposed, unless a question regarding the amount of the fee or
charge imposed in excess of the estimated reasonable cost of providing the services or
materials is submitted to, and approved by, a popular vote of two-thirds of those
electors voting on the issue.”
“66013 (b) (3) ‘Capacity charge’ means a charge for facilities in existence at the time a
charge is imposed or charges for new facilities to be constructed in the future that are of
benefit to the person or property being charged. . . .”
In addition to the determination of “the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for
which the fee is imposed,” California law also requires the following:
That notice (of the time and place of the meeting, including a general explanation of the
matter to be considered) and a statement that certain data is available be mailed to
those who filed a written request for such notice;
That certain data (the estimated cost to provide the service and anticipated revenue
sources) be made available to the public;
That the public agency provide an opportunity for public input at an open and public
meeting to adopt or modify the fee; and
That revenue in excess of actual cost be used to reduce the fee creating the excess.
The basic principle that needs to be followed under California law is that the charge be based
on a proportionate share of the costs of the system required to provide service and that the
requirements for adoption and accounting be followed in compliance with California law.
3.3 Propositions 218 and 26 and Capacity and Connection Fees
In 1996, the voters of California approved Proposition 218, which required that the imposition
of certain fees and assessments by municipal governments require a vote of the people to
change or increase the fee or assessment. Of interest in this particular study is the applicability
of Proposition 218 to the establishment of capacity and connection fees for the City.
In Richmond v. Shasta Community Services Dist., 32 Cal.4th 409 (2004), the California Supreme
Court held that water capacity and connection fees are not “assessments” under Proposition
218 because they are imposed only on those who are voluntarily seeking water service, rather
than being charged to particular identified parcels, and therefore such fees are not subject to
the procedural or substantive requirements of Proposition 218. Additionally, the court held
that a capacity and connection fee is not a development fee. The court also held that such fees
can properly be enacted by either ordinance or resolution.
Packet Pg 356
11
Legal Considerations in Establishing Capacity and Connection Fees 19
City of San Luis Obispo – Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
In November 2010 the voters of California passed Proposition 26, an initiative based state
constitutional amendment, which provided a new definition of the term “tax” in the California
Constitution. Under Proposition 26 a fee or charge imposed by a public agency is a tax unless it
meets one of seven exceptions. Capacity and connection fees fall within exception 2 – i.e., it is
a charge imposed for a specific government service. Provided that a capacity and connection
fee does not charge one fee payor more in order to charge another fee payor less (i.e., a cross-
subsidy), and it does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the
service, then the fee is not a tax within the meaning of Proposition 26. Under Proposition 26,
the local government bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a
levy, charge, or other exaction is not a tax, that the amount is no more than necessary to cover
the reasonable costs of the governmental activity, and that the manner in which those costs are
allocated to a payor bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the payor’s burdens on, or benefits
received from, the governmental activity.
3.4 Summary
This section of the Report has provided an overview of the legal requirements under California
law for the establishment of capacity and connection fees. As was noted above, an important
legal requirement is that the fees or charges shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of
providing the service for which the fee or charge is imposed. The following sections of the
Report provide the City’s calculation of the water and wastewater capacity and connection
fees, and provides the basis for the establishment of reasonable fees.
Packet Pg 357
11
Determination of the City’s Water Capacity and Connection Fees 20
City of San Luis Obispo – Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
4.1 Introduction
This section of the Report presents the details and key assumptions in the calculation of the
City’s water capacity and connection fees. The calculation of the City’s water capacity and
connection fee is based upon City specific accounting and planning information. Specifically,
the capacity and connection fee is based upon the City’s fixed asset records; the City’s current
capital improvement plans; and determination of existing EDUs and the projection of future
EDUs. As was noted in Section 2 of this Report, these planning documents and projections of
future EDUs provide the required support for a “rationally based public policy” to support the
imposition of cost-based capacity and connection fees.
To the extent that the cost and timing of future capital improvements change, then the capacity
and connection fee presented in this section of the Report should be updated to reflect the
changes.
4.2 Overview of the City’s Water System
The City of San Luis Obispo has three main sources of water. The Salinas Reservoir, also known
as Santa Margarita Lake, the Whale Rock Reservoir, and Nacimiento Lake. The surface water
from the three lakes is treated at the Stenner Creek Water Treatment Plant (WTP). During
2016, the treatment plant delivered 1.63 billion gallons of water to San Luis Obispo.
The City is supplied recycled water from its Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF). In 2016,
recycled water is utilized for landscape irrigation and for construction water (dust suppression,
compaction, etc.). The City will be maximizing the production of recycled water with the
upgrade of the WRRF scheduled to begin construction in 2018 and studies are underway to
maximize the use of this resource.
The City’s potable water distribution system delivers water from the WTP to approximately
15,000 metered customers and over 2,000 fire hydrants via two storage reservoirs, eight pump
stations, ten water tanks, and approximately 185 miles of water mains.
The water delivered from the WTP is split into two main distribution networks. The WTP has a
major pump station that pumps water to the high pressure zones which provides service to the
higher elevation areas in the City. The transfer pumps take approximately half of the water,
increase the pressure, and then provide water to Stenner Canyon Reservoir (Reservoir #2), Cal
Poly, and other portions of the City. Water flows by gravity directly into the lower pressure
zone from the WTP's onsite clear well tanks.
Water storage facilities are necessary to provide water during peak demand periods and
emergency situations such as fires. The City has twelve water storage facilities, nine of which
are steel storage tanks ranging in size from 0.04 to four million gallons and three concrete
Determination of the City’s Water Capacity and
Connection Fees
Packet Pg 358
11
Determination of the City’s Water Capacity and Connection Fees 21
City of San Luis Obispo – Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
facilities with a capacity of 0.35 to 7.5 million gallons. The combined storage capacity is 26.22
million gallons.
4.3 Current Water Capacity and Connection Fees
The City, per City resolution updates the fees each year by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The
City’s current water capacity and connection fees for 2017-18, as of July 1, 2017, are shown
below in Table 4-1.
Table 4 - 1
Current Water Capacity and Connection Fees – $/Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU)
Land Use Type
EDU
Unit
Current
Capacity and
Connection
Fee $/EDU [1]
Residential (per unit)
Single Family Residential 1.0 $11,322.16
Multi-Family Residential 0.7 7,925.51
Mobile Home 0.6 6,793.30
Studio Unit (450 s.f. or less) 0.3 3,396.65
Non-Residential
5/8” to 3/4" 1.0 $11,322.16
1-inch 1.7 19,247.68
1-1/2 inch 3.4 38,495.36
2-inch 5.4 61,138.45
3-inch 10.7 121,145.00
4-inch 16.7 185,076.96
6-inch 33.4 378,153.92
[1] – City’s current water capacity and connection fees effective July 1, 2017.
The above current water capacity and connection fees includes a residential and non-
residential land use type. The residential fee is based on per unit EDU. The non-residential is
based on meter size.
4.4 Calculation of the Allowable Water Capacity and Connection Fee
As was discussed in Section 2, the process of calculating the City’s water capacity and
connection fee is based upon a four-step process. These steps are as follows:
1. Determination of system planning criteria
2. Determination of equivalent dwelling units (EDUs)
3. Calculation of the capacity and connection fee for system costs
4. Determination of any capacity and connection fee credits
Each of these areas is discussed in more detail below.
Packet Pg 359
11
Determination of the City’s Water Capacity and Connection Fees 22
City of San Luis Obispo – Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
4.4.1 Water System Planning Criteria
System planning criteria are used to establish the capacity needs of an equivalent dwelling unit
(EDU). The City updated the projections for future residential and non-residential development
in equivalent dwelling units based on current consumption patterns, which was a reduction in
average water use since 2013, when the current fee was established. As a result of the reduced
consumption, the calculation of an EDU was reduced from 150 gallons per day per equivalent
residential unit to 134 gallons per day per equivalent residential unit based on the City’s three-
year average for single family residential units.
Like the 2013 study the water and wastewater EDU calculation were based on the same
criteria. Based on the available wastewater treatment capacity, less Cal Poly share is 4.9 MGD.
This capacity divided by 134 gallons per EDU is a total City existing and future EDUs of 36,971
EDUs. The existing average dry weather flow is 4.15 MGD which includes projected flow for
vested and pending projects under construction. Total existing EDUs would be 30,907 (4.15
MGD/ 134 gallons per day = 30,970). This leaves 5,821 future EDUs.
Table 4-2 provides a summary of the planning criteria used to establish the City’s proposed
water capacity and connection fee.
Table 4-2
Summary of the Planning Criteria for EDU Calculation
Planning Criteria Description Planning Criteria
WRRF Total Capacity
Future Average Dry Weather Flow/WRRF Design Capacity 5,400,000
Less: Cal Poly Average Dry Weather Flow Share 470,000
City Owned WRRF Capacity 4,930,000
Average Day Flow per EDU 134 gallons/EDU
Total City Existing and Future EDUs 36,971
WRRF Existing Capacity
Existing Average Dry Weather Flow 4,150,000
Average Day Flow per EDU 134 gallons/EDU
Total City Existing EDUs 30,970
Total City Future EDUs 5,821
Detail of the EDU calculation is shown in Exhibit W-2 of the Water Technical Appendix.
In the 2013 Fee Study, a new fee category was added to reflect water demand for units 450
square feet or less at 0.30 of a full EDU. Based on water demand of similar units, this fee
category is proposed to remain. In this Report, the residential category is modified as water
demand correlates more closely to unit size than a single- or multi-family unit designation as
shown in Table 4-3. Fee categories are proposed to correspond to residential units between
Packet Pg 360
11
Determination of the City’s Water Capacity and Connection Fees 23
City of San Luis Obispo – Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
451 and 800 square feet and 801 square feet or more. With the new State regulations allowing
accessory dwelling units within single-family residential zones, these units would not be
assessed a capacity and connection fee. Although no impact fee would be assessed, separate
water metering may still apply, if required by the City’s Municipal Code. See Table 4-3 for the
residential equivalency factors.
Table 4 - 3
Residential Equivalency Factors
Residential Unit Type
Average Annual Water
Consumption
Equivalency Factor
Residential Unit (801 square feet or more) 0.17 1.0
Residential Unit (451 to 800 square feet) 0.12 0.7
Non-Residential 0.10 0.6
Studio Unit (450 square feet or less) 0.05 0.3
Similar to the 2013 Study, fees for non-residential EDUs in the 2017 Fee Study are based on
water meter safe operating capacity ratios from the American Water Works Association
(AWWA) specifications.
4.4.2 Calculation of the Water Capacity and Connection Fee by Components
The next step of the analysis is to review the system infrastructure to determine the water
capacity and connection fee for the system. In calculating the water capacity and connection
fee for the City, existing components, debt service for existing facilities, future capital
improvements relating to expansion and capital fund reserves were included. The
methodology used to calculate each of these components is described below.
EXISTING OR BUY-IN COMPONENT – To calculate the value of the existing assets for the buy-in
component, the City’s methodology considered the original cost of each asset. The original cost
of the asset was then adjusted to a replacement cost value. The replacement cost of each asset
was then depreciated for the remaining useful life (i.e., replacement cost less depreciation).
The replacement cost method was used since this was the best information available.
The City provided an asset listing for the various existing components and their installation
dates. As was noted, there are different methods for valuing existing assets. In this case, a
replacement cost new, less depreciation method was used. To accomplish this, the asset listing
was reviewed for each asset and a replacement cost was estimated. A second review was
made of the asset listing to eliminate assets that would be decommissioned or obsolete given
the new capital projects listed as replacements or upgrades. Then, based on the installation
date for each asset and an estimated useful life, the replacement cost less depreciation was
calculated to determine the value of each asset for the capacity and connection fee analysis.
Given the value of the assets, the next step was to determine the portion of the project costs
that were determined to be eligible and included in the calculation of the capacity and
Packet Pg 361
11
Determination of the City’s Water Capacity and Connection Fees 24
City of San Luis Obispo – Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
connection fee. Within this study, contributions (i.e., the costs of donated or contributed
assets) were not included in the capacity and connection fee.
The final value of the assets was reduced by the amount of future principal on the debt
associated with the assets as the principal will be recovered via the debt component within the
City’s current rates. As described below (see Debt Service Component discussion), the
remaining principal portion of the debt associated with the assets was deducted from the total
eligible assets value prior to calculating the capacity and connection fee. This inclusion of a
“debt service credit” avoids double charging the customer for the asset value in the existing or
buy-in component of the capacity and connection fee, and also in the debt service component
of the rates. The principal portion of the debt service balance on existing assets is removed
from the value prior to calculating the buy-in portion of the fee.
DEBT SERVICE COMPONENT - In addition to the buy-in component, a debt service component was
also developed. This component accounts for the principal on existing assets. By segregating
the debt service costs, the costs can be clearly identified and calculated appropriately. To avoid
double-counting of the assets financed with debt, the future principal associated with those
assets was deducted from the existing infrastructure value.
The City has four outstanding debt issues for the water system. They are the 2012 Water
Revenue Refunding Bonds, 2007A Revenue Bonds (Nacimiento Water Project), Reuse SRF
Funding Repayments, and WTP Master Plan Improvements. The total debt service eligible is
approximately $53 million for water. Further detail can be seen on Exhibit W-6 of the Water
Technical Appendix.
OTHER COMPONENTS - In addition to the existing or buy-in component and debt service
component, capital fund reserves were determined to be capacity and connection fee-related.
These components are considered an adjustment to the overall water system asset valuation
since they are capacity infrastructure costs that relate to the water system as a whole and
funded through existing customers. The total capacity and connection fee eligible fund reserve
is $16 million for water. Further detail can be seen on Exhibit W-7 of the Water Technical
Appendix.
FUTURE COMPONENTS – An important requirement for a capacity and connection fee study is the
connection between the anticipated future growth on the system and the required facilities
needed to accommodate that growth. For purposes of this study, the City’s current Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) provided future projects. The City staff reviewed the current capital
improvement plan and updated it with the best available information. Capital improvements
that were growth-related were included in the water capacity fee calculation and totaled
approximately $8.8 million through 2025. The largest area of capacity and connection fee
eligible projects is treatment projects totaling approximately $4.7 million. Future growth was
approximately 16% based on growth EDUs (5,821 future EDUs/36,791 total existing and future
EDUs = 16%). Exhibit W-8 of the Water Technical Appendix contains the details of this portion
of the fee.
Packet Pg 362
11
Determination of the City’s Water Capacity and Connection Fees 25
City of San Luis Obispo – Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
4.5 Net Allowable Water Capacity and Connection Fee
Based on the sum of the component costs calculated above, the net allowable water capacity
and connection fees were determined. “Allowable” refers to the concept that the calculated
capacity and connection fee shown on Table 4-5 is the City’s cost-based water capacity and
connection fee. The City, as a matter of policy, may charge any amount up to the allowable
capacity and connection fee, but not in excess of that amount. Charging an amount greater
than the allowable water capacity and connection fee would not meet the nexus test of cost-
based capacity and connection fee. Details are provided in Exhibit W-1 and Exhibit W-9 of the
Water Technical Appendix.
Table 4-5
Summary of Allowable Water Capacity and Connection Fees ($/EDU)
Total “Allowable”
Water Capacity and Connection Fee
Total Existing Plant (RCNLD) $241,639,328
Less: Outstanding Debt Principal ($53,702,781)
Plus: Reserves $16,079,051
Total Existing Plant $204,015,598
Total EDUs 36,791
Total Existing Capacity and Connection Fee per EDU $14,257
Total Future Plant $8,861,869
Total Future EDUs 5,821
Total Future Capacity and Connection Fee per EDU $1,523
Net Allowable Existing and Future per ($/EDU) $15,780
As can be seen in Table 4-5, the calculated water capacity and connection fee was determined
to be $15,780 per EDU. These fees are stated as one (1) EDU.
Table 4-6
Allowable Water Capacity and connection fee Summarized by
Existing and Expansion Components $/EDU)
Total “Allowable”
Water Capacity and
Connection Fee
% of
Total
Existing Plant Related $14,257 90.4%
Expansion Plant Related 1,523 9.6%
Allowable Capacity and Connection Fee ($/EDU) $15,780 100.0%
Packet Pg 363
11
Determination of the City’s Water Capacity and Connection Fees 26
City of San Luis Obispo – Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
Table 4-6 provides a better understanding of the relationship of the replacement-related
portion of the fee to the expansion related portion of the fee. Slightly more than ninety
percent of the calculated allowable fee is related to the existing facilities.
The fee also varies by customer type, but in all cases it is intended to reimburse the existing
customers for their portion of the system use that has been funded through rates over time on
a per EDU basis. The City’s current ordinance code provides a water capacity and connection
fee according to type of land use. The EDU is based on a residential customer and applied to
other customer classes based on generally accepted flow assumptions by land use or customer
type.
Similar to the City’s current approach, fees for non-residential EDUs in this Report are based on
water meter safe operating capacity ratios as developed by the American Water Works
Association (AWWA) specifications.
On February 7, 2017, the City Council directed staff to explore the following options for the
water capacity and connection fee update.
x Option 1 - Utilize a similar methodology to the 2013 Fee Study which included specific
projects related to growth and expansion of the water system infrastructure plus
financing costs.
x Option 2 - Utilize a methodology that includes fair share buy-in to both existing and
future water infrastructure.
Option 1 - The water capacity and connection fees calculated in Option 1 are based on a similar
methodology to the 2013 Fee Study where only specific water system improvements and the
financing costs of those improvements are included in the fee calculation. This option reflects
the increased capital costs of these projects as well as the financing of these capital projects.
Option 1 does not include a buy-in component to existing water infrastructure as only specific
“major” capital projects are included. These were projects such as the water treatment plant
expansion and upgrade and the Nacimiento pipeline project. This results in a calculated
capacity and connection fee of $11,872 per EDU.
Option 2 - The water capacity and connection fees calculated for Option 2 are based on a
methodology that values the cost of all existing and future water assets. The growth related
assets are attributed to existing and future development, 84 percent and 16 percent. This split
is based on future EDUs to total EDUs (5,821/36,971 = 16%). This results in a calculated
capacity and connection fee of $15,780 per EDU. Provided in Table 4-7 is a comparison of the
current fee, Option 1 (current methodology), and Option 2 (proposed methodology).
Packet Pg 364
11
Determination of the City’s Water Capacity and Connection Fees 27
City of San Luis Obispo – Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
Table 4 - 7
Option 1 and 2
Water Capacity and Connection Fees – $/Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU)
Land Use Type EDU Current Option 1 Option 2
Residential (per unit)
Residential Unit [1] 1.0 $11,322.16 $11,872 $15,780
Residential Unit [2] 0.7 7,925.51 8,310 11,046
Mobile Home 0.6 6,793.30 7,123 9,468
Studio Unit (450 s.f. or less) 0.3 3,396.65 3,562 4,734
Non-Residential
3/4-inch 1.0 $11,322.16 $11,872 $15,780
1-inch 1.7 19,247.68 20,182 26,826
1-1/2 inch 3.4 38,495.36 40,365 53,652
2-inch 5.4 61,138.45 64,109 85,212
3-inch 10.7 121,145.00 127,030 168,846
4-inch 16.7 189,076.96 198,262 263,526
6-inch 33.4 378,153.92 396,525 527,052
[1] Residential unit 1.0 defined as 801 square feet or more.
[2] Residential unit 0.7 defined as 451 to 800 square feet.
Option 1 is not being recommended as the fees do not include all water infrastructure
necessary to serve new development or offer the greatest protection to the water ratepayer.
Option 2 is recommended, at $15,780 per EDU, as this fee represents the costs associated with
both existing and future infrastructure needed to serve future development and offers the
greatest protection to the water ratepayer.
4.6 Key Water Capacity and Connection Fee Assumptions
In the development of the City’s water capacity and connection fees, a number of key
assumptions were utilized. These are as follows:
The water capacity and connection fees were developed on the basis of the City’s
planning documents, anticipated future connections, and the needed capital
improvements to serve those future connections.
The assumed water gallon per day per equivalent dwelling unit was adjusted from 150
gpd to 134 gpd. This revised definition of an EDU links directly to the City’s planning
documents and current customer consumption patterns.
The City’s asset records and system information were used to determine the existing
infrastructure assets and their value based on replacement cost.
The City provided financial records related to capital reserves available and future water
debt service payments.
The City provided the most recent water CIP for future expansion improvements.
The City determined the portion of future improvements that were growth-related.
Packet Pg 365
11
Determination of the City’s Water Capacity and Connection Fees 28
City of San Luis Obispo – Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
The base year for the CIP was assumed at 2016.
The calculation of the debt credit component included current outstanding principal on
existing assets.
4.7 Implementation of the Proposed Water Capacity and Connection
Fees
HDR would recommend that the City continue to adjust the water capacity and connection fees
on an annual basis. The City currently uses the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for this annaula
update. This method of escalating the City’s fees should be used for no more than a five-year
period. After five years, HDR recommends that the City update the water capacity and
connection fees based on the actual cost of infrastructure and any new planned facilities that
would be contained in an updated master plan or CIP.
It is further recommended the City to consider using the Engineering News Record Construction
Cost Index (ENR-CCI) to reflect the cost of interest and inflation instead of the CPI. The ENR-CCI
is a reliable and consistent indices that tracks construction costs and is published every month
showing the national average of twenty cities.
4.8 Consultant Recommendations
Based on our review and analysis of the City’s existing water capacity and connection fees, HDR
provides the following recommendations:
The City should revise and update its water capacity and connection fees to the calculated
water capacity and connection fees for Option 2 as shown in this Report. The fees should
be applicable for any new customers connecting to the system, or an existing customer
requesting/requiring additional capacity. The adopted water capacity and connection fees
shall not exceed the calculated fees as set forth in this Report.
The City should make periodic (annual) adjustments to the water capacity and connection
fees based on changes in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index. This is
consistent with the City’s past practices using the CPI for these adjustments, as they relate
to these fees.
The City should update the actual calculations for the water capacity and connection fees
based on the methodology as approved by the resolution or ordinance setting forth the
methodology for water capacity and connection fees at such time when a new CIP, facilities
plan, master plan or a comparable plan is approved or updated by the City.
4.9 Summary
The development of the water capacity and connection fees by HDR utilized generally accepted
engineering and ratemaking principles, while applying City specific planning, asset and
customer information.
The City should have legal counsel review the Report and for consistency with applicable City
and State laws and regulations.
Packet Pg 366
11
Determination of the City’s Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees 29
City of San Luis Obispo – Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
5.1 Introduction
This section of the Report presents the details and key assumptions in the calculation of the
City’s wastewater capacity and connection fee. The calculation of the City’s wastewater
capacity and connection fee is based upon City specific accounting and planning information.
Specifically, the wastewater capacity and connection fee is based upon: the City’s fixed asset
records; the City’s current wastewater capital improvement plan; existing equivalent dwelling
units (EDUs); and projection of future EDUs. As was noted in Section 2 of this Report, these
planning documents and projections of future EDUs provide the required support for a
“rationally based public policy” to support the imposition of cost-based wastewater capacity
and connection fee.
To the extent that the cost and timing of future capital improvements change, it is
recommended that the wastewater capacity and connection fee presented in this section of the
Report should be updated to reflect the changes.
5.2 Overview of the City’s Wastewater System
The City provides wastewater collection and treatment services to approximately 14,000
service connections. The City serves Cal Poly and the County of San Luis Obispo Airport. The
City’s wastewater collection system includes approximately 136 miles of gravity sewer mains
and 2,900 manholes, as well as nine sewage lift stations with three miles of force main.
The City is in the planning stages for an upgrade to the WRRF, the City’s wastewater treatment
plant. The WRRF is rated for 5.4 mgd maximum daily flow and treats an average of 4.15 mgd
average annual flow according to 2009 to 2016 flow data. After being treated, the water is
either discharged to San Luis Obispo Creek or distributed as recycled water.
5.3 Current City Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
The City, per City resolution, updates the fees each year by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). It
should be noted that there is a wastewater fee for City Wide as well as additional fees for
specific catchment area improvements. For those customers in a catchment area, the City Wide
fee is charged along with the appropriate catchment area fee. The City’s current wastewater
capacity and connection fees for 2017-18, as of July 1, 2017, are shown below in Table 5-1.
Determination of the City’s Wastewater
Capacity and Connection Fees
Packet Pg 367
11
Determination of the City’s Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees 30
City of San Luis Obispo – Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
Table 5 - 1
Current Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees – $/Equivalent Dwelling Unit
(EDU)
Type of Use
City
Wide
Margarita
Tank Farm
Silver City
Calle
Joaquin
Laguna
Residential (per unit)
SF Residential $3,830.21 $2,819.50 $3,728,52 1,392.80 $1,878.64 $503.30
MF Residential 2,681.14 1,973.65 2,609.96 974.96 1,315.05 352.31
Mobile Home 2,298.12 1,691.70 2,237.11 835.68 1,127.18 301.98
Studio Unit 1,149.06 845.85 1,118.56 417.84 563.59 150.99
Non-Residential
3/4-inch $3,830.21 $2,819.50 $3,728.52 $1,392.80 $1,878.64 $503.30
1-inch 6,511.35 4,793.15 6,338.48 2,367.76 3,193.69 855.61
1-1/2 inch 13,022.70 9,586.30 12,676.96 4,735.53 6,387.37 1,711.22
2-inch 20,683.11 15,225.30 20,134.00 7,521.13 10,144.65 2,717.81
3-inch 40,983.19 30,168.64 39,895.14 14,902.98 20,101.44 5,385.30
4-inch 63,964.42 47,085.64 62,266.25 23,259.79 31,373.27 8,405.09
6-inch 127,928.85 94,171.28 124,532.51 46,519.58 62,746.54 16,810.17
[1] – City’s current wastewater capacity and connection fee effective July 1, 2017.
The City current wastewater capacity and connection fees include a city wide fee and additional
catchment area charges for specific area improvements. Similar to the City’s water capacity
and connection fee, the fee also varies by customer type, reflective of the gallon per day (GPD)
capacity use in the equivalent dwelling unit (i.e., EDU %).
The catchment areas are regions in the City served by sewer mains, lift stations, and force
mains. Each catchment area varies in the amount of wastewater flow pumped, due to the
topography, area, and land uses served. These catchment areas are primarily located in the
southern portion of the City, except for the Foothill catchment area located in the northeast
area of the City. The total cost of the catchment area improvements is over $34 million, with
approximately $15 million attributed to new development. The cost of wastewater
improvements is allocated to future development based on flow generation in each of the
catchment areas. Of the over 5,800 future EDUs in the City, approximately 80 percent, or 4,600
future EDUs, are located in areas served by lift stations, identified as “catchment areas”.
New fees are identified for three new catchment areas (Airport, Buckley, and Foothill). The
Airport and Foothill catchment area fees support the replacement of existing lift station
infrastructure. The Buckley catchment area fee is applicable to development in the Airport Area
Specific Plan, including the Avila Ranch project and other development east of that project
along Buckley Road.
Packet Pg 368
11
Determination of the City’s Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees 31
City of San Luis Obispo – Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
5.4 Calculation of the Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee
As was discussed in Section 2, and similar to the approach used for the water capacity and
connection fees, the process of calculating the City’s wastewater capacity and connection fee is
based upon a four-step process. These steps were as follows:
1. Determination of system planning criteria
2. Determination of equivalent dwelling units (EDUs)
3. Calculation of the capacity and connection fees for system costs
4. Determination of any capacity and connection fee credits
5.4.1 System Planning Criteria and Equivalent Dwelling Units
System planning criteria are used to establish the capacity needs of an equivalent dwelling unit
(EDU). The City updated the projections for future residential and non-residential development
in equivalent dwelling units based on reduction in average water use since 2013 from the City’s
utility billing data. This reduction is from 150 gallons per day per equivalent residential units to
134 gallons per day per equivalent residential unit based on the City’s three-year average for
single family residential units. Based on the available wastewater treatment capacity, less Cal
Poly share is 4.9 MGD. This capacity divided by 134 gallons per EDU is a total City existing and
future EDUs of 36,971 EDUs. The existing average dry weather flow is 4.15 MGD which includes
projected flow for vested and pending projects under construction. Total existing wastewater
EDUs would be 30,907 (4.15 MGD/ 134 gallons per day = 30,970). This leaves 5,821 future
EDUs.
Table 5-2 provides a summary of the planning criteria used to establish the City’s proposed
wastewater capacity and connection fee.
Table 5-2
Summary of the Planning Criteria for EDU Calculation
Planning Criteria Description Planning Criteria
WRRF Total Capacity
Future Average Dry Weather Flow/WRRF Design Capacity 5,400,000
Less: Cal Poly Average Dry Weather Flow Share 470,000
City Owned WRRF Capacity 4,930,000
Average Day Flow per EDU 134 gallons/EDU
Total City Existing and Future EDUs 36,971
WRRF Existing Capacity
Existing Average Dry Weather Flow 4,150,000
Average Day Flow per EDU 134 gallons/EDU
Total City Existing EDUs 30,970
Total City Future EDUs 5,821
Packet Pg 369
11
Determination of the City’s Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees 32
City of San Luis Obispo – Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
Detail of the EDU calculation is shown in Exhibit S-2 of the Wastewater Technical Appendix.
As discussed in the water capacity and connection fee section, the residential category is
adjusted as water demand correlates more closely to unit size than a single- or multi-family unit
designation as shown in Table 5-3. Fee categories are proposed to correspond to residential
units between 451 and 800 square feet and 801 square feet or more. New State regulations
allow accessory dwelling units within single-family residential zones, these units would not be
assessed a capacity and connection fee. However, where fees are applicable, the fee will vary
depending on the size of the residential unit. Table 5-3 shows the residential definitions for
establishing the equivalent EDU factor.
Table 5 - 3
Residential Equivalency Factors
Residential Unit Type
Average Annual Water
Consumption
Equivalency Factor
Residential Unit (801 square feet or more) 0.17 1.0
Residential Unit (451 to 800 square feet) 0.12 0.7
Non-Residential 0.10 0.6
Studio Unit (450 square feet or less) 0.05 0.3
Similar to the 2013 Study, wastewater fees for non-residential EDUs in this Report are based on
water meter safe operating capacity ratios as developed by the American Water Works
Association (AWWA) specifications.
5.4.2 Calculation of the Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee by Component
The next step of the analysis is to review the major functional wastewater system infrastructure
to determine the wastewater capacity and connection fee for the City. In calculating the
wastewater capacity and connection fee for the City, existing asset components, debt service
for existing facilities, future capital improvements relating to expansion and capital fund
reserves were included. The methodology used to calculate each component is described
below.
EXISTING OR BUY-IN COMPONENT – To calculate the value of the existing assets for the buy-in
component, the City’s methodology considered the original cost of each asset. The original cost
of the asset was then adjusted to a replacement cost value. The replacement cost of each asset
was then depreciated for the remaining useful life (i.e., replacement cost less depreciation).
The replacement cost method was used since it was the best information available.
The City provided an asset listing for the various existing components and their installation
dates. As was noted, there are different methods for valuing existing assets. In this case, a
replacement cost new, less depreciation method was used. To accomplish this, the asset listing
was reviewed for each asset and a replacement cost was estimated. A second review was
made of the asset listing to eliminate assets that would be decommissioned or obsolete given
Packet Pg 370
11
Determination of the City’s Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees 33
City of San Luis Obispo – Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
the new capital projects listed as replacements or upgrades. This is particular important given
the large capital project for the Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) in which some
existing assets will be obsolete and or decommissioned with the new facility project. Then,
based on the installation date for each asset and an estimated useful life, the replacement cost
less accumulated depreciation for each asset can be calculated.
Given the value of the assets, the next step was to determine the portion of the project costs
that were deemed eligible to be included in the calculation of the capacity and connection fee.
Within this study, contributions (i.e., the costs of donated or contributed assets) were not
included in the capacity and connection fee.
The final value of the assets was reduced by the amount of future principal on the debt
associated with the assets as the principal will be recovered via the debt component within the
City’s current rates. As described below (see Debt Service Component discussion), the
remaining principal portion of the debt associated with the assets was deducted from the total
eligible asset value prior to calculating the capacity and connection fee. This inclusion of a
“debt service credit” avoids double charging the customer for the asset value in the existing or
buy-in component of the capacity and connection fee, and also in the debt service component
of the rates. The principal portion of the debt service balance on existing assets is removed
from the value prior to calculating the buy-in portion of the fee.
DEBT SERVICE COMPONENT - In addition to the buy-in component, a debt service component was
also developed. This component accounts for the principal on existing assets. By segregating
the debt service out, the cost can be clearly identified and calculated appropriately. To avoid
double-counting of the assets financed with debt, the future principal associated with those
assets would be deducted from the existing infrastructure value.
The City has three outstanding debt issues for the wastewater system. They are the WRRF
Energy Efficiency Project, Tank Farm Lift Station Financing, and a second Tank Farm Lift Station
Financing. The total debt service eligible is $17 million for wastewater. Further detail can be
seen in Exhibit S-5 of the Wastewater Technical Appendix.
OTHER COMPONENTS - In addition to the existing or buy-in component and debt service
component, capital fund reserves were determined to be capacity and connection fee-related.
These components are considered to be asset valuation adjustments to the overall wastewater
system since they are capacity infrastructure costs that relate to the wastewater system as a
whole. The total capacity and connection fee eligible fund reserve is $28 million for wastewater
as current customers have contributed this revenue source over time. Further detail can be
seen on Exhibit S-6 of the Wastewater Technical Appendix.
FUTURE COMPONENTS –An important requirement for a capacity and connection fee study is the
connection between the anticipated future growth on the system and the required facilities
needed to accommodate that growth. For purposes of this study, the City’s current Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) provided future projects. The City staff reviewed the current capital
improvement plan and updated it with the best available information. Capital improvements
that were growth-related were included in the wastewater capacity fee calculation and totaled
Packet Pg 371
11
Determination of the City’s Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees 34
City of San Luis Obispo – Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
approximately $48 million through 2025. The WRRF project eligible capacity and connection
fee costs were $24.7 million or approximately 51% of the future eligible projects costs. Future
growth was approximately 16% based on growth EDUs (5,821 future EDUs/36,791 total existing
and future EDUs = 16%). Exhibit S-7 of the Wastewater Technical Appendix contains the details
of this portion of the fee.
5.5 Proposed Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee
Based on the sum of the component costs calculated above, the allowable wastewater capacity
and connection fee were determined. “Allowable” refers to the concept that the calculated
capacity and connection fee shown on Table 5-4 are the City’s cost-based capacity and
connection fee. The City, as a matter of policy, may charge any amount up to the allowable
capacity and connection fee, but not an amount in excess of the calculated fee. Charging an
amount greater than the allowable capacity and connection fee would not meet the nexus test
of a cost-based capacity and connection fee. Details are provided in Exhibit S-1 for Wastewater
of the Technical Appendix.
Table 5 – 4
Summary of Allowable Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee ($/EDU)
Total “Allowable”
Wastewater Capacity and
Connection Fee
Total Existing Plant (RCNLD) $149,047,830
Less: Outstanding Debt Principal ($17,096,754)
Plus: Reserves $28,271,2583
Total Existing Plant $160,222,334
Total EDUs 36,791
Total Existing Capacity and Connection Fee per EDU $4,354
Total Future Plant $248,010,131
Total Future EDUs 5,821
Total Future Capacity and Connection Fee per EDU $8,248
Net Allowable Capacity and Connection Fee per EDU $12,602
As can be seen, the City’s total wastewater capacity and connection fee is $12,602 based on the
value of the capacity in the existing system and future improvements (capital) necessary to
serve new growth and expansion on the system. Provided below in Table 5-5 is a summary of
the fee between existing-related wastewater facilities and expansion-related wastewater
facilities.
Packet Pg 372
11
Determination of the City’s Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees 35
City of San Luis Obispo – Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
Table 5 – 5
Allowable Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Summarized by
Existing and Expansion Components $/EDU)
Total “Allowable”
Wastewater
Capacity Fee
% of
Total
Existing Plant Related $4,354 34.5%
Expansion Plant Related 8,248 65.5%
Total Allowable Capacity and Connection Fee ($/EDU) $12,602 100.0%
As can be seen, approximately 34.5% of the wastewater capacity and connection fee is related
to the City’s existing facilities.
The City charges new customers connecting to the wastewater system a one-time wastewater
capacity and connection fee. The fee varies by customer type but, in all cases, it is intended to
reimburse the existing customers for their portion of the system that has been funded through
rates over time on a per EDU basis. The current ordinance code provides a wastewater capacity
and connection fee according to type of use. The EDU is based on a residential customer and
applied to other customer classes based on generally accepted flow assumptions by type.
On February 7, 2017, the City Council directed the following options for the wastewater
capacity and connection fee.
x Option 1 - Utilize a methodology which includes debt-financed infrastructure only (2013
methodology).
x Option 2 - Utilize a methodology that includes fair share buy-in to both existing and
future infrastructure.
x Option 3 - Option 1 with area-specific wastewater catchment area fees eliminated in
favor on one citywide wastewater capacity and connection fee.
x Option 4 - Option 2 with area-specific wastewater catchment area fees eliminated in
favor on one citywide wastewater capacity and connection fee
Option 1 - The fees calculated in Option 1 are based on a similar methodology to the 2013 Fee
Study where only specific growth projects and financing costs are included in the fee
calculation. This option reflects the increased capital costs of these debt-financed projects as
well as growth related projects. Option 1 does not include a buy-in component to existing
wastewater infrastructure. The capacity and connection fee under Option 1 is $8,165 per EDU.
The catchment area fees would be in addition to the city wide fee.
This option does not include all wastewater infrastructure necessary to serve new development
or offer the greatest protection to the wastewater ratepayer. Therefore it is not recommend.
Packet Pg 373
11
Determination of the City’s Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees 36
City of San Luis Obispo – Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
Option 2 - The wastewater capacity and connection fees calculated for Option 2 are based on a
methodology that values the cost of all existing and future wastewater assets, as outlined in
this Report. The growth related assets are attributed to existing and future development, 84
percent and 16 percent. This split is based on future EDUs to total EDUs (5,821/36,971 = 16%).
The capacity and connection fee under Option 2 is $9,522 per EDU and additional wastewater
catchment area fees would apply, where applicable.
Option 3 - The wastewater capacity and connection fees calculated for Option 3 include those
fees calculated in Option 1, and add the cost of all catchment area improvements. In this
option, the approximately $15 million in capital improvements would be attributed to all
approximately 5,800 future EDUs in the City. The capacity and connection fee under Option 2 is
$10,721 per EDU.
Option 3 wastewater capacity and connection fee is not being recommended. Similar to Option
1, Option 3 does not include all wastewater infrastructure necessary to serve new development
and thereby does not offer the greatest protection to the wastewater ratepayer.
Option 4 – This option uses the methodology established for Option 2, and detailed in this
Report) with the catchments area improvement costs included in total, for a single wastewater
capacity and connection fee.
The Option 4 wastewater capacity and connection fee, at $12,602 per EDU, is the
recommended fee as this fee represents the costs associated with both existing and future
infrastructure needed to serve future development, offers the greatest protection to the
wastewater ratepayer, and simplifies implementation of the City’s wastewater capacity and
connection fees.
The City’s proposed wastewater capacity and connection fees for Options 1, 2, 3 and 4 are
shown below in Table 5-6. Options 1 and 2 are only a city wide fee and the additional
catchment fee shown in Table 5-7 would apply. Options 3 and 4 are a full cost fee and include
catchment costs.
Packet Pg 374
11
Determination of the City’s Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees 37
City of San Luis Obispo – Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
Table 5 - 6
Options 1,2 , 3, and 4
Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees – $/Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU)
Type of Use
Equiv.
Dwelling
Unit (EDU)
Option 1
City
Wide [1]
Option 2
City
Wide [1]
Option 3
Full Cost [2]
Option 4
Full Cost [2]
Residential (per unit)
Residential [3] 1.00 $8,165 $9,522 $10,721 $12,602
Residential [3] 0.70 5,715 6,666 7,505 8,821
Mobile Home 0.60 4,899 5,713 6,433 7,561
Studio Unit 0.30 2,449 2,857 3,216 3,781
Non-Residential
5/8” to 3/4" 1.00 $8,165 $9,522
1-inch 1.70 13,880 16,188 $10,721 $12,602
1-1/2 inch 3.40 27,759 32,375 18,226 21,423
2-inch 5.40 44,088 51,420 36,452 42,847
3-inch 10.70 87,360 101,887 57,895 68,051
4-inch 16.70 136,347 159,021 114,718 134,841
6-inch 33.40 272,695 318,041 179,046 210,453
[1] City wide does not include additional catchment fee.
[2] Option 3 and 4 include catchment area costs and are a full cost fee.
[3] Residential EDU unit defined as 1.0 = 801 square feet or more; 0.70 = 451 to 800 square feet.
Packet Pg 375
11
Determination of the City’s Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees 38
City of San Luis Obispo – Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
Table 5 – 7
Option 1 and 2 - Additional Catchment Area Charges
Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees – $/Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU)
Additional Catchment Area Charges [1]
Type of Use
Margarita
Tank
Farm
Silver
City
Calle
Joaquin
Laguna
Airport
[2]
Foothill
[2]
Buckley
[2]
Residential (per unit)
Residential [3] $3,830 $3,192 $2,429 $2,898 $434 $6,372 $22,319 $643
Residential [3] 2,681 2,234 1,700 2,029 304 4,460 15,623 450
Mobile Home 2,298 1,915 1,457 1,739 261 3,823 13,391 386
Studio Unit 1,149 958 729 870 130 1,912 6,696 193
Non-Residential
5/8” to 3/4" $3,830 $3,192 $2,429 $2,898 $434 $6,372 $22,319 $643
1-inch 6,511 5,426 4,129 4,927 738 10,833 37,943 1,093
1-1/2 inch 13,022 10,852 8,259 9,855 1,477 21,665 75,885 2,187
2-inch 20,683 17,236 13,117 15,651 2,345 34,409 120,523 3,473
3-inch 40,982 34,153 25,990 31,013 4,647 68,181 238,815 6,882
4-inch 63,963 53,304 40,565 48,403 7,253 106,414 372,730 10,741
6-inch 127,925 106,608 81,129 96,807 14,506 212,828 745,460 21,483
[1] – These fees are in addition to the city wide fees in Options 1 and 2.
[2] – Airport, Foothills, and Buckley are new fees.
[3] – Residential EDU unit defined as 1.0 = 801 square feet or more; 0.70 = 451 to 800 square feet.
5.6 Key Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Assumptions
In the development of the capacity and connection fee for the City’s wastewater utility, a
number of key assumptions were utilized. These are as follows:
The City’s wastewater capacity and connection fee was developed based upon the City’s
current EDUs and current capacity costs, as well as the estimated future EDUs and the
needed capital improvements to serve the future EDUs.
The City’s asset records were used to determine the existing infrastructure assets and
updated to replacement cost less depreciation.
The City provided the most recent CIP for future expansion improvements.
The City determined the portion of future improvements that were growth-related.
The base year for the CIP was assumed at 2016.
The calculation of the debt credit component included current outstanding principal
debt service payments on existing assets.
5.7 Implementation of the Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee
HDR would recommend that the City continue to adjust the wastewater capacity and
connection fees on an annual basis. The City currently uses the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for
this update. This method of escalating the City’s fees should be used for no more than a five-
Packet Pg 376
11
Determination of the City’s Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees 39
City of San Luis Obispo – Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
year period. After five years, HDR recommends that the City update the wastewater capacity
and connection fees based on the actual cost of infrastructure and any new planned facilities
that would be contained in an updated master plan or CIP.
It is further recommended the City to consider using the Engineering News Record Construction
Cost Index (ENR-CCI) to reflect the cost of interest and inflation instead of the CPI. The ENR-CCI
is a reliable and consistent indices that tracks construction costs and is published every month
showing the national average of twenty cities.
5.8 Consultant Recommendations
Based on our review and analysis of the City’s wastewater capacity and connection fee, HDR
makes the following recommendations:
The City should revise and update its wastewater capacity and connection fee to the
calculated wastewater capacity and connection fee shown in this Report. The fee is
applicable for any new customers connecting to the system, or an existing customer
requesting/requiring additional capacity. The adopted wastewater capacity and connection
fee shall not exceed the calculated fee as set forth in this Report.
The wastewater gallon per day per equivalent dwelling unit was adjusted from 150 gpd to
135 gpd per EDU and is reflective the City’s changing consumption/usage patterns.
The City should make periodic (annual) adjustments to the wastewater capacity and
connection fees based on changes in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index.
This is consistent with the City’s past practices using the CPI for these adjustments, as they
relate to these fees.
The City should update the actual calculations for the wastewater capacity and connection
fee based on the methodology as approved by the resolution or ordinance setting forth the
methodology for capacity and connection fee at such time when a new capital
improvement plan, facilities plan, master plan or a comparable plan is approved or updated
by the City.
5.9 Summary
The development of the wastewater capacity and connection fee by HDR utilized generally
accepted engineering and ratemaking principles, while applying City specific planning, asset and
customer information.
City should have legal counsel review the Report and for consistency with City and State
applicable laws and regulations.
Packet Pg 377
11
Technical Appendices
Packet Pg 378
11
Water Capacity and Connection Fee
Packet Pg 379
11
1 City of San Luis Obispo - Water
2 Exhibit W-1
3 Development of Capacity and Connection Fee
4
5 Plant Description
Estimated
Replacement
Cost
Eligible
Replacement
Cost New (RCN)
Eligible
Replacement
Cost New Less
Depreciation
(RCNLD) EDUs Total Fee
6 Existing Plant [1]
7 Supply $284,894,773 $62,841,035 $60,234,226 36,791 $10,348
7 Treatment 83,831,215 83,831,215 73,535,215 36,791 1,999
8 Distribution 249,712,833 228,321,833 107,869,887 36,791 2,932
9
10 Total Existing Plant $618,438,822 $374,994,084 $241,639,328 36,791 $15,279
11
12 Less: Outstanding Debt Principal (2)($53,702,781) 36,791 ($1,459)
13
14 Plus: Capital Fund Reserves [3]$16,079,051 36,791 $437
15
16 Total Net Existing Plant $618,438,822 $374,994,084 $204,015,598 36,791 $14,257
17
18 Future Plant [4]
19 Supply $6,726,460 $1,414,334 5,821 $243
20 Treatment 29,416,066 4,706,572 5,821 809
21 Distribution 2,740,963 2,740,963 5,821 471
22
23 Total Future Plant $38,883,489 $0 $8,861,869 5,821 $1,523
24
25
26
27 Total Existing and Future Plant [5]$657,322,311 $374,994,084 $212,877,467 $15,780
28
29 Existing EDUs (Includes Vested/Pending Projects)30,970
30 Future EDUs 5,821
31 Total Existing and Future EDUs 36,791
32
33
34 Notes:
35 [1] Existing plant based on replacement cost less depreciation.
36 [2] Remaining principal as of June 2016. See Exhibit W-6.
37 [3] Cash reserves as of June 2016 which are fee eligible. See Exhibit W-7.
38 [4] Future plant based on City capital improvement plan in 2016 dollars.
39 [5] Based on "combined" methodology established in AWWA M1, Sixth Edition, Table VI.2-1, page 273.
Page 1 of 16 Packet Pg 380
11
1 City of San Luis Obispo - Water
2 Exhibit W-2
3 Development of EDUs
4
5 EDU = Equivalent Dwelling Unit
6
7
8 5,400,000 Future Average Dry Weather Flow/WRRF Design Capacity
9 470,000 Cal Poly Average Dry Weather Flow/Capacity share of WRRF
10 4,930,000 City owned WRRF Capacity
11 134 EDU gpd Rate [1]
12 36,791 Total City Existing and Future EDU
13 4,150,000 Existing Average Dry Weather Flow, plus pending increment
14 30,970 Existing EDU (Includes Vested/Pending Projects)
15 5,821 Future EDU
16
17
18
19 Notes:
20 [1] City provided gallons per day (gpd) based on a a three-year average from 2012-13 to 2014-15.
21 [2] Future growth is 16% of total EDU, 5,821/36,791 = 16%
Future EDU Calc (derived by using 5.4 mgd design capacity for WRRF)
Page 2 of 16 Packet Pg 381
11
1 City of San Luis Obispo - Water Page 1 of 2
2 Exhibit W-3
3 Supply Capacity and Connection Fee
4
5
6 System Type Function Description Install Date Original Cost
ENR
Factor
Estimated
Replacement
Cost
Average
Age
(Years)
Life
Cycle
%
Estimated
Life Cycle
(Years)
Estimated
Replacement
Cost % Depr.
% Fee
Eligible
Replacement
Cost New (RCN)
Replacement
Cost New Less
Depreciation
(RCNLD)
7 EXISTING PLANT [1]
8 WRR Pennington Dam Pennington Creek Dam 6/30/1999 $235,617 1.00 $235,617 17 23%75 $235,617 22.7%100%$235,617 $182,210
9 WRR Reservoir Whale Rock Reservoir 1961 7,000,000 1.00 100,000,000 55 73%75 100,000,000 73.3%0%0 0
10 WRR Reservoir Land (1400 Acres Land)1960 0 1.00 0 56 75%75 0 74.7%0%0 0
11 WRR Reservoir Shop structures (2,400 SF)1960 0 1.00 480,000 56 187%30 480,000 100.0%0%0 0
12 WRR Reservoir Security fencing 1960 0 1.00 20,000 56 224%25 20,000 100.0%0%0 0
13 WRR Reservoir Fencing 1960 0 1.00 370,000 56 224%25 370,000 100.0%0%0 0
14 WRR Reservoir Roads 1960 0 1.00 0 56 140%40 0 100.0%0%0 0
15 WRR Reservoir Inlet structure 1960 0 1.00 0 56 112%50 0 100.0%0%0 0
16 WRR Reservoir Outlet structure 1960 0 1.00 0 56 112%50 0 100.0%0%0 0
17 WRR Reservoir Spillway 1960 0 1.00 0 56 112%50 0 100.0%0%0 0
18 WRR Reservoir Pipe 1960 0 1.00 0 56 112%50 0 100.0%0%0 0
19 WRR Reservoir Monitoring instruments 1960 0 1.00 0 56 224%25 0 100.0%0%0 0
20 WRR Reservoir Added instruments 1984 20,000 1.00 50,000 32 128%25 50,000 100.0%0%0 0
21 WRR Reservoir Inlet valves 2003 200,000 1.00 300,000 13 43%30 300,000 43.3%0%0 0
22 WRR Reservoir 24" Khrone ultrasonic meter 2010 12,000 1.00 20,000 6 30%20 20,000 30.0%0%0 0
23 WRR Reservoir Residence (1,150 SF)1930 0 1.00 250,000 86 172%50 250,000 100.0%0%0 0
24 WRR Reservoir Well 2016 3,000 1.00 3,500 0 0%30 3,500 0.0%0%0 0
25 WRR Pump Station A Pump Station A 1998 0 1.00 0 18 90%20 0 90.0%0%0 0
26 WRR Pump Station A Land 1998 0 1.00 0 18 24%75 0 24.0%0%0 0
27 WRR Pump Station A Building 1998 600,000 1.00 2,000,000 18 60%30 2,000,000 60.0%0%0 0
28 WRR Pump Station A Fencing 1998 0 1.00 14,000 18 72%25 14,000 72.0%0%0 0
29 WRR Pump Station A Pumps, valves, motor controls 1998 0 1.00 0 18 90%20 0 90.0%0%0 0
30 WRR Pump Station A Premium efficiency motors 2005 70,000 1.00 100,000 11 55%20 100,000 55.0%0%0 0
31 WRR Pump Station B Pump Station B 1998 0 1.00 0 18 72%25 0 72.0%0%0 0
32 WRR Pump Station B Land 1998 0 1.00 0 18 24%75 0 24.0%0%0 0
33 WRR Pump Station B Building 1998 600,000 1.00 2,000,000 18 60%30 2,000,000 60.0%0%0 0
34 WRR Pump Station B Fencing 1998 0 1.00 14,000 18 72%25 14,000 72.0%0%0 0
35 WRR Pump Station B Pumps, valves, motor controls 1998 0 1.00 0 18 90%20 0 90.0%0%0 0
36 WRR Pump Station B Premium efficiency motors 2005 70,000 1.00 100,000 11 55%20 100,000 55.0%0%0 0
37 WRR Pump Station B Generator 1998 75,000 1.00 100,000 18 90%20 100,000 90.0%0%0 0
38 WRR Building Radio repeater building 1960 0 1.00 0 56 187%30 0 100.0%0%0 0
39 WRR Building Building 1960 0 1.00 25,000 56 187%30 25,000 100.0%0%0 0
40 WRR Building Antennas 2015 0 1.00 10,000 1 3%30 10,000 3.3%0%0 0
41 WRR Building Radio hardware 2015 7,500 1.00 8,000 1 10%10 8,000 10.0%0%0 0
42 WRR Building Microwave radio system 2015 96,000 1.00 150,000 1 7%15 150,000 6.7%0%0 0
43 WRR Pipeline Approx. 18 miles of 30" PCCP pipe 1960 2,000,000 1.00 16,000,000 56 75%75 16,000,000 74.7%0%0 0
44 WRR Pipeline Five-8" surge control valves 1960 0 1.00 30,000 56 187%30 30,000 100.0%0%0 0
45 WRR Pipeline 57-6" blow off valves 1961 0 1.00 28,500 55 183%30 28,500 100.0%0%0 0
46 WRR Pipeline 60 ARV valves 1961 0 1.00 24,000 55 183%30 24,000 100.0%0%0 0
47 WRR Pipeline 39 Cathodic protection stations 1961 0 1.00 78,000 55 183%30 78,000 100.0%0%0 0
48 WRR Pipeline Four-30" valves 1998 0 1.00 120,000 18 60%30 120,000 60.0%0%0 0
49 WRR Rolling Stock 1998 17' Boston Whaler 1996 6,500 1.00 20,000 20 100%20 20,000 100.0%0%0 0
50 WRR Rolling Stock 2001 Jeep Cherokee 2001 0 1.00 32,000 15 136%11 32,000 100.0%0%0 0
51 WRR Rolling Stock 18-foot Equipment trailer 2004 0 1.00 8,000 12 67%18 8,000 66.7%0%0 0
52 WRR Rolling Stock 2004 JD tractor model 4710 2004 37,000 1.00 54,000 12 80%15 54,000 80.0%0%0 0
53 WRR Rolling Stock 2014 Kawasaki Gator utility vehicle 2014 14,000 1.00 18,000 2 20%10 18,000 20.0%0%0 0
54 WRR Rolling Stock 2016 F150 4x4 truck 2016 32,000 1.00 44,000 0 0%11 44,000 0.0%0%0 0
55 WRR Rolling Stock 2016 F350 4X4 truck 2016 60,000 1.00 85,000 0 0%12 85,000 0.0%0%0 0
56 SR Salinas Reservoir Micro surface Dam Access Road 6/30/2013 183,964 1.09 200,009 3 8%40 200,009 7.5%0%0 0
57 SR Salinas Reservoir Micro surface Booster Station Access Road 6/30/2013 78,986 1.09 85,875 3 12%25 85,875 12.0%0%0 0
58 SR Salinas Reservoir Replace Existing Boat 6/30/2013 20,680 1.09 22,484 3 20%15 22,484 20.0%0%0 0
59 SR Salinas Reservoir Cathodic Protection Inspection of Pipe 6/30/2013 10,637 1.09 11,565 3 15%20 11,565 15.0%0%0 0
Page 3 of 16 Packet Pg 382
11
1 City of San Luis Obispo - Water Page 2 of 2
2 Exhibit W-3
3 Supply Capacity and Connection Fee
4
5
6 System Type Function Description
Install
Date Original Cost
ENR
Factor
Estimated
Replacement
Cost
Average
Age
(Years)
Life
Cycle
%
Estimated
Life Cycle
(Years)
Estimated
Replacement
Cost % Depr.
% Fee
Eligible
Replacement
Cost New
(RCN)
Replacement
Cost New Less
Depreciation
(RCNLD)
60 SR Salinas Reservoir Booster Station Reservoir Liner 6/30/2013 294,244 1.09 319,908 3 15%20 319,908 15.0%0%0 0
61 SR Salinas Reservoir Security Improvements 6/30/2013 20,680 1.09 22,484 3 15%20 22,484 15.0%0%0 0
62 SR Salinas Reservoir Booster Office Remodel/Repair 6/30/2013 679,713 1.09 738,997 3 6%50 738,997 6.0%0%0 0
63 SR Salinas Reservoir Salinas Dam Water Line Modification 6/30/2013 8,840 1.09 9,611 3 6%50 9,611 6.0%0%0 0
64 SR Salinas Reservoir Booster Station Environmental Studies 6/30/2013 60,026 1.09 65,261 3 15%20 65,261 15.0%0%0 0
65 SR Salinas Reservoir Army Corp Inspection Repairs 6/30/2013 76,697 1.09 83,386 3 10%30 83,386 10.0%0%0 0
66 SR Salinas Reservoir Rewire Electrical Circuit at Dam 6/30/2013 5,170 1.09 5,621 3 12%25 5,621 12.0%0%0 0
67 SR Salinas Reservoir Equipment Replacement 6/30/2013 10,340 1.09 11,242 3 15%20 11,242 15.0%0%0 0
68 NR Naci Reservoir Nacimiento Pipeline Project 6/30/2013 83,740,000 1.09 91,043,780 3 4%75 91,043,780 4.0%39%35,507,074 34,086,791
69 Water Reuse Water Reuse Water Reuse Project (W/ $2.9M Grant)6/30/2006 9,308,843 1.34 12,465,022 10 20%50 12,465,022 20.0%39%4,861,359 3,889,087
70 Water Reuse Water Reuse MCC Building R 2004 0 1.00 0 12 24%50 0 24.0%39%0 0
71 Water Reuse Water Reuse Chlorine Contact Channels 3 And 4 2004 0 1.00 0 12 40%30 0 40.0%39%0 0
72 Water Reuse Water Reuse Storage Tank 2004 0 1.00 0 12 48%25 0 48.0%39%0 0
73 Water Reuse Water Reuse Wharf Head Hydrant 2004 0 1.00 5,000 12 48%25 5,000 48.0%39%1,950 1,014
74 Water Reuse Water Reuse Pipeline, 9.2 miles of pipe 2004 1,708,459 1.00 1,708,459 12 24%50 1,708,459 24.0%39%666,299 506,387
75 TOTAL EXISTING PLANT $229,590,322 $41,272,299 $38,665,490
76
77
78 PLUS: Interest on Debt Water Reuse Project [2]06/30/06 $2,000,000 1.34 0 10 20%50 $2,678,103 39%$1,044,460 $1,044,460
79 Interest on Debt Nacimiento Pipeline Project [2]06/30/13 52,626,348 1.00 0 3 4%75 52,626,348 39%20,524,276 20,524,276
80 $55,304,451 $21,568,736 $21,568,736
81
82 TOTAL EXISTING PLANT $284,894,773 $62,841,035 $60,234,226
83
84
85 Total Future EDUs [4]5,821
86
87 TOTAL EXISTING SUPPLY PLANT $/EDU $10,348
88
89
90 FUTURE PLANT [3]Total
% Fee
Eligible
% Eligible Cost
in 2016 $
91 Source of Supply
92 Groundwater (Study)$70,000 39.0%$27,300
93 Groundwater (DN)175,000 39.0%68,250
94 Groundwater (CN)1,000,000 39.0%390,000
95 Groundwater (CM)150,000 39.0%58,500
96 Groundwater (ER)75,000 39.0%29,250
97 Recycled Water Projects 5,256,460 16.0%841,034
98 TOTAL FUTURE PLANT $6,726,460 $1,414,334
99
100 Total Future EDUs [4] 5,821
101
102 TOTAL FUTURE SUPPLY PLANT $/EDU $243
103
104
105
106 TOTAL EXISTING AND FUTURE SUPPLY PLANT $/EDU $10,591
107
108
109
110 Notes:
111 [1] Existing plant based on replacement cost less deprecation.
112 [2] See Exhibit W-6 for interest on Reuse project and Naci pipeline debt.
113 [3] Future plant based on City capital improvement plan in 2016 dollars. See Exhibit W-8.
114 [4] See Exhibit W-2 for projected supply capacity.
115 [5] See Exhibit W-2 for average daily flow per EDU.
Page 4 of 16 Packet Pg 383
11
1 City of San Luis Obispo - Water Page 1 of 2
2 Exhibit W-4
3 Treatment Capacity and Connection Fee
4
5
6 System Type Function Description
Install
Date Original Cost
ENR
Factor
Estimated
Replacement
Cost
Average
Age
(Years)
Life
Cycle
%
Estimated
Life Cycle
(Years)
Estimated
Replacement
Cost % Depr.
% Fee
Eligible
Replacement
Cost New
(RCN)
Replacement
Cost New Less
Depreciation
(RCNLD)
7 EXISTING PLANT [1]
8 Land Land 83181 06/30/67 $3,200 9.66 $30,925 0.0% 100% $30,925 $30,925
9 Land Land 83182 06/30/09 8,600 1.21 10,410 0.0% 100% 10,410 10,410
10 Land Land 83183 06/30/63 2,100 11.52 24,191 0.0% 100% 24,191 24,191
11 Land Land 83184 06/30/60 3,400 12.60 42,827 0.0% 100% 42,827 42,827
12 Land Land 83185 06/30/11 70 1.14 80 0.0% 100%80 80
13 Land Land 83186 06/30/69 1,100 8.18 8,997 0.0% 100%8,997 8,997
14 Land Land 83187 06/30/69 2,000 8.18 16,358 0.0% 100% 16,358 16,358
15 Land Land 83188 06/30/00 10,520 1.67 17,552 0.0% 100% 17,552 17,552
16 Land Land 83190 06/30/74 19,100 5.14 98,141 0.0% 100% 98,141 98,141
17 Land Land 83191 06/30/60 2,000 12.60 25,192 0.0% 100% 25,192 25,192
18 Land Land 83192 06/30/09 6,000 1.21 7,263 0.0% 100%7,263 7,263
19 Land Land 83193 06/30/10 16,400 1.18 19,338 0.0% 100% 19,338 19,338
20 Land Land 83194 06/30/09 11,900 1.21 14,404 0.0% 100% 14,404 14,404
21 Land Land 83195 06/30/74 28,300 5.14 145,412 0.0% 100% 145,412 145,412
22 Land Land 83196 06/30/76 29,100 4.32 125,796 0.0% 100% 125,796 125,796
23 Land Land 83197 06/30/69 41,000 8.18 335,343 0.0% 100% 335,343 335,343
24 WTP Treatment WTP with 16 MGD Capacity 06/30/05 1.00 64,350,000 8 0 50 64,350,000 16.0% 100% 64,350,000 54,054,000
25 WTP Tanks Clearwell #1 - 3.0 MG welded steel tank 06/30/05 0 1.00 0 8 0 25 0 32.0% 100%0 0
26 WTP Tanks Clearwell #2 - 2.0 MG welded steel tank 06/30/05 0 1.00 0 8 0 25 0 32.0% 100%0 0
27 WTP Wells Pacific Beach Well 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0%0 0
28 WTP Wells Well 06/10/05 0 1.00 0 28 0 75 0 37.3% 100%0 0
29 WTP Wells Building 06/10/05 0 1.00 0 28 1 50 0 56.0% 100%0 0
30 WTP Wells Piping, etc.06/10/05 0 1.00 0 28 0 75 0 37.3% 100%0 0
31 WTP Wells Fire Station #4 Well 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0%0 0
32 WTP Wells Well 06/10/05 0 1.00 0 28 0 75 0 37.3% 100%0 0
33 WTP Wells Building 06/10/05 0 1.00 0 28 1 50 0 56.0% 100%0 0
34 WTP Wells Piping, etc.06/10/05 0 1.00 0 28 0 75 0 37.3% 100%0 0
35 WTP Wells Mitchell Park Well 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0%0 0
36 WTP Wells Well 06/10/05 0 1.00 0 28 0 75 0 37.3% 100%0 0
37 WTP Wells Building 06/10/05 0 1.00 0 28 1 50 0 56.0% 100%0 0
38 WTP Wells Piping, etc.06/10/05 0 1.00 0 28 0 75 0 37.3% 100%0 0
39 WTP Wells Corp Yard Well 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0%0 0
40 WTP Wells Well 06/10/05 0 1.00 0 28 0 75 0 37.3% 100%0 0
41 WTP Wells Building 06/10/05 0 1.00 0 28 1 50 0 56.0% 100%0 0
42 WTP Wells Piping, etc.06/10/05 0 1.00 0 28 0 75 0 37.3% 100%0 0
43 TOTAL EXISTING PLANT $65,272,229 $65,272,229 $54,976,229
44
45 PLUS: Interest on Debt Water Treatment Upgrade 06/30/05 $13,859,798 1.34 0 0 0 50 $18,558,986 100% $18,558,986 $18,558,986
46
47 TOTAL EXISTING PLANT $83,831,215 $83,831,215 $73,535,215
48
49 Total Future EDUs [4]36,791
50
51 TOTAL EXISTING TREATMENT PLANT $/EDU $1,999
Page 5 of 16 Packet Pg 384
11
1 City of San Luis Obispo - Water Page 2 of 2
2 Exhibit W-4
3 Treatment Capacity and Connection Fee
4
5
6 System Type Function Description
Install
Date Original Cost
ENR
Factor
Estimated
Replacement
Cost
Average
Age
(Years)
Life
Cycle
%
Estimated
Life Cycle
(Years)
Estimated
Replacement
Cost % Depr.
% Fee
Eligible
Replacement
Cost New
(RCN)
Replacement
Cost New Less
Depreciation
(RCNLD)
53
54 FUTURE PLANT [3]Total
% Fee
Eligible
% Eligible Cost
in 2016 $
55 Water Treatment
56 Major Facility Maintenance $1,637,000 16%$261,920
57 Ozone System Maint 191,523 16%30,644
58 Enc-Xylem 44,610 16%7,138
59 Chemical System Maint 54,000 16%8,640
60 Air Compressor & Dryer Maint 50,000 16%8,000
61 Replace Air Compressor-Design 10,000 16%1,600
62 Misc -free 35 16%6
63 Stenner Canyon Raw Waterline Replacement (Study)7,123 16%1,140
64 Stenner Canyon Raw Waterline Replacement (Design)35,000 16%5,600
65 Stenner Canyon Raw Waterline Replacement (Const)100,000 16%16,000
66 Package Thickner (Construction and CM)50,000 16%8,000
67 Wash Water Tank #1 (Design)40,000 16%6,400
68 Wash Water Tank #1 (Construction)250,000 16%40,000
69 Wash Water Tank #1 (CM)25,000 16%4,000
70 Reservoir 2 Replacement (Study)24 16%4
71 Enc-Nunley 44,739 16%7,158
72 Reservoir 2 Replacement (Design)344,400 16%55,104
73 Reservoir 2 (Construction)10,000,000 16%1,600,000
74 Reservoir 2 (Const Mgmt) 500,000 16%80,000
75 SST PEA (Study)150,000 16%24,000
76 SST IGA (Design)300,000 16%48,000
77 SST - Hydro and Ozone (Const) 13,000,000 16%2,080,000
78 SST - Hydro and Ozone (Const Mgmt) 1,300,000 16%208,000
79 Treatment Plant Ozone Generation Upgrade 100,000 16%16,000
80 Fleet Replacement: Service Body Truck 48,112 16%7,698
81 Forebay and Culvert Rehab (Study)30,000 16%4,800
82 Forebay and Culvert Rehab (Design)80,000 16%12,800
83 Forebay and Culvert Rehab (Const)800,000 16%128,000
84 Forebay and Culvert Rehab (Const Mgmt)80,000 16%12,800
85 Treatment Plant Ozone Generation Upgrade 100,000 16%16,000
86 Fleet Replacement Forecast 44,500 16%7,120
87 TOTAL FUTURE PLANT $29,416,066 $4,706,572
88
89 Total Future EDUs [4] 5,821
90
91 TOTAL FUTURE TREATMENT PLANT $/EDU $809
92
93
94
95 TOTAL EXISTING AND FUTURE TREATMENT PLANT $/EDU $2,808
96
97
98
99 Notes:
100 [1] Existing plant based on replacement cost less deprecation. See Exhibit W-4A for WTP estimated replacement cost.
101 [2] Future plant based on City capital improvement plan in 2016 dollars. See Exhibit W-8.
102 [3] See Exhibit W-2 for treatment capacity.
103 [4] See Exhibit W-2 for average daily flow per EDU.
Page 6 of 16 Packet Pg 385
11
1 City of San Luis Obispo - Water Page 1 of 2
2 Exhibit W-5
3 Distribution Capacity and Connection Fee
4
5
6 System Type Function Description
Install
Date
Original
Cost
ENR
Factor
Estimated
Replacement
Cost
Average
Age
(Years)
Life
Cycle
%
Estimated
Life Cycle
(Years)
Estimated
Replacement
Cost % Depr.
% Fee
Eligible
Replacement
Cost New (RCN)
Replacement
Cost New Less
Depreciation
(RCNLD)
7 EXISTING PLANT [1]
8 Meters Meters 5/8"2016 $0 1.00 $0 0 0% 20 $0 0.0% 100%$0 $0
9 Meters Meters 3/4"2016 0 1.00 0 0 0% 20 0 0.0% 100%0 0
10 Meters Meters 1"2016 1.00 0 0 0% 20 0 0.0% 100%0 0
11 Meters Meters 1.5"2016 1.00 0 0 0% 15 0 0.0% 100%0 0
12 Meters Meters 2"2016 1.00 0 0 0% 15 0 0.0% 100%0 0
13 Meters Meters 3"2016 1.00 0 0 0% 15 0 0.0% 100%0 0
14 Meters Meters 4"2016 1.00 0 0 0% 15 0 0.0% 100%0 0
15 Meters Meters 6"2016 1.00 0 0 0% 15 0 0.0% 100%0 0
16 Meters Meters 8"2016 1.00 0 0 0% 15 0 0.0% 100%0 0
17 Meters Meters 10"2016 1.00 0 0 0% 15 0 0.0% 100%0 0
18 Meters Meters Unknown 2016 1.00 0 0 0% 15 0 0.0% 100%0 0
19 Fire Hydrants Fire Hydrants 2016 1.00 0 20 0% 100 0 0.0% 100%0 0
20 Fire Hydrants Fire Hydrants 2016 1.00 0 20 0% 100 0 0.0% 100%0 0
21 Fire Hydrants Fire Hydrants 2016 1.00 0 20 0% 100 0 0.0% 100%0 0
22 Fire Hydrants Fire Hydrants Gate 2016 1.00 0 20 0% 100 0 0.0% 100%0 0
23 Fire Hydrants Fire Hydrants Butterfly 2016 1.00 0 20 0% 100 0 0.0% 100%0 0
24 Fire Hydrants Fire Hydrants Unknown 2016 1.00 0 20 0% 100 0 0.0% 100%0 0
25 Fire Hydrants Fire Hydrants Air Relief 2016 1.00 0 20 0% 100 0 0.0% 100%0 0
26 Fire Hydrants Fire Hydrants Blow Off Assemblies 2016 1.00 0 20 0% 100 0 0.0% 100%0 0
27 Mains Potable Water Mains 1970 1.00 214,438,193 50 50% 100 214,438,193 61.7%91% 194,701,193 97,350,597
28 Tanks Tanks Alrita 1 0.00066 MG 2007 331,250 1.00 1,320 9 14% 65 1,320 13.8% 100%1,320 1,137
29 Tanks Tanks Alrita 2 0.00066 MG 2007 331,250 1.00 1,320 9 14% 65 1,320 13.8% 100%1,320 1,137
30 Tanks Tanks Bishop 0.75 MG 2005 1,560,500 1.00 1,500,000 11 17% 65 1,500,000 16.9% 100% 1,500,000 1,246,154
31 Tanks Tanks Edna Saddle 4.0 MG 1974 8,000,000 1.00 8,000,000 42 65% 65 8,000,000 64.6% 100% 8,000,000 2,830,769
32 Tanks Tanks Ferrini 0.16 MG 1985 320,000 1.00 320,000 31 48% 65 320,000 47.7% 100% 320,000 167,385
33 Tanks Tanks Islay 0.35 MG 1996 720,000 1.00 700,000 20 31% 65 700,000 30.8% 100% 700,000 484,615
34 Tanks Tanks Rosemont 0.046 MG 1994 92,000 1.00 92,000 22 34% 65 92,000 33.8% 100%92,000 60,862
35 Tanks Tanks Serrano 0.10 MG 1967 200,000 1.00 200,000 49 75% 65 200,000 75.4% 100% 200,000 49,231
36 Tanks Tanks Slack 0.077 MG 1955 154,000 1.00 154,000 61 94% 65 154,000 93.8% 0%0 0
37 Tanks Tanks Terrace Hill 0.75 MG 1959 1,500,000 1.00 1,500,000 57 88% 65 1,500,000 87.7% 0%0 0
38 Reservoir Reservoir Reservoir 1 7.5 MG 1939 1.00 10,000,000 78 78% 100 10,000,000 78.0% 100% 10,000,000 2,200,000
39 Reservoir Reservoir Reservoir 2 7.5 MG 1942 1.00 10,000,000 75 75% 100 10,000,000 75.0% 100% 10,000,000 2,500,000
40 Pump Station Pump Station Alrita 2007 1.00 300,000 60 80% 75 300,000 80.0% 100% 300,000 60,000
41 Pump Station Pump Station Bishop 1951 1.00 300,000 70 93% 75 300,000 93.3% 100% 300,000 20,000
42 Pump Station Pump Station Bressi 1967 1.00 300,000 65 87% 75 300,000 86.7% 100% 300,000 40,000
43 Pump Station Pump Station Ferrini 1985 1.00 300,000 70 93% 75 300,000 93.3% 100% 300,000 20,000
44 Pump Station Pump Station McCollum 1955 1.00 300,000 70 93% 75 300,000 93.3% 100% 300,000 20,000
45 Pump Station Pump Station Reservoir Canyon 1995 1.00 300,000 67 89% 75 300,000 89.3% 100% 300,000 32,000
46 Pump Station Pump Station Rosemont 2013 1.00 300,000 55 73% 75 300,000 73.3% 100% 300,000 80,000
47 PRV PRV Catalina 2016 1.00 40,000 0 0% 30 40,000 0.0% 100%40,000 40,000
48 PRV PRV Bishop CV 2016 1.00 15,000 0 0% 30 15,000 0.0% 100%15,000 15,000
49 PRV PRV California 2016 1.00 60,000 0 0% 30 60,000 0.0% 100%60,000 60,000
50 PRV PRV Ella 2016 1.00 15,000 0 0% 30 15,000 0.0% 100%15,000 15,000
51 PRV PRV Madonna 2016 1.00 100,000 0 0% 30 100,000 0.0% 100% 100,000 100,000
Page 7 of 16 Packet Pg 386
11
1 City of San Luis Obispo - Water Page 2 of 2
2 Exhibit W-5
3 Distribution Capacity and Connection Fee
4
5
6 System Type Function Description
Install
Date
Original
Cost
ENR
Factor
Estimated
Replacement
Cost
Average
Age
(Years)
Life
Cycle
%
Estimated
Life Cycle
(Years)
Estimated
Replacement
Cost % Depr.
% Fee
Eligible
Replacement
Cost New (RCN)
Replacement
Cost New Less
Depreciation
(RCNLD)
52 PRV PRV McCollum 2016 1.00 10,000 0 0% 30 10,000 0.0% 100%10,000 10,000
53 PRV PRV Nipomo 2016 1.00 20,000 0 0% 30 20,000 0.0% 100%20,000 20,000
54 PRV PRV Peach 2016 1.00 200,000 0 0% 30 200,000 0.0% 100% 200,000 200,000
55 PRV PRV Grand & Wilson 2016 1.00 60,000 0 0% 30 60,000 0.0% 100%60,000 60,000
56 PRV PRV Choro & Foothill 2016 1.00 18,000 0 0% 30 18,000 0.0% 100%18,000 18,000
57 PRV PRV Terrace Hill 2016 1.00 18,000 0 0% 30 18,000 0.0% 100%18,000 18,000
58 PRV PRV San Luis Drive 2016 1.00 10,000 0 0% 30 10,000 0.0% 100%10,000 10,000
59 PRV PRV Southwood 2016 1.00 5,000 0 0% 30 5,000 0.0% 100%5,000 5,000
60 PRV PRV Broad & Caudill 2016 1.00 60,000 0 0% 30 60,000 0.0% 100%60,000 60,000
61 PRV PRV Patricia 2016 1.00 0 0 0% 30 0 0.0% 100%0 0
62 PRV PRV Skyline 2016 1.00 0 0 0% 30 0 0.0% 100%0 0
63 PRV PRV Industrial 2016 1.00 0 0 0% 30 0 0.0% 100%0 0
64 PRV PRV Foothill & California 2016 1.00 60,000 0 0% 30 60,000 0.0% 100%60,000 60,000
65 PRV PRV Catalina 2016 1.00 15,000 0 0% 30 15,000 0.0% 100%15,000 15,000
66 TOTAL EXISTING PLANT $249,712,833 $228,321,833 $107,869,887
67
68 Total EDUs [2] 36,791
69
70 TOTAL EXISTING DISTRIBUTION PLANT $/EDU $2,932
71
72 FUTURE PLANT [3]Cost in 2016 $
73 Total Distribution System Improvements $2,467,581
74 Total Water Customer Service Improvements 0
75 Total Utilities Service Improvements 0
76 Total Administration and Engineering Improvements 0
77 Total General for Future Planning 0
78 Total Shared Information Technology Improvements 273,382
79 TOTAL FUTURE PLANT $2,740,963
80
81 Total Future EDUs [4] 5,821
82
83 TOTAL FUTURE DISTRIBUTION PLANT $/EDU $471
84
85
86 TOTAL EXISTING AND FUTURE DISTRIBUTION PLANT $/EDU $3,403
87
88
89
90 Notes:
91 [1] Existing plant based on replacement cost less deprecation.
92 [2] See Exhibit W-2 for total EDUs.
93 [3] Future plant based on City capital improvement plan in 2016 dollars. See Exhibit W-8.
94 [4] See Exhibit W-2 for future EDUs.
Page 8 of 16 Packet Pg 387
11
1 City of San Luis Obispo - Water
2 Exhibit W-6
3 Summary of Debt Service [1]
4
5
6 2012 Water Revenue Refunding Bonds Total
7 Principal Interest Total Principal Interest Total Principal Interest Total Principal Interest Total Principal
8 I. Debt Status:
9 Interest Rate
10 Principal $4,960,000 2.50%
11 Financing Term 20 30
12
13
II. Outstanding Principal
Payments:
14 2016-17 $435,000 $137,000 $572,000 $1,596,000 $3,392,512 $4,988,512 $420,748 $104,709 $525,457 $435,000 $595,948 $1,030,948 $2,886,748
15 2017-18 450,000 119,600 569,600 1,676,000 3,310,702 4,986,702 431,267 94,190 525,457 455,000 578,548 1,033,548 3,012,267
16 2018-19 470,000 101,600 571,600 1,761,000 3,224,758 4,985,758 442,049 83,408 525,457 475,000 560,348 1,035,348 3,148,049
17 2019-20 485,000 82,800 567,800 1,810,000 3,135,455 4,945,455 453,100 72,357 525,457 490,000 540,873 1,030,873 3,238,100
18 2020-21 505,000 63,400 568,400 1,906,000 3,042,523 4,948,523 464,427 61,030 525,457 515,000 520,293 1,035,293 3,390,427
19 2021-22 530,000 43,200 573,200 2,001,000 2,944,814 4,945,814 476,038 49,419 525,457 0 1,033,405 1,033,405 3,007,038
20 2022-23 550,000 22,000 572,000 2,106,000 2,842,105 4,948,105 487,939 37,518 525,457 0 1,030,400 1,030,400 3,143,939
21 2023-24 0 0 0 2,217,000 2,733,993 4,950,993 500,137 25,319 525,457 0 1,031,119 1,031,119 2,717,137
22 2024-25 0 0 0 2,327,000 2,620,353 4,947,353 512,641 12,816 525,457 0 1,030,744 1,030,744 2,839,641
23 2025-26 0 0 0 2,443,000 2,501,059 4,944,059 0 0 0 0 1,034,275 1,034,275 2,443,000
24 2026-27 0 0 0 2,568,000 2,375,739 4,943,739 0 0 0 0 1,031,494 1,031,494 2,568,000
25 2027-28 0 0 0 2,694,000 2,256,540 4,950,540 0 0 0 0 1,031,794 1,031,794 2,694,000
26 2028-29 0 0 0 2,809,000 2,138,251 4,947,251 0 0 0 0 1,030,744 1,030,744 2,809,000
27 2029-30 0 0 0 2,925,000 2,019,766 4,944,766 0 0 0 0 1,033,344 1,033,344 2,925,000
28 2030-31 0 0 0 3,055,000 1,888,521 4,943,521 0 0 0 0 1,034,369 1,034,369 3,055,000
29 2031-32 0 0 0 3,201,000 1,746,168 4,947,168 0 0 0 0 1,033,819 1,033,819 3,201,000
30 2032-33 0 0 0 3,346,000 1,600,492 4,946,492 0 0 0 0 1,030,663 1,030,663 3,346,000
31 2033-34 0 0 0 3,512,000 1,442,589 4,954,589 0 0 0 0 1,030,888 1,030,888 3,512,000
32 2034-35 0 0 0 3,668,000 1,279,293 4,947,293 0 0 0 0 1,034,263 1,034,263 3,668,000
33 2035-36 0 0 0 3,838,000 1,107,493 4,945,493 0 0 0 0 1,030,556 1,030,556 3,838,000
34 2036-37 0 0 0 4,019,000 927,691 4,946,691 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,019,000
35 2037-38 0 0 0 4,205,000 739,409 4,944,409 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,205,000
36 2038-39 0 0 0 4,396,000 552,820 4,948,820 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,396,000
37 2039-40 0 0 0 5,020,000 349,483 5,369,483 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,020,000
38 2040-41 0 0 0 5,250,000 118,221 5,368,221 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,250,000
39 Total $3,425,000 $569,600 $3,994,600 $74,349,000 $50,290,750 $124,639,750 $4,188,347 $540,766 $4,729,112 $2,370,000 $18,277,881 $20,647,881 $84,332,347
40 Less: Percent Not Eligible 39.0%39.0%
41 $28,996,110 $1,633,455 $30,629,565
42 Net Eligible $45,352,890 $2,554,891 $53,702,781
43
44 Total EDUs [2]36,791 36,791 36,791 36,791 36,791
45
46 Total Debt Service $/EDU $93 $1,233 $69 $64 $1,459
47
48
49
50 Notes:
51 [1] Debt service schedules from the City "Water Fund Analysis-working copy_2016-10-18.xlsx".
52 [2] See Exhibit W-2 for total EDUs.
Reuse - SRF Funding Repayments WTP Master Plan Improvements (Nacimiento Water Project)
2007 A Revenue Bonds
Page 9 of 16 Packet Pg 388
11
City of San Luis Obispo - Water
Exhibit W-7
Summary of Reserve Funds
For the Year Ended June 30, 2016
Type Total
% Fee
Eligible [1] $ Fee Eligible
Cash $160,747 100%$160,747
Cash & Equivalents 15,918,304 100%15,918,304
Total $16,079,051 $16,079,051
Less:
Restricted
Debt Service $1,654,826 0%$0
Subsequent year expenditures 448,499 0%0
Committed
Rate Stabilization fund $1,650,000 0%0
Contingency fund 2,950,800 0%0
Total $6,704,125 $0
Net Available Cash Reserves $9,374,926 $16,079,051
Total EDUs [2]36,791
Total Cash Reserves $/EDU $437
Notes:
[1] Balance as of CAFR June 2016.
[2] See Exhibit W-2 for total EDUs.
Page 10 of 16 Packet Pg 389
11
1 City of San Luis Obispo - Water Page 1 of 3
2 Exhibit W-8
3 Development of the Water Capacity and Connection Fee Future Capital Improvements
4
5
6
7 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN [1]2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 Total
% Fee
Eligible $ Fee Eligible
8
9 Water Treatment [3]
10 Major Facility Maintenance $0 $360,000 $163,000 $171,000 $179,000 $189,000 $185,000 $190,000 $200,000 $1,637,000 16%$261,920
11 Ozone System Maint 191,523 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 191,523 16%30,644
12 Enc-Xylem 44,610 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44,610 16%7,138
13 Chemical System Maint 54,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54,000 16%8,640
14 Air Compressor & Dryer Maint 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50,000 16%8,000
15 Replace Air Compressor-Design 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,000 16%1,600
16 Misc -free 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 16%6
17 Stenner Canyon Raw Waterline Replacement (Study)7,123 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,123 16%1,140
18 Stenner Canyon Raw Waterline Replacement (Design)35,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35,000 16%5,600
19 Stenner Canyon Raw Waterline Replacement (Const)100,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 16%16,000
20 Package Thickner (Construction and CM)0 0 0 0 50,000 0 0 0 0 50,000 16%8,000
21 Wash Water Tank #1 (Design)0 40,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40,000 16%6,400
22 Wash Water Tank #1 (Construction)0 0 0 250,000 0 0 0 0 0 250,000 16%40,000
23 Wash Water Tank #1 (CM)0 0 0 25,000 0 0 0 0 0 25,000 16%4,000
24 Reservoir 2 Replacement (Study)24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 16%4
25 Enc-Nunley 44,739 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44,739 16%7,158
26 Reservoir 2 Replacement (Design)184,400 160,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 344,400 16%55,104
27 Reservoir 2 (Construction)0 0 0 10,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 10,000,000 16%1,600,000
28 Reservoir 2 (Const Mgmt) 0 0 0 500,000 0 0 0 0 0 500,000 16%80,000
29 SST PEA (Study)0 150,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 150,000 16%24,000
30 SST IGA (Design)0 300,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 300,000 16%48,000
31 SST - Hydro and Ozone (Const) 0 0 8,000,000 5,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 13,000,000 16%2,080,000
32 SST - Hydro and Ozone (Const Mgmt) 0 0 500,000 800,000 0 0 0 0 0 1,300,000 16%208,000
33 Treatment Plant Ozone Generation Upgrade 0 0 0 100,000 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 16%16,000
34 Fleet Replacement: Service Body Truck 8,112 0 0 0 0 40,000 0 0 0 48,112 16%7,698
35 Forebay and Culvert Rehab (Study)0 0 0 0 0 30,000 0 0 0 30,000 16%4,800
36 Forebay and Culvert Rehab (Design)0 0 0 0 0 80,000 0 0 0 80,000 16%12,800
37 Forebay and Culvert Rehab (Const)0 0 0 0 0 0 800,000 0 0 800,000 16%128,000
38 Forebay and Culvert Rehab (Const Mgmt)0 0 0 0 0 0 80,000 0 0 80,000 16%12,800
39 Treatment Plant Ozone Generation Upgrade 0 0 0 100,000 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 16%16,000
40 Fleet Replacement Forecast 0 0 0 0 0 0 44,500 0 0 44,500 16%7,120
41 Total Treatment $729,566 $1,010,000 $8,663,000 $16,946,000 $229,000 $339,000 $1,109,500 $190,000 $200,000 $29,416,066 $4,706,572
42
43 Water Distribution
44 Distribution System Improvements - Pipelines
45 DN-Casa, Stenner, Chorro, Murray, Pacific Design $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 16%$24,000
46 CN-Casa, Stenner, Chorro, Murray, Pacific Design 1,560,000 1,900,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,460,000 16%553,600
47 CM-Casa, Stenner, Chorro, Murray, Pacific Design 150,000 150,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300,000 16%48,000
48 Mt View, Hill, West, Lincoln, etc.-Design 125,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 125,000 16%20,000
49 Mt View, Hill, West, Lincoln, etc.-Const 0 0 0 0 1,255,000 0 0 0 0 1,255,000 16%200,800
50 Mt View, Hill, West, Lincoln, etc.-Const Mgmt 0 0 0 0 125,000 0 0 0 0 125,000 16%20,000
51 Craig, Christina, Jaycee, etc -Design 0 0 0 0 135,000 0 0 0 0 135,000 16%21,600
52 Craig, Christina, Jaycee, etc -Const 0 0 0 0 0 1,350,000 0 0 0 1,350,000 16%216,000
53 Craig, Christina, Jaycee, etc -Const Mgmt 0 0 0 0 0 135,000 0 0 0 135,000 16%21,600
54 Chorro, El Paseo, El Cerrito, etc - Design 0 0 0 0 0 125,000 0 0 0 125,000 16%20,000
55 Chorro, El Paseo, El Cerrito, etc - Const 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,258,000 0 0 1,258,000 16%201,280
56 Chorro, El Paseo, El Cerrito, etc - Const Mgmt 0 0 0 0 0 0 125,000 0 0 125,000 16%20,000
57 Patricia, Highland, La Entrada - Design 0 0 0 0 0 0 127,000 0 0 127,000 16%20,320
58 Patricia, Highland, La Entrada - Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,270,000 0 1,270,000 16%203,200
59 Patricia, Highland, La Entrada - Construction Mgmt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 127,000 0 127,000 16%20,320
Proposed
Page 11 of 16 Packet Pg 390
11
1 City of San Luis Obispo - Water Page 2 of 3
2 Exhibit W-8
3 Development of the Water Capacity and Connection Fee Future Capital Improvements
4
5
6
7 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN [1]2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 Total
% Fee
Eligible $ Fee Eligible
Proposed
60 Serrano Zone Consolidation-(Study & Design)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 0 100,000 16%16,000
61 Serrano Zone Consolidation Phase 1 (Const)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,000,000 1,000,000 16%160,000
62 Serrano Zone Consolidation Phase 1 (Constr Mgmt)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 100,000 16%16,000
63 Trench Repairs 174,789 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 0 0 0 1,174,789 0%0
64 Raise Valve Covers 50,765 25,000 25,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 0 0 0 190,765 0%0
65 Water Meters and Water Meter Boxes 115,477 165,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 0 0 0 1,000,477 0%0
66 Water Meters and Water Meter Boxes (Contribution from sewer)0 (82,500) (90,000) (90,000) (90,000) (90,000)0 0 0 (442,500)0%0
67 Enc with Corix 1,605 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,605 0%0
68 Fire Hydrants and Parts 26,743 40,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66,743 0%0
69 Slack Tank Consolidation (Design)0 100,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 16%16,000
70 Slack Tank Consolidation (Const)0 0 920,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 920,000 16%147,200
71 Slack Tank Consolidation (Const Mgmt)0 0 92,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 92,000 16%14,720
72 [2] Wash Water Tank #2 (Const) @ WTP 170,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 170,000 16%27,200
73 [2]Tank Maintenance (Study)13,100 0 75,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 88,100 16%14,096
74 [2] Enc-Nunley 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 16%80
75 [2]Tank Maintenance (Design)5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 16%1
76 [2]Tank Maintenance (Construction)600,000 0 0 675,000 0 0 0 0 0 1,275,000 16%204,000
77 [2]Tank Maintenance (CM)130,000 0 0 70,000 0 0 0 0 0 200,000 16%32,000
78 Terrace Hill Tank Maint 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16%0
79 Enc-Nunley 65,635 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65,635 16%10,502
80 IT - CityWorks Upgrade 5,942 0 0 0 0 0 0 250,000 0 255,942 16%40,951
81 Enc-Woolpert 11,412 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,412 16%1,826
82 Distribution Pump Station Upgrades 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16%0
83 Water Model Maintenance and Analysis 0 20,000 20,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 40,000 16%6,400
84 Water Pump Station Analysis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16%0
85 Fleet replacement: Pickup 0 0 70,000 35,000 35,000 0 0 0 0 140,000 16%22,400
86 Fleet replacement: Caterpillar Backhoe Loader & Attachments 0 0 0 0 0 235,000 0 0 0 235,000 16%37,600
87 Fleet replacement: Service body trucks 0 0 0 0 300,000 0 0 0 0 300,000 16%48,000
88 Fleet Replacement: Medium Duty Truck with bed & crane 0 0 0 0 130,000 0 0 0 0 130,000 16%20,800
89 Extended Cab Pickup Truck 1,079 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,079 16%173
90 Fleet Replacement: Message Board 0 0 0 0 40,000 0 0 0 0 40,000 16%6,400
91 Foothill/Chorro PRV Replacement (Design)5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 16%1
92 Enc-Numley 3,746 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,746 16%599
93 Foothill/Chorro PRV Replacement (Const)86,950 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 86,950 16%13,912
94 Total Distribution $3,442,753 $2,517,500 $1,492,000 $1,100,000 $2,340,000 $2,165,000 $1,510,000 $1,747,000 $1,100,000 $17,414,253 $2,467,581
95
96 Water Customer Service
97 Fleet replacement: Compact Pickups $0 $0 $0 $57,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 57,000 0%$0
98
99 Utilities Services
100 Fleet replacement: Compact Pickup $25,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 25,200 0%$0
101
102 Administration and Engineering
103 879 Morro Refurbishment $481 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $481 0%$0
104 Enc Benchmark 3,966 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,966 0%0
105 Control System Trucks 6,501 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,501 0%0
106 Enc - Toyota 33,589 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33,589 0%0
107 Fleet replacement: Sedan 0 0 0 35,000 0 0 0 0 0 35,000 0%0
108 Mobile Equipment Lifts & Safety Stands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%0
109 Total Administration and Engineering $44,537 $0 $0 $35,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $79,537 $0
Page 12 of 16 Packet Pg 391
11
1 City of San Luis Obispo - Water Page 3 of 3
2 Exhibit W-8
3 Development of the Water Capacity and Connection Fee Future Capital Improvements
4
5
6
7 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN [1]2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 Total
% Fee
Eligible $ Fee Eligible
Proposed
110
111 Source of Supply
112 Groundwater (Study)$70,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $70,000 39.0%$27,300
113 Groundwater (DN)175,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 175,000 39.0%68,250
114 Groundwater (CN)1,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,000,000 39.0%390,000
115 Groundwater (CM)150,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150,000 39.0%58,500
116 Groundwater (ER)75,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75,000 39.0%29,250
117 Total Source of Supply $1,470,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,470,000 $573,300
118
119 General Assumptions for Future Planning Purposes $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $2,000,000 0%$0
120
121 Shared Information Technology
122 Fox Pro Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0%$0
123 Laserfiche 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%0
124 UB System Upgrade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%0
125 Enc - Accela 1,667 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,667 0%0
126 City Website Upgrade (4% share)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16%0
127 Water Reuse Automation Impr 51,980 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51,980 16%8,317
128 Wireless Net Infrastructure Replacement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16%0
129 Telemetry System Upgrade (Design)2,704 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,704 0%0
130 Enc - Cannon 48,588 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48,588 16%7,774
131 Telemetry System Upgrade - Construction 1,462,688 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,462,688 16%234,030
132 Enc - Applied Technology 2,925 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,925 0%0
133 Virtual Private Network (VPN) Replacement 0 0 0 9,028 0 0 0 0 0 9,028 0%0
134 Network Firewalls 0 0 0 15,259 0 0 0 0 0 15,259 16%2,441
135 GPS System Replacement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16%0
136 Network Switching Infrastructure Replacement 0 0 0 14,140 0 0 0 0 0 14,140 16%2,262
137 Radio Handhelds and Mobile Replacements 24,282 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24,282 16%3,885
138 VM Infrastructure 8,945 0 0 8,945 0 0 0 0 0 17,890 16%2,862
139 Server Operating System 1,848 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,848 0%0
140 VoIP 0 20,360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20,360 16%3,258
141 Document Management System 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16%0
142 Tait Radio System 0 0 24,282 0 0 0 0 0 0 24,282 16%3,885
143 MS Office Replacement 0 0 0 16,773 0 0 0 0 0 16,773 16%2,684
144 Enc - Planet Technologies 12,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,400 16%1,984
145 UPS Battery Replacement 0 0 1,885 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,885 0%0
146 Enc - Applied Technology 1,885 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,885 0%0
147 Enterprise Storage Growth 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%0
148 Total Share of Information Technology CIP $1,595,629 $44,642 $26,167 $64,145 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,730,583 $273,382
149
150 Recycled Water Projects 0 0 50,000 0 250,000 0 1,250,000 0 3,706,460 5,256,460 16%$841,034
151
152 TOTAL WATER FUND CAPITAL PLAN $7,307,684 $3,572,142 $10,231,167 $18,202,145 $2,819,000 $3,004,000 $4,369,500 $2,437,000 $5,506,460 $57,449,098 $8,861,869
153
154 Supply $1,414,334
155 Treatment 4,706,572
156 Notes:Distribution 2,740,963
157 [1] From the City "Water Fund Analysis-working copy_2016-10-18.xlsx".Total $8,861,869
158 [2] These items are included in the estimated replacement cost for the WTP. See Exhibit W-4A.OK
159 [3] These items are estimated growth related based on Exhibit W-2. Future growth is 16% of total EDU, 5,821/36,791 = 16%.
Page 13 of 16 Packet Pg 392
11
1 City of San Luis Obispo - Water City of San Luis Obispo - Water
2 Exhibit W-9A Exhibit W-9B
3 Allowable Water Capacity and Connection Fees Allowable Water Capacity and Connection Fees
4
5 Component
Calculation
Results
($/EDU)Component Buy-in Future
Debt
Service Total ($/EDU)
6
7 Supply $10,591 Supply $10,348 $243 $0 $10,591
8 Treatment 2,808 Treatment 1,999 809 0 2,808
9 Distribution 3,403 Distribution 2,932 471 0 3,403
10 Debt Service (1,459)Debt Service 0 0 (1,459) (1,459)
11 Cash Reserves 437 Cash Reserves 437 0 0 437
12 -------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------
13 Net Allowable Capacity and Connection Fee $15,780 Net Allowable Capacity and Connection Fee $15,716 $1,523 ($1,459) $15,780
14
15 Current Capacity and Connection Fee $11,100.16 Current Capacity and Connection Fee $11,100.16
16 ----------------------------
17 Difference $4,680 Difference $4,680
Page 14 of 16 Packet Pg 393
11
City of San Luis Obispo - Water
Exhibit W-10
Summary of Water Capcity and Connection Fee Schedule
CURRENT WATER DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES AS OF 7/1/2017
Land Use Type EDU*Citywide
RESIDENTIAL (per unit)
Single Family Residential 1.0 $11,322.16
Multi-Family Residential 0.7 7,925.51
Mobile Home 0.6 6,793.30
Studio Unit (450 s.f. or less)0.3 3,396.65
NON-RESIDENTIAL (Meter Size)
5/8" to 3/4"-inch 1.0 $11,322.16
1-inch 1.7 19,247.68
1-1/2 inch 3.4 38,495.36
2-inch 5.4 61,138.45
3-inch 10.7 121,145.00
4-inch 16.7 185,076.96
6-inch 33.4 378,153.92
* Equivalent dwelling unit
CALCULATED WATER CAPACITY AND CONNECTION FEE
Land Use Type EDU*Citywide
RESIDENTIAL (per unit)
Residential (greater than 800 s.f.)1.0 $15,780
Residential (451 s.f. to 800 s.f.)0.7 11,046
Mobile Home 0.6 9,468
Studio Unit (450 sf or less)0.3 4,734
NON-RESIDENTIAL (Meter Size)
5/8" to 3/4"-inch 1.0 $15,780
1-inch 1.7 26,826
1-1/2 inch 3.4 53,652
2-inch 5.4 85,212
3-inch 10.7 168,846
4-inch 16.7 263,526
6-inch 33.4 527,052
Page 15 of 16 Packet Pg 394
11
Current Fee Option #1 Option #2
Future Portion
of Treatment
Project plus
Financing Cost
Current Fee plus
Future Portion of
Project plus
Financing Cost
Existing
(Replacement Cost
Less Depreciation)
plus Future plus
Financing Cost
Difference
between Option
#1 and Option #2
Existing Fee - Future Capacity Projects
Water Reuse Project (39%)$4,514,857 $4,514,857
Nacimiento Pipeline Project (39%)58,678,467 58,678,467
2006 Water Treatment Imp (15%)3,831,389 3,831,389
Sedimentation Process (50%)3,888,350 3,888,350
2007 Bishop Tank (15%)231,665 231,665
1994 Water Treatment Tank (15%)3,480,430 3,480,430
Total Existing Fee Future Plant $74,625,158 $74,625,158
Existing Fee Future EDUs 6,927 6,927
Existing Fee $/EDU $10,773 $10,773 ($10,773)
New Future Plant
Supply [1]$1,477,484 $1,414,334 (11)
Treatment [1]4,916,720 4,706,572 (36)
Distribution 0 2,740,963 471
Total New Future Plant $6,394,204 $8,861,869
Total New Future EDUs [2]5,821 5,821
New Future Plant $/EDU $1,098 $1,523
Future Plant $/EDU $10,773 $11,872 $1,523 ($10,349)
Existing Plant
Supply $60,234,226
Total Future EDUs [2]5,821
Total Supply per EDU $10,348 $10,348
Treatment $73,535,215 1,999
Distribution 107,869,887 2,932
Plus: Cash balances 16,079,051 437
Total Existing Treatment, Distribution Plant $197,484,153
Total EDUs 36,791
Total Other per EDU $5,368
Total Existing Plant $/EDU $15,716 $15,715
Debt Credit ($1,459)($1,459)
Total Future and Existing $/EDU $10,773 $11,872 $15,780 $3,907
Current Fee (ENR 7/1/2017)$11,322.16
[1] Option #1 is existing fee plus 16% of growth related future plant, plus interest at 2%
[2] Future EDUs are net of Vested/ Pending projects
Water Capacity and Connection Fee
Page 16 of 16 Packet Pg 395
11
Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee
Packet Pg 396
11
1 City of San Luis Obispo - Wastewater
2 Exhibit S-1
3 Development of Capacity and Connection Fee
4
5 Plant Description
Estimated
Replacement Cost
Eligible
Replacement Cost
New (RCN)
Eligible
Replacement Cost
New Less
Depreciation
(RCNLD) EDUs Total Fee
6 Existing Plant [1]
7 Treatment $83,819,927 $79,117,927 $42,138,027 36,791 $1,145
8 Collection 259,391,205 197,461,122 106,909,803 36,791 2,906
9
10 Total Existing Plant $343,211,132 $276,579,049 $149,047,830 36,791 $4,051
11
12 Less: Outstanding Debt Principal (2)($17,096,754) 36,791 ($465)
13
14 Plus: Capital Fund Reserves [3]$28,271,258 36,791 $768
15
16 Total Net Existing Plant $343,211,132 $276,579,049 $160,222,334 36,791 $4,354
17
18 Future Plant [4]
19 Treatment $154,876,753 $24,717,624 5,821 $4,246
20 Collection 23,292,507 23,292,507 5,821 4,002
21
22 Total Future Plant $178,169,260 $0 $48,010,131 5,821 $8,248
23
24
25
26 Total Existing and Future Plant [5]$521,380,391 $276,579,049 $208,232,465 $12,602
27
28 Existing EDUs (Includes Vested/Pending Projects)30,970
29 Future EDUs 5,821
30 Total Existing and Future EDUs 36,791
31
32
33 Notes:
34 [1] Existing plant based on replacement cost less depreciation.
35 [2] Remaining principal as of June 2016. See Exhibit S-5.
36 [3] Cash reserves as of June 2016 which are fee eligible. See Exhibit S-6.
37 [4] Future plant based on City capital improvement plan in 2016 dollars. See Exhibit S-7.
38 [5] Based on "combined" methodology established in AWWA M1, Sixth Edition, Table VI.2-1, page 273.Page 1 of 18 Packet Pg 397
11
1 City of San Luis Obispo - Wastewater
2 Exhibit S-2
3 Development of EDUs
4
5 EDU = Equivalent Dwelling Unit
6
7
8 5,400,000 Future Average Dry Weather Flow/WRRF Design Capacity
9 470,000 Cal Poly Average Dry Weather Flow/Capacity share of WRRF
10 4,930,000 City owned WRRF Capacity
11 134 EDU gpd Rate [1]
12 36,791 Total City Existing and Future EDU
13 4,150,000 Existing Average Dry Weather Flow, plus pending increment
14 30,970 Existing EDU (Includes Vested/Pending Projects)
15 5,821 Future EDU
16
17
18
19 Notes:
20 [1] City provided gallons per day (gpd) based on a a three-year average from 2012-13 to 2014-15.
21 [2] Future growth is 16% of total EDU, 5,821/36,791 = 16%
Future EDU Calc (derived by using 5.4 mgd design capacity for WRRF)
Page 2 of 18 Packet Pg 398
11
1 City of San Luis Obispo - Wastewater Page 1 of 3
2 Exhibit S-3
3 Development of Treatment Capacity and Connection Fee
4
5 System Type Function Description
Install
Date
Average
Age (Years)
Life
Cycle
%
Estimated
Life Cycle
(Years)
Estimated
Replacement
Cost % Depr.
% Fee
Eligible
Replacement
Cost New (RCN)
Replacement Cost
New Less
Depreciation
(RCNLD)
6 EXISTING PLANT [1]
7 Land 83199 LAND 100 6/30/1952 $4,600 0.0% 100% $4,600 $4,600
8 Land 83200 LAND 100 6/30/1963 959,700 0.0% 100% 959,700 959,700
9 Land 83201 LAND 100 6/30/1969 474,175 0.0% 100% 474,175 474,175
10 Land 10069001 LANDí18.8 ACRES 6/30/1969 587,450 0.0% 100% 587,450 587,450
11 Treatment Digester DIGESTER No. 3 1923 69 92% 75 2,000,000 92.0% 100% 2,000,000 160,000
12 Treatment Clarifier PRIMARY CLARIFIER No. 1 1945 69 92% 75 2,000,000 92.0% 100% 2,000,000 160,000
13 Treatment Clarifier PRIMARY CLARIFIER No. 2 1945 69 92% 75 2,000,000 92.0% 100% 2,000,000 160,000
14 Treatment Digester DIGESTER No. 2 1946 69 92% 75 2,000,000 92.0% 100% 2,000,000 160,000
15 Treatment Digester DIGESTER No. 1 1952 69 92% 75 2,000,000 92.0% 100% 2,000,000 160,000
16 Treatment Drying Beds DRYING BEDS 1-8 1950 69 92% 75 472,000 92.0% 0%0 0
17 Treatment Biofilter BIOFILTER No. 3 1964 69 138% 50 0 100.0% 0%0 0
18 Treatment Clarifier SECONDARY CLARIFIER No. 3 1964 52 69% 75 2,000,000 69.3% 100% 2,000,000 613,333
19 Treatment Building OPERATIONS BUILDING 1964 52 0% 0 0 0.0% 0%0 0
20 Treatment Building MAINTENANCE SHOP/TOOL SHED 1964 52 0% 0 280,000 0.0% 0%0 0
21 Treatment Drying Beds UPPER DRYING BEDS 1984 32 0% 0 0 0.0% 0%0 0
22 Treatment Equalization EQUALIZATION BASIN 1984 44 88% 50 1,000,000 88.0% 100% 1,000,000 120,000
23 Treatment Equalization EQUALIZATION BASIN 1984 24 80% 30 10,000,000 80.0% 100% 10,000,000 2,000,000
24 Treatment Lagoon SUPERNATANT LAGOON 1984 32 80% 40 550,000 80.0% 0%0 0
25 Treatment Effluent OLD EFFLUENT STRUCTURE AT SOUTH END OF PROPERTY 1984 32 32% 100 1,500,000 32.0% 100% 1,500,000 1,020,000
26 Treatment Headworks HEADWORKS 1994 2 10% 20 4,179,000 10.0% 100% 4,179,000 3,761,100
27 Treatment Clarifier SECONDARY CLARIFIER No. 4 1994 22 29% 75 2,000,000 29.3% 100% 2,000,000 1,413,333
28 Treatment Clarifier SECONDARY CLARIFIER No. 5 1994 22 29% 75 2,000,000 29.3% 100% 2,000,000 1,413,333
29 Treatment Clarifier CLARIFIER No. 4 RAS PUMPS 2014 2 10% 20 250,000 10.0% 100% 250,000 225,000
30 Treatment Clarifier CLARIFIER No. 5 RAS PUMPS 2014 2 10% 20 250,000 10.0% 100% 250,000 225,000
31 Treatment Chemical pH CONTROL CHEMICAL STATION 1994 22 88% 25 800,000 88.0% 100% 800,000 96,000
32 Treatment Pumps RECIRCULATION ISLAND PUMPS 1994 22 88% 25 0 88.0% 0%0 0
33 Treatment Aeration AERATION TANKS No. 1 & 2 1994 22 29% 75 8,000,000 29.3% 100% 8,000,000 5,653,333
34 Treatment Blowers BLOWERS 1,2 &3 1994 22 110% 20 1,350,000 100.0% 100% 1,350,000 0
35 Treatment Building MAIN SWITCHGEAR BUILDING 1994 22 29% 75 5,000,000 29.3% 100% 5,000,000 3,533,333
36 Treatment Building MCC BUILDINGS B & G 2015 1 1% 75 800,000 1.3% 100% 800,000 789,333
37 Treatment Building MCC BUILDINGS A & J 2010 6 8% 75 800,000 8.0% 100% 800,000 736,000
38 Treatment Other PROPANE POWERED EMERGENCY GENERATOR 1994 26 87% 30 1,500,000 86.7% 100% 1,500,000 200,000
39 Treatment Daft DAFT (DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION THICKENER)1994 22 29% 75 1,500,000 29.3% 100% 1,500,000 1,060,000
40 Treatment Chemical CHLORINE CONTACT CHANNELS 1/2 1994 22 29% 75 2,200,000 29.3% 0%0 0
41 Treatment Building BELT PRESS BUILDING 1994 22 44% 50 500,000 44.0% 100% 500,000 280,000
42 Treatment Building ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1994 22 220% 10 250,000 100.0% 100% 250,000 0
43 Treatment Tertiary TERTIARY MEDIA FILTERS 4 filters 1994 22 29% 75 10,000,000 29.3% 100% 10,000,000 7,066,667
44 Treatment Cooling Towers COOLING TOWERS 3 units 1994 22 73% 30 3,000,000 73.3% 100% 3,000,000 800,000
45 Treatment Equalization EQALIZATION TANKS (NORTH & SOUTH) 2 units 1994 22 29% 75 2,000,000 29.3% 100% 2,000,000 1,413,333
46 Treatment Chemical DISINFECTION CHEMICAL STORAGE AREA 1994 36 90% 40 2,200,000 90.0% 50% 1,100,000 110,000
47 Treatment Digester DIGESTER GAS FLARE SYSTEM 2006 10 50% 20 100,000 50.0% 100% 100,000 50,000
48 Treatment Other SLURRY SEALED ALL ASPHALT 2010 6 120% 5 100,000 100.0% 0%0 0
49 Treatment Other PERIMETER FENCING 2012 4 20% 20 500,000 20.0% 100% 500,000 400,000
50 Treatment Other WRRF SERVER IN ADMIN 2015 1 10% 10 2,500,000 10.0% 100% 2,500,000 2,250,000
51 Treatment Other FIBER OPTICS 2015 1 5% 20 100,000 5.0% 100% 100,000 95,000
52 Treatment Cogeneration COGENERATION SYSTEM 2015 1 5% 20 2,500,000 5.0% 100% 2,500,000 2,375,000
53 Treatment Other PLANT ENTRANCE GATE 2016 0 0% 20 25,000 0.0% 100% 25,000 25,000
54 Treatment Other LIGHTING 2016 0 0% 20 50,000 0.0% 100% 50,000 50,000
55 TOTAL EXISTING PLANT $82,281,925 $77,579,925 $40,600,025
Page 3 of 18 Packet Pg 399
11
1 City of San Luis Obispo - Wastewater Page 2 of 3
2 Exhibit S-3
3 Development of Treatment Capacity and Connection Fee
4
5 System Type Function Description
Install
Date
Average
Age (Years)
Life
Cycle
%
Estimated
Life Cycle
(Years)
Estimated
Replacement
Cost % Depr.
% Fee
Eligible
Replacement
Cost New (RCN)
Replacement Cost
New Less
Depreciation
(RCNLD)
56
57 PLUS: Interest on Debt Water Efficiency Project 5/05/15 $1,538,002 1.00 $1,538,002 100%1,538,002 1,538,002
58
59 TOTAL EXISTING PLANT $83,819,927 $79,117,927 $42,138,027
60
61 Buildout EDUs [2] 36,791
62
63 TOTAL EXISTING TREATMENT AND COLLECTION PLANT $/EDU $1,145
64
65 UPGRADE PLANT [3]Cost in 2016 $
% Fee
Eligible Cost in 2016 $
66 Water Resource Recovery Facility
67 Major Maintenance $3,762,884 16%$602,061
68 Influent Pump Replacement 155,705 16%24,913
69 WRRF Energy Efficiency 0 16%0
70 Design 1,325 16%212
71 Construction 3,861 16%618
72 WRRF Upgrade 0 16%0
73 Study/Environmental 382,151 16%61,144
74 Program Management 2,805,544 16%448,887
75 Design 6,063,682 16%970,189
76 amendment to CH2M 1,000,000 16%160,000
77 Construction 0 16%0
78 Infrastructure 140,000,000 16%22,400,000
79 Disinfection 0 16%0
80 Nutrient Removal 0 16%0
81 Contingency 0 16%0
82 Flood Control 0 16%0
83 Construction Management 0 16%0
84 WRRF Fiber Optic Impr 0 16%0
85 Digester 2 Cleaning 0 16%0
86 WRF Sludge Bed 0 16%0
87 WRRF Cooling Towers 0 16%0
88 IT - iFix Replacement 250,000 16%40,000
89 IT - HachWims 30,000 16%4,800
90 IT - MP2 Replacement 30,000 16%4,800
91 Fleet Replacement: Utility Trucks (3)57,600 0%0
92 Fleet Replacement: Sedan 33,000 0%0
93 Fleet Replacement: 4-Wheel Drive Loader 0 0%0
94 Fleet Replacement: Pickup Truck w/Flat Bed & Crane 0 0%0
95 Fleet Replacement: Compact Pickup Truck 36,000 0%0
96 Fleet Replacement: Decanter Trailer 0 0%0
97 Fleet Replacement: Club Cars - Electric 60,000 0%0
98 Fleet Replacement: Dump Truck 150,000 0%0
99 Fleet Replacement: Forklift 55,000 0%0
100 TOTAL UPGRADE PLANT $154,876,753 $0 $24,717,624
101
102 Total Future EDUs [4] 5,821
103
104 TOTAL FUTURE TREATMENT PLANT $/EDU $4,246
105
106 TOTAL EXISTING AND FUTURE TREATMENT PLANT $/EDU $5,391
Page 4 of 18 Packet Pg 400
11
1 City of San Luis Obispo - Wastewater Page 3 of 3
2 Exhibit S-3
3 Development of Treatment Capacity and Connection Fee
4
5 System Type Function Description
Install
Date
Average
Age (Years)
Life
Cycle
%
Estimated
Life Cycle
(Years)
Estimated
Replacement
Cost % Depr.
% Fee
Eligible
Replacement
Cost New (RCN)
Replacement Cost
New Less
Depreciation
(RCNLD)
107
108
109
110 Notes:
111 [1] Existing plant based on replacement cost less deprecation. Land based on original cost and July 2017 ENR.
112 [2] See Exhibit S-2 for total EDUs.
113 [3] Future plant based on City capital improvement plan in 2016 dollars. See Exhibit S-7.
114 [4] See Exhibit S-2 for future EDUs.
Page 5 of 18 Packet Pg 401
11
1 City of San Luis Obispo - Wastewater Page 1 of 2
2 Exhibit S-4A
3 Development of Collection Capacity and Connection Fee
4
5
6 System Type Function Description Install Date
Average
Age
(Years)
Life
Cycle
%
Pipe Length
(feet)
Estimated
Life Cycle
(Years)
Estimated
Replacement
Cost % Depr.
% Fee
Eligible
Replacement
Cost New (RCN)
Replacement
Cost New Less
Depreciation
(RCNLD)
EXISTING PLANT [1]
7 Collection Sewer Mains Gravity Main 1910 to 1919 106 106%27,966 100 $8,389,677 100.0%80%$6,711,742 $0
8 Collection Sewer Mains Gravity Main 1920 to 1929 96 96%62,068 100 18,620,358 96.0%80%14,896,286 595,851
9 Collection Sewer Mains Gravity Main 1930 to 1939 86 86%1,863 100 559,017 86.0%80%447,214 62,610
10 Collection Sewer Mains Gravity Main 1940 to 1949 76 76%62,018 100 18,605,544 76.0%80%14,884,435 3,572,264
11 Collection Sewer Mains Gravity Main 1950 to 1959 66 66%118,881 100 35,664,195 66.0%80%28,531,356 9,700,661
12 Collection Sewer Mains Gravity Main 1960 to 1969 56 56%109,485 100 32,845,503 56.0%80%26,276,402 11,561,617
13 Collection Sewer Mains Gravity Main 1970 to 1979 46 46%86,723 100 26,016,912 46.0%80%20,813,530 11,239,306
14 Collection Sewer Mains Gravity Main 1980 to 1989 36 36%71,333 100 21,399,804 36.0%80%17,119,843 10,956,700
15 Collection Sewer Mains Gravity Main 1990 to 1999 26 26%76,462 100 22,938,525 26.0%80%18,350,820 13,579,607
16 Collection Sewer Mains Gravity Main 2000 to 2009 16 16%72,569 100 21,770,619 16.0%80%17,416,495 14,629,856
17 Collection Sewer Mains Gravity Main 2009 to Present 3 3%42,861 100 12,858,381 3.0%80%10,286,705 9,978,104
18 Collection Lift Stations [2]Prefumo Lift Station 7/1/2002 14 28%0 50 750,000 0.0%0%0 0
19 Collection Lift Stations [2]Calle Joaquin Lift Station 1/1/1973 43 86%0 50 4,000,000 0.0%56%2,221,850 2,221,850
20 Collection Lift Stations [2]Foothill Lift Station 1/1/1986 (Old Rockview) 30 60%0 50 2,098,000 0.0%77%1,606,979 1,606,979
21 Collection Lift Stations [2]Silver City Lift Station 1/1/1967 49 98%0 50 2,150,000 0.0%85%1,830,521 1,830,521
22 Collection Lift Stations [2]Airport Lift Station 1/1/1980 36 72%0 50 2,130,000 0.0%30%646,182 646,182
23 Collection Lift Stations [2]Margarita Lift Station 1/1/1967 49 98%0 50 1,500,000 0.0%51%758,275 758,275
24 Collection Lift Stations [2]Tank Farm Lift Station 7/1/2009 7 14%0 50 18,325,682 0.0%53%9,793,361 9,793,361
25 Collection Lift Stations [2]Laguna Lift Station 7/1/2015 1 2%0 50 3,121,300 0.0%76%2,378,019 2,378,019
26 Collection Force Mains Foothill (51 Foothill)1953 63 0% 440 75 110,023 0.1%0%0 0
27 Collection Force Mains 1055 Isabella 2002 14 0% 595 75 148,810 0.0%0%0 0
28 Collection Force Mains 206 Margarita 1967 49 0% 231 75 57,853 0.1%0%0 0
29 Collection Force Mains Silver City (Trailer Park)1966 50 0% 765 75 191,190 0.0%0%0 0
30 Collection Force Mains 850 Fiero 1980 36 0% 839 75 209,705 0.0%0%0 0
31 Collection Force Mains 1625 Calle Joaquin 2015 1 0%3,656 75 914,000 0.0%0%0 0
32 Collection Force Mains Tank Farm (264 Tank Farm)2009 7 0%3,772 75 943,108 0.0%100%943,108 943,101
33 Collection Force Mains Laguna (35 Prado)2015 1 0%2,232 75 558,000 0.0%100%558,000 557,999
34 Collection SCADA Prefumo Lift Station 7/1/2002 14 70%0 20 25,000 70.0%0%0 0
35 Collection SCADA Calle Joaquin Lift Station 1/1/1997 19 95%0 20 25,000 95.0%0%0 0
36 Collection SCADA Foothill Lift Station 1/1/1997 19 95%0 20 25,000 95.0%0%0 0
37 Collection SCADA Silver City Lift Station 1/1/1997 19 95%0 20 25,000 95.0%0%0 0
38 Collection SCADA Airport Lift Station 1/1/2000 16 80%0 20 25,000 80.0%0%0 0
39 Collection SCADA Margarita Lift Station 1/1/1997 19 95%0 20 25,000 95.0%0%0 0
40 Collection SCADA Tank Farm Lift Station 7/1/2009 7 35%0 20 25,000 35.0%100%25,000 16,250
41 Collection SCADA Laguna Lift Station 7/1/2015 1 5%0 20 25,000 5.0%100%25,000 23,750
42 Collection SCADA Mustang Village (Cal-Poly Flow)7/1/1997 19 76%0 25 25,000 76.0%0%0 0
43 Collection SCADA Computer 1/0/1900 0 0%0 5 25,000 0.0%0%0 0
44 Collection Vehicles Vac-Con Hydro-cleaner 2014 2 17%0 12 350,000 16.7%0%0 0
45 Collection Vehicles Vac-Con Hydro-cleaner 2007 9 75%0 12 350,000 75.0%0%0 0
46 Collection Vehicles Dump Truck / 5 Yard 2008 8 47%0 17 100,000 47.1%0%0 0
47 Collection Vehicles Service Truck/ Utility Bed & Crane 2004 12 100%0 12 75,000 100.0%100%75,000 0
48 Collection Vehicles Service Truck, /Utility Bed 2004 12 100%0 12 70,000 100.0%100%70,000 0
49 Collection Vehicles Van, 1 Ton w/Camera Equipment 2016 0 0%0 10 170,000 0.0%0%0 0
50 Collection Vehicles Pickup Truck, 1/2 Ton 2015 1 8%0 12 20,000 8.3%0%0 0
51 Collection Vehicles Excavator, Mini 2006 10 67%0 15 750,000 66.7%100%750,000 250,000
52 Collection Vehicles Trailer, Tilt 2006 10 67%0 15 6,000 66.7%100%6,000 2,000
53 Collection Vehicles Trailer, Portable Concrete Mixer 2002 14 82%0 17 6,000 82.4%100%6,000 1,059
54 Collection Equipment Pump, Portable (4 inch)2001 15 88%0 17 33,000 88.2%100%33,000 3,882
55 Collection Equipment Pump, Portable (6 inch)2007 9 53%0 17 45,000 52.9%0%0 0
56 Collection Equipment Generator, 240kw Portable 2012 4 27%0 15 121,000 26.7%0%0 0
57 Collection Equipment Generator, 110kW Portable 2015 1 7%0 15 67,000 6.7%0%0 0
58 Collection Equipment Generator, 200kW Portable 2015 1 7%0 15 102,000 6.7%0%0 0
Page 6 of 18 Packet Pg 402
11
1 City of San Luis Obispo - Wastewater Page 2 of 2
2 Exhibit S-4A
3 Development of Collection Capacity and Connection Fee
4
5
6 System Type Function Description Install Date
Average
Age
(Years)
Life
Cycle
%
Pipe Length
(feet)
Estimated
Life Cycle
(Years)
Estimated
Replacement
Cost % Depr.
% Fee
Eligible
Replacement
Cost New (RCN)
Replacement
Cost New Less
Depreciation
(RCNLD)
59
60 TOTAL EXISTING PLANT $259,391,205 $197,461,122 $106,909,803
61
62 Buildout EDUs [3] 36,791
63
64 TOTAL EXISTING COLLECTION PLANT $/EDU $2,906
65
66 FUTURE PLANT [4]Cost in 2016 $
67 Total Collection System Improvements $56,585,280 16.0%$21,847,448
68 Total Pretreatment Improvements 35,000 16.0% 5,600
69 Total Distribution Improvements 577,028 16.0%0
70 Total Water Quality Laboratory Improvements 0 16.0%0
71 Total Administration and Engineering Improvements 82,635 16.0%6,414
72 Total Wastewater Services CIP Requests 8,750,000 16.0%1,400,000
73 Total Shared Information Technology Improvements 230,374 16.0%33,045
74 $66,260,317 23,292,507
75
76 TOTAL FUTURE PLANT $66,260,317 $23,292,507
77
78 Total Future EDUs [5] 5,821
79
80 TOTAL FUTURE COLLECTION PLANT $/EDU $4,002
81
82 TOTAL EXISTING AND FUTURE COLLECTION PLANT $/EDU $6,908
83
84
85
86 Notes:
87 [1] Existing plant based on replacement cost less deprecation.
88 [2] Lift station catchment areas based on City specific analysis based on cost and flow for existing and future plant. See exhibit S-9.
89 [3] See Exhibit S-2 for total EDUs.
90 [4] Future plant based on City capital improvement plan in 2016 dollars. See Exhibit S-7.
91 [5] See Exhibit S-2 for future EDUs.
Page 7 of 18 Packet Pg 403
11
A B C D F G H I J M N O P
1 City of San Luis Obispo - Wastewater
2 Exhibit S-4B
3 Summary of Existing Catchment Assets
4
5
6 System Type Function Description Install Date
Average
Age
(Years)
Life
Cycle
%
Pipe
Length
(feet)
Estimated
Life Cycle
(Years)
Estimated
Replacement
Cost
%
Depr.
% Fee
Eligible
Replacement Cost
New (RCN)
Replacement Cost
New Less
Depreciation
(RCNLD)
7 Existing Plant
8 Collection Lift Stations [2]Calle Joaquin Lift Station 1/1/1973 43 86% 0 50 $4,000,000 0.0% 56% $2,221,850 $2,221,850
9 Collection Lift Stations [2]Foothill Lift Station 1/1/1986 (Old Rockview) 30 60% 0 50 2,098,000 0.0% 77%1,606,979 1,606,979
10 Collection Lift Stations [2]Silver City Lift Station 1/1/1967 49 98% 0 50 2,150,000 0.0% 85%1,830,521 1,830,521
11 Collection Lift Stations [2]Airport Lift Station 1/1/1980 36 72% 0 50 2,130,000 0.0% 30%646,182 646,182
12 Collection Lift Stations [2]Margarita Lift Station 1/1/1967 49 98% 0 50 1,500,000 0.0% 51%758,275 758,275
13 Collection Lift Stations [2]Tank Farm Lift Station 7/1/2009 7 14% 0 50 18,325,682 0.0% 53%9,793,361 9,793,361
14 Collection Lift Stations [2]Laguna Lift Station 7/1/2015 1 2% 0 50 3,121,300 0.0% 76%2,378,019 2,378,019
15
16 Total Existing Catchment Assets $33,324,982 $19,235,186 $19,235,186
17 Total Existing and Future EDUs [1] 36,791
18 TOTAL EXISTING CATCHMENT PLANT $/EDU $523
19
20 Future Plant
21 Collection Lift Stations [2]Margarita $741,725 $741,725
22 Collection Lift Stations [2]Tank Farm 8,532,321 8,532,321
23 Collection Lift Stations [2]Silver City 319,479 319,479
24 Collection Lift Stations [2]Calle Joaquin 1,778,150 1,778,150
25 Collection Lift Stations [2]Laguna 743,281 743,281
26 Collection Lift Stations [2]Airport 1,483,818 1,483,818
27 Collection Lift Stations [2]Foothill 491,021 491,021
28 Collection Lift Stations [2]Buckley 793,118 793,118
29
30 Total Future Catchment Assets $14,882,914 $14,882,914
31 Total Future EDUs [2]5,821
32 TOTAL FUTURE CATCHMENT PLANT $/EDU $2,557
33
34 TOTAL EXISTING AND FUTURE PLANT $34,118,100 $3,080
35
36
37 [1] See Exhibit S-2 for future EDUs.
38 [2] Buckley not built yet.
Page 8 of 18 Packet Pg 404
11
1 City of San Luis Obispo - Wastewater
2 Exhibit S-5
3 Development of Debt Service Credit [1]
4
5
6 WRRF Energy Efficiency Project Tank Farm Lift Station Financing Tank Farm Lift Station Financing Total
7 Principal Interest Total Principal Interest Total Principal Interest Total Principal
8 I. Debt Status:
9 Interest Rate 2.90%10,000,000$ 2,050,000$
10 Principal $7,479,000 3.25%4.25%
11 Financing Term 15 years 30 15
12
13
II. Outstanding Principal
Payments:
14 2015-16 $418,716 $200,004 $618,720 $257,658 $301,671 $559,328 $130,000 $55,020 $185,020 $806,374
15 2016-17 430,859 187,685 618,544 266,031 292,388 558,419 135,000 49,455 184,455 831,891
16 2017-18 443,354 175,009 618,363 274,678 282,803 557,481 140,000 43,680 183,680 858,032
17 2018-19 456,211 161,965 618,177 283,605 272,907 556,512 145,000 37,695 182,695 884,816
18 2019-20 469,441 148,543 617,985 292,822 262,689 555,511 150,000 31,500 181,500 912,263
19 2020-21 483,055 134,732 617,787 302,338 252,140 554,478 160,000 24,990 184,990 945,394
20 2021-22 497,064 120,520 617,584 312,164 241,247 553,411 165,000 18,165 183,165 974,228
21 2022-23 511,479 105,896 617,375 322,310 230,000 552,310 170,000 11,130 181,130 1,003,788
22 2023-24 526,312 90,849 617,160 332,785 218,388 551,173 180,000 3,780 183,780 1,039,096
23 2024-25 541,575 75,364 616,939 343,600 206,398 549,999 0 0 0 885,175
24 2025-26 557,280 59,431 616,711 354,767 194,019 548,786 0 0 0 912,048
25 2026-27 573,441 43,035 616,477 366,297 181,238 547,535 0 0 0 939,739
26 2027-28 590,071 26,164 616,236 378,202 168,041 546,242 0 0 0 968,273
27 2028-29 607,183 8,804 615,987 390,493 154,415 544,908 0 0 0 997,677
28 2029-30 0 0 0 403,185 140,346 543,530 0 0 0 403,185
29 2030-31 0 0 0 416,288 125,820 542,108 0 0 0 416,288
30 2031-32 0 0 0 429,817 110,822 540,639 0 0 0 429,817
31 2032-33 0 0 0 443,786 95,336 539,123 0 0 0 443,786
32 2033-34 0 0 0 458,209 79,347 537,557 0 0 0 458,209
33 2034-35 0 0 0 473,101 62,839 535,940 0 0 0 473,101
34 2035-36 0 0 0 488,477 45,794 534,271 0 0 0 488,477
35 2036-37 0 0 0 504,353 28,195 532,548 0 0 0 504,353
36 2037-38 0 0 0 520,744 10,024 530,768 0 0 0 520,744
37
38 Total $7,106,043 $1,538,002 $8,644,045 $8,615,711 $3,956,867 $12,572,579 $1,375,000 $275,415 $1,650,415 $17,096,754
39
40 Total EDUs [2]36,791 36,791 36,791 36,791
41
42 Total Debt Service $/EDU $193 $234 $37 $465
43
44
45
46 Notes:
47 [1] Debt service schedules from the City "Sewer Fund Analysis-working copy.xlsx".
48 [2] See Exhibit S-2 for total EDUs.
Page 9 of 18 Packet Pg 405
11
City of San Luis Obispo - Wastewater
Exhibit S-6
Summary of Reserve Funds
For the Year Ended June 30, 2016
Type Total
% Fee
Eligible [1] $ Fee Eligible
Cash $282,288 100%$282,288
Cash & Equivalents 27,988,970 100%27,988,970
Total $28,271,258 $28,271,258
Less:
Restricted
Debt Service $60,261 0%$0
Subsequent year expenditures 6,505,683 0%0
Committed
Rate Stabilization fund $697,600 0%0
Contingency fund 1,635,400 0%0
Total $8,898,944 $0
Net Available Cash Reserves $19,372,314 $28,271,258
Total EDUs [2]36,791
Total Cash Reserves $/EDU $768
Notes:
[1] Balance as of CAFR June 2016.
[2] See Exhibit S-2 for total EDUs.
Page 10 of 18 Packet Pg 406
11
1 City of San Luis Obispo - Wastewater Page 1 of 4
2 Exhibit S-7
3 Development of the Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Future Capital Improvements
4
5
6
7 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN [1]2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 Total
% Fee
Eligible
[2] $ Fee Eligible
8 Wastewater Collection
9 Collection System Improvements
10 Sewer Lining Project - Design $32,610 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $32,610 16.0%$5,218
11 Sewer Lining Project -Construction 425,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 425,000 16.0%68,000
12 Sewer Lining Project - Construction Management 35,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35,000 16.0%5,600
13 RR Crossing @ Jennifer 2,735 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,735 16.0%438
14 RR Crossing @ Rachel 75,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75,800 16.0%12,128
15 Stafford Taft Kentucky 633,527 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 633,527 16.0%101,364
16 Telemetry Upgrades 34,203 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34,203 16.0%5,473
17 Radios 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50,000 16.0%8,000
18 DN-Santa Barbara, Osos, Church, Leff, trench & pipe bursting 60,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60,000 16.0%9,600
19 CN-Santa Barbara, Osos, Church, Leff, trench & pipe bursting 0 630,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 630,000 16.0%100,800
20 CM-Santa Barbara, Osos, Church, Leff, trench & pipe bursting 0 60,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60,000 16.0%9,600
21 DN-Walnut, Morro, etc cured in place 0 17,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17,000 16.0%2,720
22 CN-Walnut, Morro, etc cured in place 0 0 170,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 170,000 16.0%27,200
23 CM-Walnut, Morro, etc cured in place 0 0 17,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 17,000 16.0%2,720
24 DN-Albert, Slack, etc cured in place 0 17,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17,000 16.0%2,720
25 CN-Albert, Slack, etc cured in place 0 0 170,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 170,000 16.0%27,200
26 CM-Albert, Slack, etc cured in place 0 0 17,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 17,000 16.0%2,720
27 DN-Foothill, etc trench & pipe bursting 0 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 16.0%800
28 CN-Foothill, etc trench & pipe bursting 0 0 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 50,000 16.0%8,000
29 CM-Foothill, etc trench & pipe bursting 0 0 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 16.0%800
30 DN-Murray, Chorro, Meinecke, etc trench & sewer replacement 0 33,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33,000 16.0%5,280
31 CN-Murray, Chorro, Meinecke, etc trench & sewer replacement 0 0 330,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 330,000 16.0%52,800
32 CM-Murray, Chorro, Meinecke, etc trench & sewer replacement 0 0 33,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 33,000 16.0%5,280
33 DN-Walnut, Morro, etc trench & sewer replacement 0 40,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40,000 16.0%6,400
34 CN-Walnut, Morro, etc trench & sewer replacement 0 0 400,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 400,000 16.0%64,000
35 CM-Walnut, Morro, etc trench & sewer replacement 0 0 40,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 40,000 16.0%6,400
36 DN-Westmont, Cerro Romaldo, Jeffrey, San Lucia, etc trench & pipe bursting 0 0 110,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 110,000 16.0%17,600
37 CN-Westmont, Cerro Romaldo, Jeffrey, San Lucia, etc trench & pipe bursting 0 0 0 1,100,000 0 0 0 0 0 1,100,000 16.0%176,000
38 CM-Westmont, Cerro Romaldo, Jeffrey, San Lucia, etc trench & pipe bursting 0 0 0 110,000 0 0 0 0 0 110,000 16.0%17,600
39 DN-Verde, Luneta, Serrano, Penman, Palomar, etc trench & pipe bursting 0 0 0 120,000 0 0 0 0 0 120,000 16.0%19,200
40 CN-Verde, Luneta, Serrano, Penman, Palomar, etc trench & pipe bursting 0 0 0 0 1,200,000 0 0 0 0 1,200,000 16.0%192,000
41 CM-Verde, Luneta, Serrano, Penman, Palomar, etc trench & pipe bursting 0 0 0 0 120,000 0 0 0 0 120,000 16.0%19,200
42 DN-Westmont, Cerro Romaldo, Jeffrey, San Lucia, etc trench & pipe bursting 0 0 0 0 120,000 0 0 0 0 120,000 16.0%19,200
43 CN-Westmont, Cerro Romaldo, Jeffrey, San Lucia, etc trench & pipe bursting 0 0 0 0 0 1,200,000 0 0 0 1,200,000 16.0%192,000
44 CM-Westmont, Cerro Romaldo, Jeffrey, San Lucia, etc trench & pipe bursting 0 0 0 0 0 120,000 0 0 0 120,000 16.0%19,200
45 DN-Serrano, Bressi, Palomar, etc trench & pipe bursting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75,000 75,000 16.0%12,000
46 CN-Serrano, Bressi, Palomar, etc trench & pipe bursting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 750,000 750,000 16.0%120,000
47 CM-Serrano, Bressi, Palomar, etc trench & pipe bursting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75,000 75,000 16.0%12,000
48 DN-Johnson, Buchon, etc trench & pipe bursting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 100,000 16.0%16,000
49 CN-Johnson, Buchon, etc trench & pipe bursting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.0%0
50 CM-Johnson, Buchon, etc trench & pipe bursting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.0%0
51 Study-Foothill Chorro Project 0 60,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60,000 50.0%30,000
52 DN-Foothill Chorro Project 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 450,000 450,000 50.0%225,000
53 CN-Foothill Chorro Project 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,000,000 7,000,000 50.0%3,500,000
54 CM-Foothill Chorro Project 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 700,000 700,000 50.0%350,000
55 Inflow/Infiltration Reduction 100,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 1,850,000 50.0%925,000
56 Lateral Replacement Program 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.0%0
57 Trench Repair 0 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 0 0 0 125,000 16.0%20,000
58 Raise Manholes 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 0 0 0 150,000 16.0%24,000
Proposed
Page 11 of 18 Packet Pg 407
11
1 City of San Luis Obispo - Wastewater Page 2 of 4
2 Exhibit S-7
3 Development of the Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Future Capital Improvements
4
5
6
7 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN [1]2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 Total
% Fee
Eligible
[2] $ Fee Eligible
Proposed
59 Telemetry System Improvements 94,807 100,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 194,807 16.0%31,169
60 CN-Sewerline Improvement 09-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.0%0
61 CM-Sewerline Improvement 09-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.0%0
62 Collection System Infrastructure Replacement Strategy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.0%0
63 Santa Rosa Siphon 520,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 520,000 16.0%83,200
64 Jennifer St RR Crossing Design 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.0%0
65 California Sewerline Rerouting-Study 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%0
66 Sewerline Repl Rachel 941 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 941 0%0
67 Sewerline Repl Stafford 5,510 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,510 16.0%882
68 Marsh St Siphon (PW project)271,618 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 271,618 16.0%43,459
69 SY-JENNIFER RR/HIG-MARSH 19,222 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19,222 16.0%3,076
70 CN-JENNIFER RR/HIG-MARSH 1,400,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,400,000 16.0%224,000
71 DN-SANTA ROSA SWRLINE REPL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.0%0
72 CN-SANTA ROSA SWRLINE REPL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.0%0
73 CM-Santa Rosa Sewerline Repl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.0%0
74 RR Safety Trail Hath/Taft 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.0%0
75 SCADA Upgrade Integration 15,993 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,993 0%0
76 Recycled Water System-Reservoir Study 0 25,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25,000 0%0
77 RW SCADA Study 0 0 9,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,000 0%0
78 Automatic Meter Pilot Study 0 0 4,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,000 0%0
79 IT - CityWorks 11,412 0 0 0 0 0 250,000 0 0 261,412 0%0
80 Fleet Replacement: 1/2 Ton Pickup 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%0
81 Fleet Replacement: Hydro-Cleaner 0 0 0 410,000 0 0 0 0 0 410,000 16.0%65,600
82 Fleet Replacement: Portable Generators (50% share)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%0
83 Fleet Replacement: CCTV Van 135,902 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 135,902 16.0%21,744
84 Fleet Replacement: 1 1/2 Ton Service Trucks 144,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 144,000 16.0%23,040
85 Fleet Replacement: Portable Sewage Pump 36,900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36,900 16.0%5,904
86 Fleet Replacement: Trailer, Portable Concrete Mixer 0 25,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25,000 16.0%4,000
87 Fleet Replacement: Caterpillar Mini Excavator (pooled)0 0 0 0 0 70,000 0 0 0 70,000 16.0%11,200
88 Catchment [3]
89 Margarita 1,500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,500,000 49.4%741,725
90 Tank Farm 18,325,682 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,325,682 46.6%8,532,321
91 Silver City 2,150,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,150,000 14.9%319,479
92 Calle Joaquin 4,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,000,000 44.5%1,778,150
93 Laguna 3,121,300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,121,300 23.8%743,281
94 Airport 2,130,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,130,000 69.7%1,483,818
95 Foothill 2,098,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,098,000 23.4%491,021
96 Buckley 793,118 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 793,118 100.0%793,118
97 Total Collection $38,248,280 $1,262,000 $1,605,000 $1,990,000 $1,690,000 $1,640,000 $500,000 $775,000 $8,875,000 $56,585,280 $21,847,448
98
99 Water Resource Recovery Facility
100 Major Maintenance $1,137,884 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $875,000 $875,000 $875,000 $3,762,884 16.0%$602,061
101 Influent Pump Replacement 155,705 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 155,705 16.0%24,913
102 WRRF Energy Efficiency 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.0%0
103 Design 1,325 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,325 16.0%212
104 Construction 3,861 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,861 16.0%618
105 WRRF Upgrade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.0%0
106 Study/Environmental 382,151 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 382,151 16.0%61,144
107 Program Management 1,305,544 1,500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,805,544 16.0%448,887
108 Design 6,063,682 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,063,682 16.0%970,189
109 amendment to CH2M 1,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,000,000 16.0%160,000
Page 12 of 18 Packet Pg 408
11
1 City of San Luis Obispo - Wastewater Page 3 of 4
2 Exhibit S-7
3 Development of the Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Future Capital Improvements
4
5
6
7 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN [1]2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 Total
% Fee
Eligible
[2] $ Fee Eligible
Proposed
110 Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.0%0
111 Infrastructure 0 80,000,000 35,000,000 25,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 140,000,000 16.0%22,400,000
112 Disinfection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.0%0
113 Nutrient Removal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.0%0
114 Contingency 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.0%0
115 Flood Control 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.0%0
116 Construction Management 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.0%0
117 WRRF Fiber Optic Impr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.0%0
118 Digester 2 Cleaning 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.0%0
119 WRF Sludge Bed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.0%0
120 WRRF Cooling Towers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.0%0
121 IT - iFix Replacement 0 0 0 250,000 0 0 0 0 0 250,000 16.0%40,000
122 IT - HachWims 0 0 0 30,000 0 0 0 0 0 30,000 16.0%4,800
123 IT - MP2 Replacement 0 0 0 30,000 0 0 0 0 0 30,000 16.0%4,800
124 Fleet Replacement: Utility Trucks (3)0 57,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57,600 0%0
125 Fleet Replacement: Sedan 33,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33,000 0%0
126 Fleet Replacement: 4-Wheel Drive Loader 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%0
127 Fleet Replacement: Pickup Truck w/Flat Bed & Crane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%0
128 Fleet Replacement: Compact Pickup Truck 0 0 0 0 36,000 0 0 0 0 36,000 0%0
129 Fleet Replacement: Decanter Trailer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%0
130 Fleet Replacement: Club Cars - Electric 0 0 60,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 60,000 0%0
131 Fleet Replacement: Dump Truck 0 0 0 0 150,000 0 0 0 0 150,000 0%0
132 Fleet Replacement: Forklift 0 0 0 0 0 55,000 0 0 0 55,000 0%0
133 Total WRRF $10,083,153 $81,557,600 $35,060,000 $25,310,000 $186,000 $55,000 $875,000 $875,000 $875,000 $154,876,753 $24,717,624
134
135 Pretreatment
136 Fleet Replacement: Prius $0 $0 $0 $35,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $35,000 16.0%$5,600
137 Fleet Replacement: Pickup Truck $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 0%0
138
139 Distribution
140 Water Meters and boxes $134,528 $82,500 $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 $0 $0 $0 $577,028 0%$0
141
142 Water Quality Laboratory
143 Fleet Replacement: Pickup Truck $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0%$0
144
145 Administration and Engineering
146 From Creek Decom $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0%$0
147 Street Reconstruction 2013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%0
148 EA-UB SYSTEM UPGRADE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%0
149 Fleet Replacement: Prius 0 0 0 35,000 0 0 0 0 0 35,000 0%0
150 Control System Trucks 40,090 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40,090 16.0%6,414
151 879 Morro Refurb 7,545 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,545 0%0
152 Shared - Mobile Equipment Lifts & Safety Stands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%0
153 Total Admin $47,635 $0 $0 $35,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $82,635 $6,414
154
155 Total Wastewater Services CIP Requests $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,250,000 $1,500,000 $1,750,000 $2,000,000 $2,250,000 $8,750,000 16.0%$1,400,000
156
157 Shared Information Technology
158 Server Operating System $4,260 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,260 0.0%$0
159 VOIP 0 15,789 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,789 16.0%2,526
160 City Website Upgrade (4% share)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%0
Page 13 of 18 Packet Pg 409
11
1 City of San Luis Obispo - Wastewater Page 4 of 4
2 Exhibit S-7
3 Development of the Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Future Capital Improvements
4
5
6
7 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN [1]2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 Total
% Fee
Eligible
[2] $ Fee Eligible
Proposed
161 UB System Upgrade 1,667 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,667 0.0%0
162 Network Firewalls 0 0 0 8,918 0 0 0 0 0 8,918 0.0%0
163 Virtual Private Network (VPN) Replacement 0 0 0 18,958 0 0 0 0 0 18,958 16.0%3,033
164 Network Switching Infrastructure Replacement 0 0 0 27,252 0 0 0 0 0 27,252 16.0%4,360
165 Radio Handhelds and Mobile Replacements 0 42,960 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42,960 16.0%6,874
166 Tait Radio System 0 0 42,960 0 0 0 0 0 0 42,960 16.0%6,874
167 Document Management System 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%0
168 Office Application Software Replacement 9,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,000 0.0%0
169 VM Infrastructure 20,615 0 0 20,615 0 0 0 0 0 41,230 16.0%6,597
170 Enterprise Storage Growth 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%0
171 CA-FOX PRO REPLACE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%0
172 CA-LASERFICHE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%0
173 GPS System replacement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%0
174 UPS Battery Replacement 4,345 8,690 4,345 0 0 0 0 0 0 17,380 16.0%2,781
175 Total Share of Information Technology CIP $39,887 $67,439 $47,305 $75,743 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $230,374 $33,045
176
177
178 TOTAL WASTEWATER FUND CAPITAL PLAN $48,553,482 $82,969,539 $36,802,305 $27,535,743 $3,216,000 $3,285,000 $3,125,000 $3,650,000 $12,000,000 $221,137,069 $48,010,131
179
180 Notes:
181 [1] From the City "Sewer Fund Analysis-working copy.xlsx" and additional projects from City.Treatment $24,717,624
182 [2] Based on growth EDUs, growth is 16% of total EDUs, 5,821/36,791 = 16%. See Exhibit S-2. Catchment % fee eligible based on City specific analysis based on wastewater flow of 134 gpd.Collection 23,292,507
Total $48,010,131
OK
Page 14 of 18 Packet Pg 410
11
City of San Luis Obispo - Wastewater
Exhibit S-8
Allowable Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
Component Buy-in +
Upgrade Future Debt
Service
Total
($/EDU)
Full Cost [1]
Treatment $1,145 $4,246 $0 $5,391
Collection 2,906 4,002 0 6,908
Debt Service 0 0 (465) (465)
Cash Reserves 768 0 0 768
------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
Net Allowable Capacity and Connection Fee $4,819 $8,248 ($465)$12,602
Fee without Catchment [2]
Treatment $1,145 $4,246 $0 $5,391
Collection 2,906 4,002 0 6,908
Less: Catchment (523)(2,557) 0 (3,080)
Debt Service 0 0 (465) (465)
Cash Reserves 768 0 0 768
------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
Net Allowable Capacity and Connection Fee $4,296 $5,691 ($465)$9,522
Difference of Full Cost and Without Catchment $523 $2,557 $0 $3,080
Notes:
[1] Catchment infrastructure cost included.
[2] Catchment infrastructure not included. See Exhibit S-4B.
Area
Full Cost
Capacity and
Connection Fee
Fee Cost
without
Catchment
Total
Catchment
Total Fee w/
Catchment
Area Area
City Wide
Fee
Total
Catchment
Total Impact
Fee
Margarita $12,602 $9,522 $3,830 = $3,830 $13,352 Margarita $3,755 $2,764 $2,764 $6,519
Tank Farm 12,602 9,522 3,192 = 3,192 12,714 Tank Farm 3,755 3,655 3,655 7,410
Silver City 12,602 9,522 1,995 434 =2,429 11,951 Silver City 3,755 872 493 =1,365 4,627
Calle Joaquin 12,602 9,522 2,464 434 =2,898 12,421 Calle Joaquin 3,755 1,349 493 =1,842 5,104
Laguna 12,602 9,522 434 = 434 9,957 Laguna 3,755 493 493 4,248
Airport 12,602 9,522 3,180 3,192 =6,372 15,894
Foothill 12,602 9,522 22,319 = 22,319 31,841
Buckley 12,602 9,522 643 = 643 10,165
Current Wastewater Development Impact Fee
Plus: Catchment
Calculated Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee
Plus: Catchment
Page 15 of 18 Packet Pg 411
11
City of San Luis Obispo - Wastewater
Exhibit S-9
Summary of Catchment Calculation
Area Wastewater Flow
(Gallons Per Day)% Improvement Cost
Apportionment
Existing Flow 26,529 51%$758,275
Future Flow 25,950 49%741,725 $3,830
Total 52,479 $1,500,000
Existing Flow 411,145 53%$9,793,361
Future Flow 358,204 47%8,532,321 $3,192
Total 769,349 Total Cost $18,325,682
Plus Lag.Total
Existing Flow 122,971 85%$1,830,521
Future Flow 21,462 15%319,479 $1,995 $434 $2,429
Total 144,433 $2,150,000
Plus Lag.Total
Existing Flow 120,827 56%$2,221,850
Future Flow 96,698 44%1,778,150 $2,464 $434 $2,898
Total 217,525 $4,000,000
Existing Flow 733,688 76%$2,378,019
Future Flow 229,324 24%743,281 $434
Total Flow 963,012 $3,121,300
Airport Catchment Area Plus TF.Total
Existing Flow 27,227 30%$646,182
Future Flow 62,521 70%1,483,818 $3,180 $3,192 $6,372
Total Flow 89,748 $2,130,000NOTE: Costs
for the Airport
Existing Flow 9,648 77%$1,606,979
Future Flow 2,948 23%491,021 $22,319
Total Flow 12,596 $2,098,000
Plus TF Total
Existing Flow 0 0%NA
Future Flow 165,233 100%NA $793,118 $643 $643
Total 165,233 NA
Cost attributed Cost attributed
Area to Existing to Future Dev TOTAL
Margarita $758,275 $741,725 $1,500,000
Tank Farm 9,793,361 8,532,321 18,325,682
Silver City 1,830,521 319,479 2,150,000
Calle Joaquin 2,221,850 1,778,150 4,000,000
Laguna 2,378,019 743,281 3,121,300
Airport 646,182 1,483,818 2,130,000
Foothill 1,606,979 491,021 2,098,000
Buckley 0 793,118 793,118
Total $19,235,186 $14,882,914 $34,118,100
Foothill Catchment Area
Laguna Catchment Area
Cost per EDU (134 gallons = 1 EDU)
Buckley Catchment Area
Tank Farm Catchment Area
Margarita Catchment Area
Calle Joaquin Catchment Area
Silver City Catchment Area
Page 16 of 18 Packet Pg 412
11
City of San Luis Obispo - Wastewater
Exhibit S-10
Summary of Wastewater Capcity and Connection Fee Schedule
CURRENT WASTEWATER DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES AS OF 7/1/2017
Land Use Type EDU*Citywide Margarita Tank Farm Silver City Calle Joaquin Laguna
RESIDENTIAL (per unit)
Single Family Residential 1.0 $3,830.21 $2,819.50 $3,728,52 $1,392.80 $1,878.64 $503.30
Multi-Family Residential 0.7 2,681.14 1,973.65 2,609.96 974.96 1,315.05 352.31
Mobile Home 0.6 2,298.12 1,691.70 2,237.11 835.68 1,127.18 301.98
Studio Unit (450 s.f. or less)0.3 1,149.06 845.85 1,118.56 417.84 563.59 150.99
NON-RESIDENTIAL
Meter Size
5/8" to 3/4"-inch 1.0 $3,830.21 $2,819.50 $3,728.52 $1,392.80 $1,878.64 $503.30
1-inch 1.7 6,511.35 4,793.15 6,338.48 2,367.76 3,193.69 855.61
1-1/2 inch 3.4 13,022.70 9,586.30 12,676.96 4,735.53 6,387.37 1,711.22
2-inch 5.4 20,683.11 15,225.30 20,134.00 7,521.13 10,144.65 2,717.81
3-inch 10.7 40,983.19 30,168.64 39,895.14 14,902.98 20,101.44 5,385.30
4-inch 16.7 63,964.42 47,085.64 62,266.25 23,259.79 31,373.27 8,405.09
6-inch 33.4 127,928.85 94,171.28 124,532.51 46,519.58 62,746.54 16,810.17
* Equivalent dwelling unit
CALCULATED CAPACITY AND CONNECTION FEE WITH CATCHMENT AREAS
Land Use Type EDU*Citywide Margarita Tank Farm Silver City Calle Joaquin Laguna Airport Foothill Buckley
RESIDENTIAL (per unit)
Residential (greater than 800 s.f.)1.0 $9,522 $3,830 $3,192 $2,429 $2,898 $434 $6,372 $22,319 $643
Residential (451 s.f. to 800 s.f.)0.7 6,666 2,681 2,234 1,700 2,029 304 4,460 15,623 450
Mobile Home 0.6 5,713 2,298 1,915 1,457 1,739 261 3,823 13,391 386
Studio Unit (450 sf or less)0.3 2,857 1,149 958 729 870 130 1,912 6,696 193
NON-RESIDENTIAL
Meter Size
5/8" to 3/4"-inch 1.0 $9,522 $3,830 $3,192 $2,429 $2,898 $434 $6,372 $22,319 $643
1-inch 1.7 16,188 6,511 5,426 4,129 4,927 738 10,833 37,943 1,093
1-1/2 inch 3.4 32,375 13,022 10,852 8,259 9,855 1,477 21,665 75,885 2,187
2-inch 5.4 51,420 20,683 17,236 13,117 15,651 2,345 34,409 120,523 3,473
3-inch 10.7 101,887 40,982 34,153 25,990 31,013 4,647 68,181 238,815 6,882
4-inch 16.7 159,021 63,963 53,304 40,565 48,403 7,253 106,414 372,730 10,741
6-inch 33.4 318,041 127,925 106,608 81,129 96,807 14,506 212,828 745,460 21,483
CALCULATED CAPACITY AND CONNECTION FEE WITHOUT CATCHMENT AREAS
Full Cost
Land Use Type EDU*
Capacity and
Connection Fee
RESIDENTIAL (per unit)
Residential (greater than 800 s.f.)1.0 $12,602
Residential (451 s.f. to 800 s.f.)0.7 8,821
Mobile Home 0.6 7,561
Studio Unit (450 sf or less)0.3 3,781
NON-RESIDENTIAL
Meter Size
5/8" to 3/4"-inch 1.0 $12,602
1-inch 1.7 21,423
1-1/2 inch 3.4 42,847
2-inch 5.4 68,051
3-inch 10.7 134,841
4-inch 16.7 210,453
6-inch 33.4 420,907
Additional Catchment Area Charges
Capacity and Connection Fee
Impact Fee
Additional Catchment Area Charges
Page 17 of 18 Packet Pg 413
11
Current Fee Option #3 Option #4
Future Portion of
Treatment Project
plus Financing
Cost
Current Fee plus
Future Portion of
Project plus
Financing Cost
Existing
(Replacement Cost
Less Depreciation)
plus Future plus
Financing Cost
Difference between Option
#1 and Option #2
Existing Fee - Future Capacity Projects
Studies $43,065 $43,065
Design 1,004,844 1,004,844
Construction Infrastructure 4,475,863 4,475,863
Construction Nutrient Removal 11,328,900 11,328,900
Construction management 1,291,942 1,291,942
Unit #3 4,324,359 4,324,359
Unit #4 3,358,717 3,358,717
Total Existing Fee Future Plant $25,827,691 $25,827,691
Existing Fee Future EDUs 6,927 6,927
Existing Fee $/EDU $3,729 $3,729 ($3,729)
New Future Plant
Treatment [1]$25,821,264 $24,717,624 (190)
Collection 0 23,292,507 4,002
Total New Future Plant $25,821,264 $48,010,131
Total New Future EDUs 5,821 5,821
New Future Plant $/EDU $4,436 $8,248
Future Plant $/EDU $3,729 $8,165 $8,248 $83
Existing Plant
Treatment $42,138,027 1,145
Collection 106,909,803 2,906
Plus: Cash balances 28,271,258 768
Total Existing Plant $177,319,088
Total EDUs 36,791
Existing Plant $/EDU $4,819 $4,820
Debt Credit ($465)($465)
Catchment [3]$19,118,800 $14,882,914
Total Future EDUs 6,927 5,821
Catchment Cost per EDU $2,760 $2,557 ($2,557)
Total Future and Existing $/EDU $6,489 $10,721 $12,602 $1,881
Current Fee (ENR
7/1/2017)
Option #1 with
separate
Catchment
Option #2 with
Separate
Catchment
Citywide $3,830.21 $8,165 $9,522 See Exhibit S-8 and S-10
Additional Catchment Area Charges
Margarita $2,819.50 $3,830 $3,830 See Exhibit S-9 and S-10
Tank Farm 3,728.52 3,192 3,192 See Exhibit S-9 and S-10
Silver City 1,392.80 2,429 2,429 See Exhibit S-9 and S-10
Calle Joaquin 1,878.64 2,898 2,898 See Exhibit S-9 and S-10
Laguna 503.30 434 434 See Exhibit S-9 and S-10
Airport 6,372 6,372 See Exhibit S-9 and S-10
Foothill 22,319 22,319 See Exhibit S-9 and S-10
Buckley 643 643 See Exhibit S-9 and S-10
[1] Option #1 is WRRF 20% of growth related equals $30 million project, plus interest at 2%
[2] Future EDUs are net of Vested/ Pending projects
[3] Catchment fee currently is in addition to capacity fee and based on usage in specific area.
Wastewater Capacity Fee and Connection Fee
Page 18 of 18 Packet Pg 414
11