HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-02-2020 Agenda Packet - Amended
Tuesday, June 2, 2020 – AMENDED
*Agenda amended to reflect updated Webinar registration information, as shown in italics below.
San Luis Obispo Page 1
Based on the threat of COVID-19 as reflected in the Proclamations of Emergency issued by both the Governor of
the State of California, the San Luis Obispo County Emergency Services Director and the City Council of the City
of San Luis Obispo as well as the Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20 issued on March 17, 2020, relating to the
convening of public meetings in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City of San Luis Obispo will be
holding all public meetings via teleconference. There will be no physical location for the Public to view the
meeting. Below are instructions on how to view the meeting remotely and how to leave public comment.
Additionally, members of the City Council are allowed to attend the meeting via teleconference and to participate
in the meeting to the same extent as if they were present.
Using the most rapid means of communication available at this time, members of the public are encouraged
to participate in Council meetings in the following ways:
1. Remote Viewing - Members of the public who wish to watch the meeting can view:
• View the Webinar (recommended for the best viewing quality):
➢ Registration URL: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/5219696564548348429
➢ Webinar ID: 913-466-059
➢ Telephone Attendee: (415) 655-0052; Audio Access Code: 442-029-509
• Televised live on Charter Cable Channel 20
• View a livestream of the meeting online at: https://www.slocity.org/channel20
2. Public Comment - The City Council will still be accepting public comment. Public comment can be
submitted in the following ways:
• Mail or Email Public Comment
➢ Received by 3:00 PM on the day of meeting - Can be submitted via email to
emailcouncil@slocity.org or U.S. Mail to City Clerk at 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
➢ Emails sent after 3:00 PM and up until public comment is opened on the item – Limited to
one page emailed to cityclerk@slocity.org, which will then be read aloud during the public
comment period on the item specified.
• Verbal Public Comment
➢ Received by 3:00 PM on the day of the meeting - Call (805) 781-7164; state and spell your
name, the agenda item number you are calling about and leave your comment. The verbal
comments must be limited to 3 minutes. All voicemails will be forwarded to the Council
Members and saved as Agenda Correspondence.
➢ During the meeting – Comments can be submitted up until the Public Comment period is
opened for the item when joining via the webinar (instructions above). Please contact the City
Clerk’s office at cityclerk@slocity.org to more information.
All comments submitted will be placed into the administrative record of the meeting.
San Luis Obispo Page 2
5:30 PM
CLOSED SESSION
TELECONFERENCE
Not available via Webinar
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Heidi Harmon
ROLL CALL: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Andy Pease, Erica A. Stewart,
Vice Mayor Aaron Gomez and Mayor Heidi Harmon
PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM
How to provide public comment on this item only:
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/288399253
You can also dial in using your phone.
(For supported devices, tap a one-touch number below to join instantly)
United States: +1 (872) 240-3212
One-touch: tel:+18722403212,,288399253#
Access Code: 288-399-253
Once public comment is over for this item, the meeting will be closed to the public.
CLOSED SESSION
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9.
No. of potential cases: Two.
A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the legislative body of the local agency on the
advice of its legal counsel, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure
to litigation against the local agency. The existing facts and circumstances exposing the City to
litigation include the following:
On September 3, 2019, the City Council adopted the Clean Energy Choice Program with the second
reading of the related ordinances planned for the September 17, 2019, Council meeting. On
September 13, 2019, the City received correspondence from legal counsel representing the Utility
Workers Union of America Local 132 alleging violations of conflict-of-interest rules related to the
ordinances, which was followed by notification of a formal complaint being filed with the
California Fair Political Practices Commission (“FPPC”) against Councilmember Pease. The
September 13, 2019, letter is on file with the City Clerk.
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda June 2, 2020 Page 3
San Luis Obispo Page 3
On September 20, 2019, the City requested formal advice from the FPPC on behalf of
Councilmember Pease and a majority of the City Council regarding the application of the
commission’s statutes, rules and regulations concerning the City’s adoption of the Clean Energy
Choice Program. On October 12, 2019, the City was notified that the FPPC would not be providing
advice as requested.
On October 28, 2019, the City requested formal advice from the FPPC on behalf of just a majority
of the City Council regarding the application of the commission’s statutes, rules and regulations
concerning the City’s adoption of the Clean Energy Choice Program. On November 14, 2019, the
FPPC issued a formal letter declining to provide advice as requested. That November 14, 2019,
letter is on file with the City Clerk.
Additionally, the City has received correspondence dated October 1, 2019, from Saro G. Rizzo,
Attorney at Law, expressing concerns with the City’s Clean Energy Choice Program ordinances.
The October 1, 2019 letter is on file with the City Clerk.
All letters on file are available for review in the City Clerk’s Office located at 990 Palm Street.
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to the Regular City Council Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. via
teleconference.
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda June 2, 2020 Page 4
San Luis Obispo Page 4
6:00 PM
REGULAR MEETING
TELECONFERENCE
Broadcasted via Webinar
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Heidi Harmon
ROLL CALL: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Andy Pease, Erica A. Stewart,
Vice Mayor Aaron Gomez and Mayor Heidi Harmon
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
(Not to exceed 15 minutes total)
The Council welcomes your input. 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.
1. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
(PURRINGTON)
Recommendation:
Waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.
2. MINUTES REVIEW - MAY 5, 2020 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AND MAY 8, 2020
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL / DISASTER COUNCIL MEETING (PURRINGTON)
Recommendation:
Approve the minutes of the City Council meetings held on May 5, 2020 and May 8, 2020.
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda June 2, 2020 Page 5
San Luis Obispo Page 5
3. REVIEW OF A MILLS ACT HISTORICAL PROPERTY CONTRACT FOR THE
VIRGINIA LEVERING LATIMER HOUSE (A MASTER LIST RESOURCE)
(CODRON / OETZELL)
Recommendation:
As recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee, adopt a Resolution entitled, “A
Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving a
Historic Property Preservation Agreement between the City and the owners of the Virginia
Levering Latimer House at 858 Toro Street (Application No. HIST -0048-2020).”
4. AUTHORIZATION TO CONTINUE THE COLLECTION OF MULTI-DWELLING
PROPERTY FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY INSPECTION FEES (AGGSON / BLATTLER)
Recommendation:
Adopt a Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, authorizing the San Luis Obispo County Auditor to collect fees for
2020-21 Fire and Life Safety Inspections of Multi-Dwelling Properties containing three or
more dwelling units on the Secured Property Tax Roll pursuant to California Government
Code Section 54988, Et Seq.”
5. HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION FOR A CONTRIBUTING LIST
PROPERTY AT 1156 PEACH STREET (CODRON / OETZELL)
Recommendation:
As recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee, adopt a Resolution entitled, “A
Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, removing the
property at 1156 Peach Street from the Contributing Properties List of Historic Resource s
(1156 Peach St, HIST-0036-2020).”
6. AUTHORIZATION TO ADOPT THE MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD
MITIGATION PLAN (AGGSON / BLATTLER)
Recommendation:
Adopt a Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, approving the Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA 2000) County of San Luis
Obispo Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2019 Update” and accompanying City
specific annex.
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda June 2, 2020 Page 6
San Luis Obispo Page 6
7. ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS RESEARCH INSTITUTE (ESRI) ENTERPRISE
LICENSE RENEWAL (HERMANN / GUARDADO / WILWAND)
Recommendation:
Approve an agreement with Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), Inc. for a
three-year, small Government Enterprise License Agreement (ELA) in the amount of
$112,100 payable on an annual basis at $36,100 for the first year, $37,500 for the second
year, and $38,500 for the third year.
8. ORCUTT / TANK FARM ROUNDABOUT DESIGN BUDGET AMENDMENT
REQUEST (SPEC. #91611) (HORN / RICE)
Recommendation:
1. Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, approving an Amendment to the Orcutt Tank Farm Roundabout
Design and Related Budgetary Appropriations;” and
2. Appropriate from the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee Fund balance $100,435 to
support the Orcutt/Tank Farm Roundabout (Spec. #91611) design phase; and
3. Authorize the Finance Director to increase the Purchase Order to GHD for design
services in the amount of $100,435.
9. SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1682 (2020 SERIES)
AMENDING CHAPTER 2.40 OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL
CODE REQUIRING ELECTRONIC FILING OF CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
DOCUMENTS AND PROVIDING FOR ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT OF
CAMPAIGN REGULATIONS VIOLATIONS (PURRINGTON)
Recommendation:
Adopt Ordinance No. 1682 (2020 Series) entitled, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the
City of San Luis Obispo, California, amending Title 2 of the City of San Luis O bispo
Municipal Code adding to Section 2.40.060 – Electronic Signature and Submission of
Campaign Disclosure Documents, and amending Section 2.40.100 (Civil Actions) to provide
for Administrative Enforcement of violations.”
10. FISCAL YEAR 2020-21 CENTRAL SERVICE COST ALLOCATION PLANS, COST
OF SERVICES FEE CALCULATION, AND LABOR RATES (ELKE)
Recommendation:
Approve the 2020-21 Central Service Cost Allocation Plans including the Cost of Services
Fee Calculation, and Labor Rates.
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda June 2, 2020 Page 7
San Luis Obispo Page 7
PUBLIC HEARING AND BUSINESS ITEMS
*Item #11 was distributed in advance of publishing the agenda to allow extra time for review.
This item is available separately as a 230-page report and will not be incorporated into the
combined agenda packet.
11. 2019-21 FINANCIAL PLAN SUPPLEMENT AND 2020-21 BUDGET
(ELKE / HARNETT – 60 MINUTES)
1. Adopt a Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, adopting the Appropriation Limits for Fiscal Year 2020-21 and
revising the Appropriation Limits for Fiscal Years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20”
establishing the City’s appropriation limit for 2020-21 in compliance with Article XIII B
of the State Constitutions, Gann Spending Limitation; and
2. Review and approve the 2019-21 Financial Plan Supplement and 2020-21 Budget and
approve a Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, approving the 2020-21 Financial Plan Supplement and Budget
Appropriations” and
3. Adopt Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, deferring future parking rates increases, suspending current hourly
parking rates for parking structures, and reducing rates for Monthly Parking Programs” to
defer future parking rate increases and introduce an Ordinance entitled, “An Ordinance of
the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, amending Section 10.52.010
(Parking Meter Zone Rates) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code.”
12. REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY SAN LUIS ARCHITECTURAL
PROTECTION) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE
A FOUR-STORY MIXED-USE PROJECT (545 HIGUERA STREET, 486 MARSH
STREET, ARCH-0017-2019) (CODRON / SCOTT – 60 MINUTES)
Recommendation:
Adopt a Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, denying an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of a 50-foot
tall mixed-use project consisting of 5,241 square feet of ground-floor retail, eight hotel
suites, and 39 residential units, including mechanical parking lifts, and a Categorical
Exemption from Environmental Review, as represented in the staff report and attachments
(545 Higuera Street, 486 Marsh Street, ARCH-0017-2019).”
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda June 2, 2020 Page 8
San Luis Obispo Page 8
LIAISON REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
(Not to exceed 15 minutes)
Council Members report on conferences or other City activities. At this time, any Council
Member or the City Manager may ask a question for clarification, make an announcement, or
report briefly on his or her activities. In addition, subject to Council Policies and Procedures,
they may provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to
report back to the Council at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter, or take action to
direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. (Gov. Code Sec. 54954.2)
ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, June 16, 2020 at 6:00 p.m., via
teleconference.
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) 781-7410.
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.
Tuesday May 5, 2020
Regular Meeting of the City Council/Disaster Council
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council/Disaster Council was called to order on
Tuesday May 5, 2020 at 6:09 p.m. by Mayor Harmon, with all Council Members teleconferencing.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Andy Pease, Erica A. Stewart,
Vice Mayor Aaron Gomez, and Mayor Heidi Harmon.
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Derek Johnson, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; and Teresa
Purrington, City Clerk; were present at Roll Call.
PRESENTATIONS
1. NATIONAL NURSES DAY PROCLAMATION
Mayor Harmon presented a Proclamation to Arthur Dominguez, Chief Nursing Officer Sierra
Vista Regional Medical Center declaring May 6, 2020 to be “National Nurses Day.”
DISASTER COUNCIL ACTIONS
2. RECEIVE AN UPDATE FROM THE EMERGENCY SERVICES DIRECTOR AND
PROVIDE COVID-19 RELATED DIRECTION BASED ON CURRENT STATUS
City Manager Derek Johnson presented a PowerPoint on the status of the COVID-19
pandemic.
Public Comments:
Chad Lagomarsino
---End of Public Comment---
ACTION: No action taken on this item.
Item 2
Packet Page 1
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of May 5, 2020 Page 2
3. COMPREHENSIVE DISASTER LEADERSHIP PLAN ADOPTION BY THE
DISASTER COUNCIL
Fire Chief Keith Aggson provided a brief report regarding adopting the Comprehensive
Disaster Leadership Plan.
Public Comments:
None
---End of Public Comment---
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER PEASE, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER
STEWART, CARRIED 5-0 to approve the Comprehensive Disaster Leadership Plan.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None
---End of Public Comment---
CONSENT AGENDA
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY VICE
MAYOR GOMEZ, CARRIED 5-0 to approve Consent Calendar Items 4 thru 8.
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 REVIEW – APRIL 21, 2020 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CARRIED 5-0, to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting held on April 21, 2020.
6. ADVISORY BODY APPOINTMENTS FOR UNSCHEDULED VACANCIES
CARRIED 5-0, to
1. As recommended by the Council Liaison Subcommittee for the Construction Board of
Appeals, confirm the re-appointment of Armando Garza, to a 4-year term, expiring March
31, 2024; and
2. As recommended by the Council Liaison Subcommittee for the Human Relations
Commission, confirm the appointment of Megan Souza to complete an unexpired term
through March 31, 2023.
7. CONSIDER PARTICIPATING IN THE SAN LUIS OBISPO REGION URBAN
COUNTY, OVERSEEN BY THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, FOR THE 2021-
2023 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FEDERAL ENTITLEMENT
PROGRAM CYCLES
CARRIED 5-0, to Adopt a Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, approving the participation in the San Luis Obispo Region
Urban County, overseen by the County of San Luis Obispo, for the 2021-2023 Community
Development Block Grant Federal Entitlement Program Cycles; and approving the execution
of a Cooperation Agreement for participation.”
Item 2
Packet Page 2
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of May 5, 2020 Page 3
8. PUBLIC SAFETY PORTABLE RADIO REPLACEMENT
CARRIED 5-0, to
1. Waive formal bids and authorize use of Los Angeles County Master Agreement MA-IS-
1740313-1 for purchase of equipment from Motorola Solutions as allowed under 3.24.060
E. of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code; and
2. Adopt a Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, certifying Lease No. 24831 between the City of San Luis Obispo and
Motorola Solutions Inc., approving same and authorizing staff to execute and deliver the
lease on the City’s behalf,” subject to approval by the City Attorney and Finance Director;
and
3. Award a contract and enter into a three-year lease-purchase agreement with Motorola
Solutions in the amount of $653,014, split into three equal payments of $217,671.27 for
the purchase of Motorola portable radios, associated accessories and programming and
management software for Public Safety radios with payments beginning on June 1, 2021;
and
4. Approve a transfer of $9,337 from the Information Technology Replacement Fund
Undesignated Capital Account to the Public Safety Radio Replacement Account to
augment available funding for the project.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS AND BUSINESS ITEMS
9. ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1680 (2020 SERIES) AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT
TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE
BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’
RETIREMENT SYSTEM
Human Resources Director Monica Irons and Human Resources Analyst Brittani Roltgen
provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions.
Public Comments:
None
---End of Public Comment---
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY
COUNCIL MEMBER PEASE, CARRIED 5-0 to adopt Ordinance No. 1680 (2020 Series)
entitled, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California,
authorizing an amendment to the contract between the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees’
Retirement System.”
Item 2
Packet Page 3
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of May 5, 2020 Page 4
10. INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2.40 OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIRING ELECTRONIC FILING OF
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE DOCUMENTS AND PROVIDING FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT OF CAMPAIGN REGULATIONS
VIOLATIONS
Deputy City Manager Greg Hermann, City Attorney Christine Dietrick and City Clerk Teresa
Purrington provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions.
Public Comments:
None
---End of Public Comment---
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE MAYOR GOMEZ, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER
CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to introduce an Ordinance entitled, “An Ordinance of the
City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, amending Title 2 of the City of San
Luis Obispo Municipal Code adding to Section 2.40.060 – Electronic Signature and
Submission of Campaign Disclosure Documents, and amending Section 2.40.100 (Civil
Actions) to provide for Administrative Enforcement of Violations.”
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for
Tuesday, May 19, 2020 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California.
__________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2020
Item 2
Packet Page 4
Friday May 8, 2020
Continued Special Meeting of the City Council/Disaster Council
CALL TO ORDER
A Continued Special Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council/Disaster Council was called to
order on Friday May 8, 2020 at 12:32 p.m. by Mayor Harmon, with all Council Members
teleconferencing.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Andy Pease, Erica A. Stewart,
Vice Mayor Aaron Gomez, and Mayor Heidi Harmon.
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Derek Johnson, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; and Teresa
Purrington, City Clerk; were present at Roll Call.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS ONLY
None
---End of Public Comment---
BUSINESS ITEMS
1. RECEIVE AN UPDATE FROM THE EMERGENCY SERVICES DIRECTOR AND
ADOPT A RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING A CONTINUING LOCAL EMERGENCY
AND SUSPENDING ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN CITY CODES TO SUPPORT
SOCIAL DISTANCING AND MITIGATE ECONOMIC IMPACTS FOR THE
PERIOD DURING WHICH STATE AND COUNTY SOCIAL DISTANCING
REQUIREMENTS REMAIN IN PLACE
City Manager/Emergency Services Director Derek Johnson and City Attorney Christine
Dietrick provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions.
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER PEASE, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 4-1 (MAYOR HARMON voting NO) to adopt
Resolution No. 11116 (2020 Series) entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
San Luis Obispo, California, proclaiming the continuing existence of a Local Emergency
regarding the COVID-19 Pandemic and suspending enforcement of certain city codes to
support Public Health Orders and Public Communication and to mitigate economic impacts,”
suspending the enforcement of Section 8.14 Tobacco Retailer License until September 1, 2020;
and partially suspending enforcement of Sections 15.40.200 Exempt Signs, 15.40.300
Item 2
Packet Page 5
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of May 8, 2020 Page 2
Prohibited Sign Types, 15.40.470 Sign Standards by Sign Type and 15.40.500 Permit Required
of the Sign Regulations and 17.72 Parking and Loading until the social distancing
requirements, as specified in health orders or directives, are repealed in their entirety by the
State of California and County of San Luis Obispo.
2. RECEIVE A BRIEFING AND PROVIDE DIRECTION ON MANDATORY MASK
REQUIREMENT
City Manager/Emergency Services Director Derek Johnson and City Attorney Christine
Dietrick provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions.
Public Comments:
None
---End of Public Comment---
ACTION: No action taken.
3. RECEIVE A PRESENTATION ON CHILD CARE OPTIONS
Parks and Recreation Director Greg Avakian provided an in-depth staff report and responded
to Council questions.
Public Comments:
None
---End of Public Comment---
ACTION: No action taken.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 1:27 p.m. The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for
Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California.
__________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2020
Item 2
Packet Page 6
Department Name: Community Development
Cost Center: 4003
For Agenda of: June 2, 2020
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF A MILLS ACT HISTORICAL PROPERTY CONTRACT FOR
THE VIRGINIA LEVERING LATIMER HOUSE (A MASTER LIST
RESOURCE)
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee, adopt a resolution (Attachment A)
approving a Historic Property Preservation Agreement between the City and the owners of the
Virginia Levering Latimer House at 858 Toro Street, under the terms described in the draft
agreement (Attachment B).
DISCUSSION
The owners of the Virginia Levering Latimer
House at 858 Toro Street submitted an
application to enter into a Mills Act historical
property contract with the City.. The property
was designated as a Master List Resource on
March 17, 2020 (Council Resolution 11093), as
a rare example within the City of the Italianate
Style.
The Mills Act Program
The Mills Act Program enables California cities
to enter into contracts with owners of historical property to provide them with tax relief in
exchange for an agreement to actively participate in the restoration and maintenance of historical
resources. A Mills Act contract is effective for an initial 10-year period, and then is
automatically extended annually for an additional year. After the initial term, either the City or
the owner may, by written notice, decide not to renew the contract. During the eff ective term of
the contract, the property owner must improve or rehabilitate the property, maintain the property
consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, and provide visibility of the historical
resource from the public right-of-way.
Figure 1: Virginia Levering Latimer House
Item 3
Packet Page 7
The Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) of the General Plan describes the City’s
goals and policies for the protection of cultural resources. It is the City’s policy that significant
historic resources be rehabilitated and preserved (COSE § 3.3). Parti cipation in the Mills Act
Program is one of the means by which the City encourages the maintenance and restoration of
historic properties (COSE § 3.6.2). A property must be on the City’s Master List of Historic
Resources in order to be enrolled in the program. Currently there are 58 properties participating
in the program, with the last request approved by the Council in November 2018.
Previous Advisory Body Action
The Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed the application and the terms of the draft contract at
a public hearing on April 27, 2020. The Committee, by a vote of 4-0-1 (1 Committee Member
absent), recommended that the Council approve the contract (minutes pending approval).
Policy Context
The recommended action on this item is supported by historical preservation policies set out
section 3.0 of the COSE of the City’s General Plan, particularly Program 3.6.2, regarding
participation in financial incentive programs to encourage maintenance and restoration of
historic properties, and also with the purpose of encouraging private stewardship of historic
buildings through incentives, as provided by § 14.01.010 (B)(3) of the City’s Historic
Preservation Ordinance.
Public Engagement
Public notice of this hearing has been provided to owners and occupants of property near the
subject site, and published in a widely circulated local newspaper, and hearing agendas for this
meeting have been posted at City Hall, consistent with adopted notification procedures for
development projects.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Entering into a “Mills Act Contract” with the owners of historical property is not subject to the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a project as
defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15378 (Definitions – Project). Implementation of the Mills Act is
a government fiscal activity which does not involve commitment to any specific project resulting
in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment (Guidelines § 15378 (b) (4)).
FISCAL IMPACT
After the contract is agreed, the County Assessor values the property by an income capitalization
method, following guidelines provided by the State Board of Equalization. Because of the timing
and the method of valuing the restricted property, it is difficult to accurately esti mate the tax
savings and resulting fiscal impacts to the City under a particular historical property contract.
However, the Office of Historic Preservation (California Department of Parks and Recreation)
estimates that property owners participating in the program may realize property tax savings of
between 40% and 60% each year for newly improved or purchased older properties.
Item 3
Packet Page 8
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue consideration of the request to a future date for additional analysis or research
2. Do not enter into a Mills Act Historical Property Contract with the property owner. This
alternative is not recommended. The contract provides a tax relief incentive that is a tool for
achieving the City’s goals for historical preservation.
Attachments:
a - Draft Resolution
b - Historic Property Preservation Agreement (Draft)
Item 3
Packet Page 9
RESOLUTION NO. ____ (2020 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A HISTORIC PROPERTY
PRESERVATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE
OWNERS OF THE VIRGINIA LEVERING LATIMER HOUSE AT 858
TORO STREET (APPLICATION NO. HIST-0048-2020)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo is authorized by California
Government Code § 50280 et seq. (known as “the Mills Act”) to enter into contracts wit h the
owners of qualified historical properties to provide for appropriate use, maintenance, and
rehabilitation such that these historic properties retain their historic characteristics; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Resolution No. 9136 (2000 Series),
establishing the Mills Act Historic Property Tax Incentive Program as an on-going historic
preservation program to promote the preservation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of historic
resources through financial incentives; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has designated this
property as a historic resource of the City of San Luis Obispo pursuant to the policies in the
City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, Eric Blair and Jacqueline J. Blair (hereinafter referred to as the “Owners”)
are the owners of that certain qualified real property, together with associated structures and
improvement thereon, located on Assessor’s Parcel Number 001-221-001, located at 858 Toro
Street, in the City of San Luis Obispo, California, also described as the Virginia Levering
Latimer House; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo and Owners, for their mutual benefit, now
desire to enter into an agreement to limit the use of the property to prevent inappropriate
alterations and to ensure that character-defining features are preserved and maintained in an
exemplary manner, and repairs and improvements are completed as necessary to carry out the
purposes of California Government Code, Chapter 1, Part 5 of Division 1 of Title 5, Article 12,
Sec. 50280 et seq., and to qualify for an assessment of valuation pursuant to Article 1.9, Sec. 439
et seq. of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted
a public hearing via teleconference from the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on April 27,
2020 for the purpose of reviewing the proposed historic property preservation agreement, and
recommended that the City enter into the agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing via teleconference from the
City of San Luis Obispo, California, on June 2, 2020 for the purpose of considering approval of
the historic property preservation agreement, and has duly considered all evidence, in cluding the
record of the Cultural Heritage Committee hearing and recommendation, testimony of the
applicant and interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendation by staff, present at said
hearing; and
Item 3
Packet Page 10
Resolution No. ____ (2020 Series)
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the
following findings:
1. Conservation and Open Space Element Program 3.6.2 states that the City will
participate in financial assistance programs such as property tax reduction programs
that encourage maintenance and restoration of historic properties.
2. The Virginia Levering Latimer House, located at 858 Toro Street, has been
recognized as a historic asset in the community by its designation as a Master List
Historic Property by the City Council on March 17, 2020 (Resolution 11093). As
such, maintaining the structure will meet the City’s goals for historic preservation
listed in policies 3.3.1 through 3.3.5 of the Conservation and Open Space Element.
SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The City Council has determined that the
above actions do not constitute a project, as defined in California Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines § 15378 and are not subject to environmental review.
SECTION 3. Historic Property Preservation Agreement Approved. The City Council
hereby approves the “Historic Property Preservation Agreement between the City of San Luis
Obispo and the Owner of the Historic Property Located at 858 Toro Street,” to be entered into by
the City and the property owners, Eric Blair and Jacqueline J. Blair.
SECTION 4. Community Development Director Authorized to Sign Agreement for City.
The City Council hereby authorizes the Community Development Director to execute said
agreement on behalf of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo.
Item 3
Packet Page 11
Resolution No. ____ (2020 Series)
SECTION 5. Recordation of the Agreement. No later than twenty (20) days after the
parties enter into said agreement, the City Clerk shall cause the agreement t o be recorded in the
Office of the County Recorder of the County of San Luis Obispo.
Upon motion of Council Member ___________, seconded by Council Member
____________, and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this ______ day of _______ 2020.
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
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, on ______________________.
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
Item 3
Packet Page 12
HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE OWNERS OF THE HISTORIC
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 858 TORO STREET, IN THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this ________ day of ________ , 2020, by and
between the City of San Luis Obispo, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the
“City”), and Eric Blair and Jacqueline J. Blair, Trustees of the Blair Family Trust Dated May 20,
2003 (hereinafter referred to as “Owners”), and collectively referred to as the “parties.”
WHEREAS, Owners are the owners of that certain real property commonly known as
858 Toro Street (APN 001-221-001), and legally described as shown in the attached “Exhibit B”
(“Owners’ Property”); and
WHEREAS, Owners have agreed to enter into an Historical Property Contract with the
City for the preservation, maintenance, restoration, or rehabilitation of Owners’ Property, an
historic resource within the City;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and in further consideration
of the mutual benefits, promises, and agreements set out herein, the parties agree as follows:
Section 1. Description of Preservation Measures. The Owners, their heirs, or assigns hereby
agree to undertake and complete, at his expense, the preservation, maintenance, and improvements
measures described in “Exhibit A” attached hereto.
Section 2. Effective Date and Term of Agreement. This agreement shall be effective and
commence upon recordation and shall remain in effect for an initial term of ten (10) years
thereafter. Each year upon the anniversary of the agreement’s effective date, such initial term will
automatically be extended as provided in California Government Code Section 50280 through
50290 and in Section 3, below.
Section 3. Agreement Renewal and Non-renewal.
a. Each year on the anniversary of the effective date of this agreement (hereinafter
referred to as “annual renewal date”), a year shall automatically be added to the
initial term of this agreement unless written notice of non-renewal is served as
provided herein.
b. If the Owners or the City desire in any year not to renew the agreement, the Owners
or the City shall serve written notice of non-renewal of the agreement on the other
party. Unless such notice is served by the Owners to the City at least ninety (90)
days prior to the annual renewal date, or served by the City to the Owners at least
sixty (60) days prior to the annual renewal date, one (1) year shall automatically be
added to the term of the agreement as provided herein.
Item 3
Packet Page 13
Historic Property Preservation Agreement
858 Toro Street
Page 2
c. The Owners may make a written protest of the notice. The City may, at any time
prior to the annual renewal date, withdraw its notice to the Owners of non-renewal.
d. If either the City or the Owners serve notice to the other party of non-renewal in
any year, the agreement shall remain in effect for the balance of the term then
remaining.
Section 4. Standards and Conditions. During the term of this agreement, the historic property
shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. Owners agree to preserve, maintain, and, where necessary, restore or rehabilitate
the building and its character-defining features, including: the building’s general
architectural form, style, materials, design, scale, proportions, organization of
windows, doors, and other openings; interior architectural elements that are integral
to the building’s historic character or significance; exterior materials, coatings,
textures, details, mass, roof line, porch, and other aspects of the appearance of the
building’s exterior, as described in Exhibit A, to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director or his designee.
b. All building changes shall comply with applicable City specific plans, City
regulations and guidelines, and conform to the rules and regulations of the Office
of Historic Preservation of the California Department of Parks and Recreation,
namely the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and
Standards and Guidelines for Historic Preservation Projects. Interior remodeling
shall retain original, character-defining architectural features such as oak and
mahogany details, pillars and arches, special tile work, or architectural
ornamentation to the greatest extent possible.
c. The Community Development Director shall be notified by the Owners of changes
to character-defining exterior features prior to their execution, such as major
landscaping projects and tree removals, exterior door or window replacement,
repainting, remodeling, or other exterior alterations requiring a building permit.
The Owners agree to secure all necessary City approvals and/or permits prior to
changing the building’s use or commencing construction work.
d. Owners agree that property tax savings resulting from this agreement shall be used
for property maintenance and improvements as described in Exhibit A.
e. The following are prohibited: demolition or partial demolition of the historic
building; exterior alterations or additions not in keeping with the standards listed
above; dilapidated, deteriorating, or unrepaired structures such as fences, roofs,
doors, walls, windows; outdoor storage of junk, trash, debris, appliances, or
furniture visible from a public way; or any device, decoration, structure, or
vegetation which is unsightly due to lack of maintenance or because such feature
adversely affects, or is visually incompatible with, the property’s recognized
Item 3
Packet Page 14
Historic Property Preservation Agreement
858 Toro Street
Page 3
historic character, significance, and design as determined by the Community
Development Director.
f. Owners shall allow reasonable periodic examination, by prior appointment, of the
interior and exterior of the historic property by representatives of the County
Assessor, the State Department of Parks and Recreation, the State Board of
Equalization, and the City as may be necessary to determine the owners’
compliance with the terms and provisions of this agreement.
Section 5. Furnishing of Information. The Owners hereby agree to furnish any and all
information requested by the City which may be necessary or advisable to determine compliance
with the terms and provisions of this agreement.
Section 6. Cancellation.
a. The City, following a duly-noticed public hearing by the City Council as set forth
in Government Code Section 50285, may cancel this agreement if it determines that
the Owners have breached any of the conditions of this agreement or has allowed
the property to deteriorate to the point that it no longer meets the standards for a
qualified historic property; or if the City determines that the Owners have failed to
preserve, maintain, or rehabilitate the property in the manner specified in Section 4
of this agreement. If a contract is cancelled because of failure of the Owners to
preserve, maintain, and rehabilitate the historic property as specified above, the
Owners shall pay a cancellation fee to the State Controller as set forth in
Government Code Section 50286, which states that the fee shall be 12 ½% of the
full value of the property at the time of cancellation without regard to any restriction
imposed with this agreement.
b. If the historic building is acquired by eminent domain and the City Council
determines that the acquisition frustrates the purpose of the agreement, the
agreement shall be cancelled and no fee imposed, as specified in Government Code
Section 50288.
Section 7. Enforcement of Agreement.
a. In lieu of and/or in addition to any provisions to cancel the agreement as referenced
herein, the City may specifically enforce, or enjoin the breach of, the terms of the
agreement. In the event of a default, under the provisions to cancel the agreement
by the Owners, the City shall give written notice of violation to the Owners by
registered or certified mail addressed to the address stated in this agreement. If
such a violation is not corrected to the reasonable satisfaction of the Community
Development Director or designee within thirty (30) days thereafter; or if not
corrected within such a reasonable time as may be required to cure the breach or
default of said breach; or if the default cannot be cured within thirty (30) days
(provided that acts to cure the breach or default may be commenced within thirty
(30) days and shall thereafter be diligently pursued to completion by the Owners);
Item 3
Packet Page 15
Historic Property Preservation Agreement
858 Toro Street
Page 4
then the City may, without further notice, declare a default under the terms of this
agreement and may bring any action necessary to specifically enforce the
obligations of the Owners growing out of the terms of this agreement, apply to any
court, state or federal, for injunctive relief against any violation by the Owners or
apply for such relief as may be appropriate.
b. The City does not waive any claim of default by the Owners if the City does not
enforce or cancel this agreement. All other remedies at law or in equity which are
not otherwise provided for in this agreement or in the City’s regulations governing
historic properties are available to the City to pursue in the event that there is a
breach or default under this agreement. No waiver by the City of any breach or
default under this agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver of any other subsequent
breach thereof or default herein under.
c. By mutual agreement, City and Owners may enter into mediation or binding
arbitration to resolve disputes or grievances growing out of this contract.
Section 8. Binding Effect of Agreement. The Owners hereby subject the historic building
located at 858 Toro Street, San Luis Obispo, California, Assessor’s Parcel Number 001-221-001,
to the covenants, reservations, and restrictions as set forth in this agreement. The City and Owners
hereby declare their specific intent that the covenants, reservations, and restrictions as set forth
herein shall be deemed covenants running with the land and shall pass to and be binding upon the
Owners’ successors and assigns in title or interest to the historic property. Every contract, deed,
or other instrument hereinafter executed, covering or conveying the historic property or any
portion thereof, shall conclusively be held to have been executed, delivered, and accepted subject
to the covenants, reservations, and restrictions expressed in this agr eement regardless of whether
such covenants, restrictions, and reservations are set forth in such contract, deed, or other
instrument.
Section 9. Notice. Any notice required by the terms of this agreement shall be sent to the address
of the respective parties as specified below or at other addresses that may be later specified by the
parties hereto.
To City: Community Development Director
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
To Owners: Eric Blair and Jacqueline J. Blair
Trustees of the Blair Family Trust Dated May 20, 2003
858 Toro Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
Item 3
Packet Page 16
Historic Property Preservation Agreement
858 Toro Street
Page 5
Section 10. General Provisions.
a. None of the terms, provisions, or conditions of this agreement shall be deemed to
create a partnership between the parties hereto and any of their heirs, successors, or
assigns, nor shall such terms, provisions, or conditions cause them to be considered
joint ventures or members of any joint enterprise.
b. The Owners agree to hold the City and its elected and appointed officials, officers,
agents, and employees harmless from liability for damage or from claims for
damage for personal injuries, including death, and claims for property damage
which may arise from the direct or indirect use or activities of the Owners, or from
those of his contractor, subcontractor, agent, employee, or other person acting on
the Owners’ behalf which relates to the use, operation, maintenance, or
improvement of the historic property. The Owners hereby agree to and shall defend
the City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents, and employees with
respect to any and all claims or actions for damages caused by, or alleged to have
been caused by, reason of the Owners’ activities in connection with the historic
property, excepting however any such claims or actions which are the result of the
sole negligence or willful misconduct of City, its officers, agents, or employees.
c. This hold harmless provision applies to all damages and claims for damages
suffered, or alleged to have been suffered, and costs of defense incurred, by reason
of the operations referred to in this agreement regardless of whether or not the City
prepared, supplied, or approved the plans, specifications, or other documents for
the historic property.
d. All of the agreements, rights, covenants, reservations, and restrictions contained in
this agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties
herein, their heirs, successors, legal representatives, assigns, and all persons
acquiring any part or portion of the historic property, whether by operation of law
or in any manner whatsoever.
e. In the event legal proceedings are brought by any party or parties to enforce or
restrain a violation of any of the covenants, reservations, or restrictions contained
herein, or to determine the rights and duties of any party hereunder, the prevaili ng
party in such proceeding may recover all reasonable attorney’s fees to be fixed by
the court, in addition to court costs and other relief ordered by the court.
f. In the event that any of the provisions of this agreement are held to be unenforceable
or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, or by subsequent preemptive
legislation, the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions, or portions
thereof, shall not be affected thereby.
g. This agreement shall be construed and governed in accordance with the laws of the
State of California.
Item 3
Packet Page 17
Historic Property Preservation Agreement
858 Toro Street
Page 6
Section 11. Amendments. This agreement may be amended, in whole or in part, only by a written
recorded instrument executed by the parties hereto.
Section 12. Recordation and Fees. No later than twenty (20) days after the parties enter into this
agreement, the City shall cause this agreement to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder
of the County of San Luis Obispo. Participation in the program shall be at no cost to the Owners;
however, the City may charge reasonable and necessary fees to recover direct costs of executing,
recording, and administering the historical property contracts.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Owners have executed this agreement on the day
and year written above.
THE BLAIR FAMILY TRUST DATED MAY 20, 2003
____________________________________ ______________________________
Eric Blair, Trustee Date
____________________________________ ______________________________
Jacqueline J. Blair, Trustee Date
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
____________________________________ ______________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon Date
Pursuant to authority conferred by Resolution No. __________(2020 Series)
ATTEST:
______________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
ALL SIGNATURES MUST BE NOTARIZED
Item 3
Packet Page 18
Historic Property Preservation Agreement
858 Toro Street
Page 7
EXHIBIT “A”
MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT MEASURES FOR
THE VIRGINIA LEVERING LATIMER HOME LOCATED AT 858 TORO STREET,
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
Owners shall preserve, maintain, and repair the historic building, including its character -defining
architectural features in good condition, to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director or designee, pursuant to a Mills Act Preservation Contract wit h the City of San Luis
Obispo for property located at 858 Toro Street. Character-defining features shall include, but are
not limited to: roof, eaves, dormers, trim, porches, walls and siding, architectural detailing, doors
and windows, window screens and shutters, balustrades and railings, foundations, and surface
treatments.
Owners agree to make the following improvements or repairs during the term of this contract but
in no case later than ten (10) years from the contract date. All changes or repairs shall be consistent
with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
the Treatment of Historic Properties:
▪ Add porch handrails
▪ Repair trim details under gutters
▪ Refinish or replace porch deck
▪ Restore details at porch posts to match original design
▪ Exterior painting
▪ Replace roof
Item 3
Packet Page 19
Historic Property Preservation Agreement
858 Toro Street
Page 8
EXHIBIT “B”
Legal Description
For APN/Parcel ID(s): 001-221-001
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF SAN
LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND IS
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
That portion of Lot 1 in Block 38 of the City of San Luis Obispo, in the City of San Luis
Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, according to Map recorded
May 1, 1878 in Book A, Page 168 of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said
County, described as follows:
ALL THAT PART OF LOTS 7, 8, 9, AND 10 OF BLOCK 117 OF MURRAY AND
CHURCH’S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS:
Beginning at the point of intersection of the Southeasterly line of Mill Stre et with the
Northeasterly line of Toro Street; thence Southeasterly along said line of Toro Street,
50 feet; thence at right angles Northeasterly parallel with said line of Mill Street, 95 feet;
thence at right angles Northwesterly parallel with said line of Toro Street, 50 feet to said
Southeasterly line of Mill Street; thence at right angles Southwesterly along said street
line, 95 feet to the point of beginning..
Item 3
Packet Page 20
Historic Property Preservation Agreement
858 Toro Street
Page 9
State of California }
County of San Luis Obispo }
On________________, before me __________________________________________,
Date Name and Title of the Officer
personally appeared, _____________________________________________________,
Name of Signer(s)
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in
his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the
person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature __________________________________
Signature of Notary Public Place Notary Seal Above
State of California }
County of San Luis Obispo }
On________________, before me __________________________________________,
Date Name and Title of the Officer
personally appeared, _____________________________________________________,
Name of Signer(s)
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in
his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the
person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature __________________________________
Signature of Notary Public Place Notary Seal Above
A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the
document to which this certificate is attached and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the
document to which this certificate is attached and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
Item 3
Packet Page 21
Historic Property Preservation Agreement
858 Toro Street
Page 10
State of California }
County of San Luis Obispo }
On________________, before me __________________________________________,
Date Name and Title of the Officer
personally appeared, _____________________________________________________,
Name of Signer(s)
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in
his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the
person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature __________________________________
Signature of Notary Public Place Notary Seal Above
State of California }
County of San Luis Obispo }
On________________, before me __________________________________________,
Date Name and Title of the Officer
personally appeared, _____________________________________________________,
Name of Signer(s)
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in
his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the
person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature __________________________________
Signature of Notary Public Place Notary Seal Above
A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the
document to which this certificate is attached and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the
document to which this certificate is attached and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
Item 3
Packet Page 22
Department Name: Fire
Cost Center: 8503
For Agenda of: June 2, 2020
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Keith Aggson, Fire Chief
Prepared By: Rodger Maggio, Fire Marshal/Chief Building Official
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO CONTINUE THE COLLECTION OF MULTI-
DWELLING PROPERTY FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY INSPECTION FEES
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) enabling the continued collection of multi -dwelling property
fire and life safety inspection fees via the secured property tax roll administ ered by the County.
DISCUSSION
In May 2005, the Council approved a cost recovery program for State-mandated fire and life
safety inspections for multi-dwelling properties with three or more units. In June 2017, the
Council approved a change on how fees for apartment buildings, hotel/motels, and sorority/
fraternity inspections are calculated. This change is reflected in Exhibit A to the Resolution. The
result was an increase from approximately $194,000 per year in total revenue to approximately
$260,000 at the time of change in the fee schedule. Since the adoption of the new fee schedule,
revenue under this program has increased to $308,000 for fiscal year 2020-21 due to the increase
in the number of units for each category and the annual CPI adjustment to the fee. Staff is not
recommending any further changes in the current fees for 2020-21. However, the County
requires an annual resolution adopted by the Council authorizing the continued collection of
these fees on the property tax roll. Staff is recommending that the fee collection continue to be
done through the secured property tax roll in 2020-21 and is requesting that Council adopt the
required resolution to authorize that collection.
Policy Context
California Health & Safety Code Section 13146.2(b) authorizes cities to charge property owners
in recovering the reasonable costs of providing these annual inspections. As part of this program,
on June 7, 2005, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 1472 authorizing the collection of annual
fees for these inspections through the secured County property tax roll as the most cost- efficient
method for fee collection (City Municipal Code Section 3.50.01(c)).
Public Engagement
The recommended action is not a community project, or service. This resolution does not warrant
any specific public engagement efforts.
Item 4
Packet Page 23
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. 15378.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: 2020-21
Funding Identified: N/A
The Finance Department will work with the County of San Luis Obispo to place the fees on the
annual tax rolls.
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding Sources Current FY Cost
Annualized
On-going Cost
Total Project
Cost
General Fund N/A
State
Federal
Fees
Other:
Total
In fiscal year 2019-20, the City is scheduled to collect $307,000. As of May 6, 2020 the City had
collected $275,031 and may see delays in receiving the remaining $32,000 due to County of San
Luis Obispo waiving late fees for late property tax payments from COVID-19. Projected revenue
for fiscal year 2020-21 is $308,000.
ALTERNATIVE
Do not adopt the Resolution and go to a less cost-effective billing system by the Finance. This
is not recommended as the City continues to navigate the fiscal impacts of COVID-19.
Attachments:
a - Draft Resolution
Item 4
Packet Page 24
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2020 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE SAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTY AUDITOR TO COLLECT FEES FOR 2020-21 FIRE AND LIFE
SAFETY INSPECTIONS OF MULTI-DWELLING PROPERTIES
CONTAINING THREE OR MORE DWELLING UNITS ON THE
SECURED PROPERTY TAX ROLL PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54988, ET SEQ.
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo is required by California Health & Safety Code
Section 17921 annually to inspect multi-dwelling properties containing three or more dwelling
units, including apartments, certain residential condominiums, hotels, motels, lodging houses and
congregate residences; and
WHEREAS, California Health & Safety Code Section 13146.2 authorizes cities to charge
property owners in recovering the reasonable costs of providing these annual inspections; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with this policy, the Council adopted Resolution Nos. 9799
(2006 Series) and 10790 (2017 Series) updating the master fee schedule, as specifically set forth
in “Exhibit A” hereto, and authorizing the collection of these fees on the secured property tax roll;
and
WHEREAS, the Council desires to continue collection of these fees on the secured
property tax roll for 2020-21.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
Item 4
Packet Page 25
Resolution No. _____ (2020 Series) Page 2
R ______
SECTION 1. Pursuant to California Health & Safety Code Section 13146.2(b) and
Municipal Code Section 3.50, the Council hereby authorizes and directs that Fire and Life Safety
Inspection fees shall be collected on the secured property tax roll by the San Luis Obispo County
Auditor-Controller for fiscal year 2020-21. A listing of fees by assessor’s parcel number shall be
provided to the County Auditor-Controller for collection on the 2020-21 secured property tax roll
in accordance with their schedule and data format requirements, pursuant to California
Government Code 54988, et seq.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2020.
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
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, on _____________________.
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
Item 4
Packet Page 26
Resolution No. _____ (2020 Series) Page 3
R ______
EXHIBIT A
Multi-Dwelling Fire and Life Safety Inspection Fee Schedule
Administrative Fee
Processing per facility $86.63
Each Additional Owner $10.28
Apartment Houses
Up to 10 Units $346.52
11- 20 Units $519.78
21- 50 Units $693.04
51- 100 Units $866.30
101- 200 Units $1386.08
Every additional 100
Units over 200 $346.52
Condominiums
Up to 10 Units $346.52
11- 20 Units $519.78
21- 50 Units $693.04
51- 500 Units $1039.56
Fees are waived for units that are built, owned and managed by the San Luis Obispo Housing
Authority, other governmental agencies or not-for-profit housing organizations.
Hotels, Motels, Lodging Houses, Bed & Breakfast Facilities, Youth Hostel Facilities, Senior
Facilities, Sororities, Fraternities and Other Congregate Residences
1 - 20 units $346.52 per year per facility
21 - 50 units $519.78 per year per facility
51-100 units $866.30 per year per facility
101-200 units $1386.08 per year per facility
Sorority, Fraternity,
Congregate house $693.04
These fees are applicable to all multi-dwelling units in the City based on the following definitions
as set forth in the 2016 California Building Code, Chapter 2: Definitions and Abbreviations,
Section 202 and Chapter 3, Section 310.
Apartment house is any building, or portion thereof, which contains three or more dwelling units,
including R-2 residential condominiums.
Item 4
Packet Page 27
Resolution No. _____ (2020 Series) Page 4
R ______
Congregate residences are any building or portion thereof that contains facilities for living,
sleeping and sanitation, as required by this code, and may include facilities for eating and cooking,
for occupancy by other than a family. A congregate residence may be a shelter, convent,
monastery, dormitory, fraternity or sorority house, but does not include jails, hospitals, nursing
homes, hotels, or lodging houses.
Dwelling unit is any building or portion thereof that contains living facilities, including provisions
for sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation, as required by this code, for not more than one family,
or a congregate residence for ten or less persons.
Hotel is any building containing six or more guest rooms intended or designed to be use, or which
are used, rented or hired out to be occupied, or which are occupied for sleeping purposes by guests.
Lodging house is any building or portion thereof containing not more than five guest rooms where
rent is paid in money, goods, labor or otherwise. (A lodging house includes bed & breakfast
facilities and hostels, but excludes single family dwellings).
Motel shall mean the same as hotel as defined in this code.
Item 4
Packet Page 28
Department Name: Community Development
Cost Center: 4003
For Agenda of: June 2, 2020
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION FOR A CONTRIBUTING
LIST PROPERTY AT 1156 PEACH STREET
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC), adopt a Resolution
(Attachment A) determining that the structure at 1156 Peach Street does not meet eligibility
criteria for listing as an Historic Resource and removing the property from the Contributing
Properties List of Historic Resources.
DISCUSSION
The owner of the property at 1156 Peach Street has applied for a determination of historical
significance of the property and requests that the property be removed from the City’s Inventory
of Historic Resources, as provided in the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (SLOMC §
14.01.060 (C)).
Site and Setting
The property is a residential parcel on the north side of Pacific Street, just west of Toro Street,
within the Mill Street Historic District. The neighborhood is characterized by modest single-
family dwellings built in the early 20th Century.
The site is developed with a single-family dwelling and detached accessory structure, estimated
to have been built between 1909 and 1926. The buildings on the property exhibit characteristics
of the Residential Vernacular style, characterized by their simplicity and with little or no
distinguishing decorative features, lack of any characteristics of recognizable styles. City records
provide sparse information about the property, summarizing the architectural style as “Modified
Plain Cottage” (Attachment B).
Historic Listing
Historic preservation policies are set out in the Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE)
of the City’s General Plan. Significant historic and architectural resources are to be preserved
and rehabilitated, and their demolition, or substantial change to them, is to be avoided (COSE §
3.3). The City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (SLOMC Ch. 14.01) implements these policies.
Item 5
Packet Page 29
Property may be designated as a Contributing List Resource where buildings or other resources
maintain their historic and architectural character, and contribute, by themselves or in
conjunction with other structures, to the unique or historic character of a neighborhood, district,
or to the City as a whole.1 The subject was designated as a “Contributing Property” in 1988
(Resolution 6424).
EVALUATION
The Historic Resource Evaluation prepared for this property by Charles Crotser Architect, AIA,
(Attachment C) evaluates the property against the Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource
Listing provided in § 14.01.070 of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. The author
concludes (Crotser, pg. 8) that the although the residence on the property retains a large measure
of its integrity, no evidence was found that the buildings satisfy listing criteria to a degree
warranting designation as a Contributing List Resource:
“…this evaluation found no compelling evidence of architectural importance of
this building through a connection with person, important historical events,
historical context, or as a community or neighborhood landmark.”
Criteria for Historic Resource Listing
In order to be eligible for historical designation, a resource must exhibit a high level of historic
integrity and satisfy at least one of the evaluation criteria listed in § 14.01.070 of the City’s
Historic Preservation Ordinance. The Ordinance also provides that, while it is the general intent
that property not be removed from historic listing, property may be removed if it is found to no
longer meet eligibility criteria for listing (§ 14.01.060 (C)). In evaluating the historic significance
of the property, the CHC considered whether, and to what degree, the property satisfies these
criteria. For convenience, these criteria have been provided for reference as Attachment D to this
report. The following provides a summary of the assessment of the historical status of 1156
Peach Street, as provided in the Crotser Evaluation.
Architectural Criteria (§ 14.01.070 (A))
Style and Design. The structures on this property can be described as an example of the
Residential Vernacular Style: a simple style lacking characteristics of other recognizable styles
(see Attachment E). The Crotser evaluation notes that primary dwelling on the site does not
represent a unique example of architecture for the area, and does not exhibit significant or
distinctive features that distinguish it from other buildings in the area (Crotser, pg. 5).
Architect. The evaluation provided includes a search of permit records related to the construction
of the buildings on the site, which provided no indication of their architect or builder.
1 See Historic Preservation Ordinance § 14.01.020 for definition of Contributing List Resource or Property.
Item 5
Packet Page 30
Historic Criteria (§ 14.01.070 (B))
Similarly, the literature search performed for the evaluation did not uncover evidence of any
association of the property with persons or events significant to local history (Crotser pg. 5).
There is no evidence that the property was associated with any famous or “first-of-its-kind”
event and its construction is not considered to be a notably important, unique, or distinctly
interesting contribution to the City. The home can be associated with early residential
development of the City, but this does not constitute a notable early, first, or major pattern of
local history elevating the structure to the level of historic significance
Integrity
The Crotser Evaluation notes that apart from minor modifications and routine wear and tear
commensurate with the age of the structure, much of the original form and basic character of the
dwelling have been retained (Crotser, pg. 7). Nevertheless, the retained integrity of the structure
does not rise to a level that would, alone, qualify the building for historical listing.
Previous Advisory Body Action
On April 27, 2020 the Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed the request and recommended that
the City Council remove the property from the Contributing Properties List of Historic
Resources. The Committee noted that accessory structure at the rear of the property exhibited an
interesting method of construction associated with structures built in the earliest periods of
California’s history as a state, and while they did not find that the method of construction
elevated the structure to a level of historic significance, they did recommend that the shed
structure and its construction be documented, prior to its demolition. A condition of approval
(Condition #1) has been provided in the Draft Resolution (Attachment A).
Policy Context
The recommended action on this item is supported by historical preservation policies set out
section 3.0 of the Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan, and with
procedures and standards for listing of historic resources set out in §§ 14.01.060 & 14.01.070 of
the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Public Engagement
Public notice of this hearing has been provided to owners and occupants of property near the
subject site, and published in a widely circulated local newspaper, and hearing agendas for this
meeting have been posted at City Hall, consistent with adopted notification procedures for
development projects.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Consideration of continued eligibility of this property for historic listing is exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as it is does not have the
potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and so is covered by the general
rule described in CEQA Guidelines § 15061 (b) (3). The determination of continued eligibility
for historic listing is limited to review of whether the subject site remains eligible for historic
resource listing according to the criteria set forth in the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinanc e.
Item 5
Packet Page 31
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: No Budget Year: 2019-20
Funding Identified: No
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding Sources Current FY Cost
Annualized
On-going Cost
Total Project
Cost
General Fund $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
State $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Federal $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Fees $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Other: $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Total $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
The project will have no fiscal impacts since the property is not currently eligible for historic
preservation benefits (i.e. Mills Act) and the historic designation of the property has no bearing
on City fiscal resources.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Maintain 1156 Peach Street on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources, based on findings
that satisfy the criteria for Historic Resource Listing set out in the City’s Historic
Preservation Ordinance.
2. Continue the item for additional information or discussion.
Attachments:
a - Draft Resolution
b - Architectural Worksheet
c - COUNCIL READING FILE - Historic Resource Evaluation (Crotser)
d - Evaluation Criteria
e - Residential Vernacular (Historic Context Statement)
Item 5
Packet Page 32
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2020 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, REMOVING THE PROPERTY AT 1156 PEACH
STREET FROM THE CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES LIST OF
HISTORIC RESOURCES (1156 PEACH ST, HIST-0036-2020)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Ivan L. Lapidus, submitted on January 21, 2020 an application
to remove the property located at 1156 Peach Street (“the Property”) from the Contributing
Properties List of Historic Resources (HIST -0036-2020); and
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted
a public hearing via teleconference from the City of San Luis Obispo, California on April 27, 2020
to consider the application, and recommended that the City Council remove the Property from the
Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources with the request that documentation be provided
on the shed structure at the rear of the property, prior to demolition ; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
via teleconference from the City of San Luis Obispo, California on June 2, 2020 for the purpose
of considering removal of the Property from the Contributing Properties List of Historic
Resources; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings made at the time and in the manner required
by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the record of
the Cultural Heritage Committee hearing and recommendation, testimony of the applicant and
interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Council makes the following
findings:
a) The property is not historically significant under the Architectural Criteria set out in
§ 14.01.070 (A) of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. The primary dwelling
on the property does not represent a unique example of architecture for the area, and
does not exhibit significant or distinctive features that distinguish it from other
buildings in the area, nor does it exhibit any particular expression of artistic merit,
details, or craftsmanship. No significant architect is associated with the building. A
condition of approval (Condition #1) requires that the accessory shed at the rear of the
property be documented in order to record its characteristic construction method.
Item 5
Packet Page 33
Resolution No. _____ (2020 Series) Page 2
R _____
b) The property is not historically significant under the Historic Criteria set out in
§ 14.01.070 (B) of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. It has no known
association with persons or events significant to local history and its construction is not
considered to be a notably important, unique, or distinctly interesting contribution to
the City. Its association with early residential development of the City does not
constitute an association with patterns of local history that would elevate the structures
to the level of historic significance.
c) The removal of the property from the City’s Contributing Properties List of Historic
Resources is consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance because the buildings
on the property lack significance within the historical contexts addressed by the
Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing set out in § 14.01.070 of the City’s
Historic Preservation Ordinance. The eligibility of the property for inclusion in the
City’s Inventory of Historic Resources has been formally evaluated by an architectural
historian. As described in historic resource evaluation prepared for the property, the
primary structure on the property does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s criteria
for significance, does not meet the level of significance required by the California
Public Resources Code, and thus does not rise to the level of a significant cultural
resource. The evaluation supports the conclusion that the property is not a candidate
for inclusion on the City’s Inventory and is not a historical resource for the purposes of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. Consideration of continuing eligibility of this
property for historic listing is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). The determination of continued eligibility for historic listing is limited to review of
whether the subject site remains eligible for historic resource listing according to the criteria set
forth in the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. A determination that the property is not eligible
for historic listing will cause the removal of the property from the City's Inventory of Historic
Resources, but will have no direct physical effect on the environment, as the determination does
not approve any physical site development. As such, it is does not have the potential for causing a
significant effect on the environment and is covered by the general rule described in CEQA
Guidelines §15061(b)(3).
Item 5
Packet Page 34
Resolution No. _____ (2020 Series) Page 3
R _____
SECTION 3. Action. The City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo does hereby
determine that the structures located on the Property do not meet eligibility criteria for listing as
Historic Resources and removes the Property from the Contributing Properties List of Historic
Resources, subject to the following condition:
1. Before the issuance of any demolition permit for structures on the property, the
accessory shed at the rear of the property shall be documented as specified in City
standards, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
Upon motion of Council Member ______ , seconded by Council Member ______ , and
on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _______ 2020.
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
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, on _____________________.
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
Item 5
Packet Page 35
Item 5
Packet Page 36
Item 5
Packet Page 37
12
Zoning, or remove the property from historic listing if the structure on the property no longer
meets eligibility criteria for listing, following the process for listing set forth herein.
14.01.070. Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing
When determining if a property should be designated as a listed Historic or Cultural Resource,
the CHC and City Council shall consider this ordinance and State Historic Preservation Office
(“SHPO”) standards. In order to be eligible for designation, the resource shall exhibit a high
level of historic integrity, be at least fifty (50) years old (less than 50 if it can be demonstrated
that enough time has passed to understand its historical importance) and satisfy at least one of the
following criteria:
A. Architectural Criteria: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or
method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values.
(1) Style: Describes the form of a building, such as size, structural shape and details
within that form (e.g. arrangement of windows and doors, ornamentation, etc.). Building
style will be evaluated as a measure of:
a. The relative purity of a traditional style;
b. Rarity of existence at any time in the locale; and/or current rarity although the
structure reflects a once popular style;
c. Traditional, vernacular and/or eclectic influences that represent a particular social
milieu and period of the community; and/or the uniqueness of hybrid styles and how
these styles are put together.
(2) Design: Describes the architectural concept of a structure and the quality of artistic
merit and craftsmanship of the individual parts. Reflects how well a particular style or
combination of styles are expressed through compatibility and detailing of elements.
Also, suggests degree to which the designer (e.g., carpenter-builder) accurately
interpreted and conveyed the style(s). Building design will be evaluated as a measure of:
a. Notable attractiveness with aesthetic appeal because of its artistic merit, details and
craftsmanship (even if not necessarily unique);
b. An expression of interesting details and eclecticism among carpenter-builders,
although the craftsmanship and artistic quality may not be superior.
(3) Architect: Describes the professional (an individual or firm) directly responsible for
the building design and plans of the structure. The architect will be evaluated as a
reference to:
Wtem29
Packet2Page28B
13
a. A notable architect (e.g., Wright, Morgan), including architects who made
significant contributions to the state or region, or an architect whose work influenced
development of the city, state or nation.
b. An architect who, in terms of craftsmanship, made significant contributions to San
Luis Obispo (e.g., Abrahams who, according to local sources, designed the house at
810 Osos - Frank Avila's father's home - built between 1927 – 30).
B. Historic Criteria
(1) History – Person: Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California,
or national history. Historic person will be evaluated as a measure of the degree to which
a person or group was:
a. Significant to the community as a public leader (e.g., mayor, congress member,
etc.) or for his or her fame and outstanding recognition - locally, regionally, or
nationally.
b. Significant to the community as a public servant or person who made early, unique,
or outstanding contributions to the community, important local affairs or institutions
(e.g., council members, educators, medical professionals, clergymen, railroad
officials).
(2) History – Event: Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to
the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the
United States. Historic event will be evaluated as a measure of:
(i) A landmark, famous, or first-of-its-kind event for the city - regardless of whether
the impact of the event spread beyond the city.
(ii) A relatively unique, important or interesting contribution to the city (e.g., the Ah
Louis Store as the center for Chinese-American cultural activities in early San Luis
Obispo history).
(3) History-Context: Associated with and also a prime illustration of predominant
patterns of political, social, economic, cultural, medical, educational, governmental,
military, industrial, or religious history. Historic context will be evaluated as a measure
of the degree to which it reflects:
a. Early, first, or major patterns of local history, regardless of whether the historic
effects go beyond the city level, that are intimately connected with the building (e.g.,
County Museum).
b. Secondary patterns of local history, but closely associated with the building (e.g.,
Park Hotel).
Wtem29
Packet2Page28(
14
C. Integrity: Authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the
survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance. Integrity
will be evaluated by a measure of:
(1) Whether or not a structure occupies its original site and/or whether or not the
original foundation has been changed, if known.
(2) The degree to which the structure has maintained enough of its historic character
or appearance to be recognizable as an historic resource and to convey the reason(s)
for its significance.
(3) The degree to which the resource has retained its design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling and association.
14.01.080 Historic District Designation, Purpose and Application
A. Historic (H) District designation. All properties within historic districts shall be designated
by an “H” zoning. Properties zoned “H” shall be subject to the provisions and standards as
provided in Ordinance 17.54 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code.
B. Purposes of Historic Districts. The purposes of historic districts and H zone designation are
to:
(1) Implement cultural resource preservation policies of the General Plan, the
preservation provisions of adopted area plans, the Historic Preservation and
Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines, and
(2) Identify and preserve definable, unified geographical entities that possess a significant
concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united
historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development;
(3) Implement historic preservation provisions of adopted area and neighborhood
improvement plans;
(4) Enhance and preserve the setting of historic resources so that surrounding land uses
and structures do not detract from the historic or architectural integrity of designated
historic resources and districts; and
(5) Promote the public understanding and appreciation of historic resources.
C. Eligibility for incentives. Properties zoned as Historic Preservation (H) shall be eligible for
preservation incentive and benefit programs as established herein, in the Guidelines and other
local, state and federal programs.
Wtem29
Packet2Page206
City of San Luis Obispo Architectural Character
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
139
RESIDENTIAL VERNACULAR
The term “Residential Vernacular” is used to describe simple houses or cottages with little or no
distinguishing decorative features. These buildings are characterized by their simplicity and lack of any
characteristics of recognizable styles.
Character-defining features include:
Simple square or rectangular form
Gabled or hipped roof with boxed or open eaves
Wood exterior cladding
Simple window and door surrounds
Fitzpatrick House, 670 Islay Street, 1880. Source: Historic
Resources Group.
Foreman House, 1500 Eto Street, 1878. Source: City of
San Luis Obispo.
Anderson House, 532 Dana Street, 1898.
Source: City of San Luis Obispo.
Item 5
Packet Page 41
Page intentionally left
blank.
Item 5
Packet Page 42
Department Name: Fire
Cost Center: 8599
For Agenda of: June 2, 2020
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Keith Aggson, Fire Chief
Prepared By: James Blattler, Administrative Analyst
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO ADOPT THE MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD
MITIGATION PLAN.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution (Attachment A) approving the Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
2019 Update (Attachment B) and accompanying City specific annex (Attachment C).
DISCUSSION
Through the Hazard Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000), the US Congress set a goal to
encourage local governments and states to develop plans and undertake projects to mitigate the
impact of natural disasters to a community before disasters occur. Federal requirements
established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as a result of this
legislation, include a requirement that hazard mitigation plans (HMP) be reviewed and updated a
minimum of every five years, and following any major disaster declaration, to maintain
eligibility for funding and technical assistance from State and Federal hazard mitigation
programs.
As with other agencies in San Luis Obispo County, the City of San Luis Obispo has h istorically
completed HMPs locally. In 2018 the County of San Luis Obispo’s Office of Emergency
Services proposed creating a Multi-Jurisdictional HMP for all interested cities, community
services districts and special districts and received grant funding to complete this endeavor. The
plan would meet federal and state requirements, create efficiencies for supporting agencies and
provide cost savings to the participating agencies.
The proposed timeline fit within the City of San Luis Obispo’s need to update the existing 2014
HMP and would ensure the plan was properly updated and maintained. In response, the City
agreed to participate in the multi-jurisdictional plan along with twenty (20) other agencies. The
participating agencies include the County of San Luis Obispo, seven (7) cities, nine (9)
community services districts and four (4) special districts, all of which are identified in the plan.
The Multi-Jurisdictional HMP draft was completed in October of 2019 and was submitted to
CalOES and FEMA for review. FEMA provided approval pending adoption on April 7, 2020.
Once the plan is adopted by all participating agencies, the County of San Luis Obispo can adopt
the overall plan. After all adoptions have been competed, FEMA can formally approve the plan.
Item 6
Packet Page 43
The San Luis Obispo Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) represents the
County’s and participating agencies primary hazard mitigation guidance document. Providing an
updated analysis of each jurisdiction’s historical and current hazards, hazard mitigation goals and
objectives, and hazard mitigation strategies and actions. The plan also represents the City of San
Luis Obispo and region’s overall commitment to supporting a comprehensive mitigation strategy
to reduce or eliminate potential risks and impacts of disasters in order to promote faster recovery
after disasters and an overall more resilient region.
The Planning Process
Through the grant secured by the County, a contractor was hired to oversee the project with the
County, which led the participating agencies. The planning process was developed for the HMP
using the DMA 2000 planning requirements and FEMA’s associated guidance. The original
FEMA planning guidance is structured around a four-phase process however, the team integrated
a more detailed 10-step planning process used for FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS)
and Flood Mitigation Assistance programs. Thus, the modified 10-step process used for this plan
meets the requirements of major grant programs including: FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program, Pre-Disaster Mitigation program, Flood Mitigation Assistance Program, and flood
control projects authorized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The DMA 2000 planning
requirements are identified in their appropriate sections throughout the HMP.
(1) Organize Resources
1. Organize the Planning Effort
2. Involve the Public
3. Coordinate with other departments and agencies
(2) Assess Risks
4. Identify the Hazards
5. Assess the Risks
(3) Develop the Mitigation Plan
6. Set Goals
7. Review Possible Activities
8. Draft and Action Plan
(4) Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress.
9. Adopt the Plan
10. Implement, Evaluate and Revise the Plan
Plan Organization
The Multi-Jurisdictional HMP consists of eight sections, jurisdictional specific annexes
(Attachment D) and appendices (Attachment E) as described below. The eight sections are
written at the County level however the sections are repeated in each jurisdictional annex
specific to each agency. The HMP and supporting annexes and appendices are lengthy and as
such Council should direct their plan review to the “Introduction and Executive Summary”
located in Attachment B and the City of San Luis Obispo specific annex located in
Attachment C.
1. Promulgation and Adoption - Includes history of previous adoptions.
2. Introduction and Executive Summary – Provides a plan description purpose and
Item 6
Packet Page 44
authority.
3. Planning Process – Describes and documents the planning process including
coordination among agencies and the key stakeholders. In addition, this section
documents the public participation process.
4. County Profile – Provides County history, geography, demographics, population
profile, economy, climate, transportation, land use and development trends.
5. Risk Assessment – Describes the process through which the HMP team identified
and prioritized relevant hazards including methodology and results. This section
also provides disaster declaration history, climate change consideration summary,
asset summary and detailed hazard analysis and risk assessment for each
identified hazard.
6. Capability Assessment - Presents San Luis Obispo County’s mitigation
capabilities: programs and policies currently in use to reduce hazard impacts or
that could be used to implement hazard mitigation activities. It also identifies
select state and federal departments/agencies that can supplement the County’s
mitigation capabilities.
7. Mitigation Strategy – Describes mitigation goals and objectives, identification
and analysis of mitigation actions and a mitigation action plan.
8. Implementation and Monitoring – Describes the role of the HMP planning
committee in implementation and maintenance and processes for incorporation
into existing planning mechanisms. This section also outlines maintenance
monitoring and evaluation and continued public involvement.
• Jurisdictional Annexes – Developed annexes for the participating agencies
including cities, community services districts and special districts. The City of
San Luis Obispo annex is “Annex G” and provided as a separate attachment to
this report for review purposes only.
• Appendices – (A) Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee; (B) Mitigation
Categories, Alternatives, and Selection Criteria; (C) Planning Process
Documentation; (D) Jurisdiction Adoption Resolutions; (E) Critical Facilities;
(F) Climate Change Adaptation Planning Guide Consistency Summary; (G)
Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience Statutory Consistency Summary;
(H) References.
City of San Luis Obispo Annex
This Jurisdictional Annex builds upon and supersedes the 2014 City of San Luis Obispo Local
HMP. The annex matches the content identified in sections 1 through 8 of the Multi-
Jurisdictional HMP but does so in a manner that is specific to the City of San Luis Obispo. The
City of San Luis Obispo Planning Team determined the two goals from the 2014 LHMP
continue to be appropriate for this plan update, with the new addition of a third goal to address
hazards exacerbated by the impacts of climate change. The following are the City of San Luis
Obispo’s 2019 mitigation goals:
1. Cultivate a disaster-resistant and resilient community through implementation of risk
reduction measures and increased public awareness to prepare for, respond to, and
recover from natural and human-caused hazard events.
2. Reduce the severity of damage and losses due to natural and human-caused hazards.
3. Prepare for and adapt to the impacts of climate change (new goal).
Item 6
Packet Page 45
Contained in this Annex is the City of San Luis Obispo’s Mitigation Action Plan, which
identifies implementation strategies, the responsible agency/department, potential funding,
estimated cost, and implementation schedule City Staff will utilize to accomplish the goals listed
above. Implementation and maintenance of the City’s Annex in the HMP will be coordinated
with City Staff and the Multi-Jurisdictional HMP team.
Previous Council Action
• In 2014, the San Luis Obispo City Council adopted the City’s first updated Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan (LHMP).
• In 2006, the San Luis Obispo City Council adopted the City’s first LHMP.
Policy Context
Agencies are required to review and revise its HMP and resubmit it for FEMA approval at least
every five years Pursuant to 44 Code of Federal Regulations §201.4 and §201.5 to ensure the
continued eligibility of Stafford Act funding. This includes eligibility for FEMA's hazard
mitigation assistance programs: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Pre-Disaster
Mitigation (PDM), and Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA). This also includes eligibility for the
Fire Management Assistance Grant (FMAG) Program and Public Assistance (PA) grants
(Categories C-G). Additionally, with an approved and adopted HMP, agencies remain eligible
for the reduced cost share for grants awarded under the Flood Mitigation Assistance grant
programs.
The 2014 Plan was not integrated into the City’s Land Use Element; that integration is planned
to be done after the approval of this updated Plan. The General Plan Safety Element references
the 2014 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan in Chapter 5:
The City of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan presents a comprehensive
risk assessment of natural hazards that have the potential to affect the City of San Luis
Obispo. The Local Hazard Mitigation Plan was developed by the City in accordance with
the Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, adopted by the City Council and approved
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
suggests possible mitigation actions for reducing the effects of potential hazards. It is
incorporated by reference into the Safety Element and should be consulted when
addressing known hazards to ensure the general health and safety of people within the
City of San Luis Obispo. The goals and policies within this Safety Element support and
are consistent with the recommended mitigation strategy within the Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan.
Public Engagement
Involving the public is a critical part of the planning process and required per the D MA 2000.
The public had many opportunities to provide input on the plan including:
• Public Workshop – March 19, 2019
• Online Public Survey – March 2019 to May 14, 2019
• Public Workshop – April 30, 2019
• Public Review of Draft Plan – October 14, 2019 to November 15, 2019
Item 6
Packet Page 46
CONCURRENCE
All City departments were involved in the updating of the City’s annex in the Multi -
Jurisdictional HMP.
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. 15378.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: 2019-20
Funding Identified: Yes/No
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding Sources Current FY Cost
Annualized
On-going Cost
Total Project
Cost
General Fund $4,500 $4,500
State
Federal
Fees
Other:
Total $4,500 $4,500
No additional fiscal impact is associated with the recommendation of adopting the HMP. The
County of San Luis Obispo secured a grant to develop the Multi-Jurisdictional HMP. Each
participating agency was required to provide a matching contribution based on the proportional
population. The City of San Luis Obispo’s portion was determined to be 25%, which was
estimated at $7,500. The project cost was less than originally projected and the final cost to the
City was $4,500. The $3,000 in savings will be returned to the designated Fire Department
Disaster Assistance account from which the City’s contribution was paid.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Council could direct staff to further modify the City’s Annex and return for approval at a
later date. Delaying adoption is not advised as this would restrict the City from applying for
future grants and jeopardize current grants to implement hazard mitigation projects prior to a
disaster event.
2. Do not adopt the proposed update to the HMP. This is not advised because this would
restrict the City from applying for future grants and jeopardize current grants to implement
hazard mitigation projects prior to a disaster event
Item 6
Packet Page 47
Attachments:
a - Draft Resolution
b - COUNCIL READING FILE - San Luis Obispo County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard
Mitigation Plan 2019 Update
c - COUNCIL READING FILE - Annex G: City of San Luis Obispo
d - COUNCIL READING FILE - Jurisdictional Annexes
e - COUNCIL READING FILE - Plan Appendices
Item 6
Packet Page 48
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2020 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE DISASTER MITIGATION
ACT (DMA 2000) COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MULTI-
JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2019 UPDATE
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has the potential to experience disasters that can
damage commercial, residential, and public properties, displace citizens and businesses, close
streets and bridges, and present public health and safety concerns; and
WHEREAS, similarly, the County and surrounding agencies equally face the potential to
experience disasters that can damage commercial, residential, and public properties, displace
citizens and businesses, close streets and bridges, and present public health and safety concerns;
and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo believes in regionalism and cooperation to
improve the preparedness and resiliency of the Region through effective and cooperative
mitigation efforts; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo participated in the County’s first Multi-
Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan; and
WHEREAS, the 2019 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan will serve as the City
of San Luis Obispo’s required update of the 2014 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; and
WHEREAS, City departments, participating partner agencies, community partner
organizations and the public have contributed to the development of the Multi-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan to meet the requirements of the Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000;
and
WHEREAS the City of San Luis Obispo is committed to implementing the actions
contained within this plan; and
WHEREAS the Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan will be reviewed annually
and revised as necessary to meet changing conditions.
Item 6
Packet Page 49
Resolution No. _____ (2020 Series) Page 2
R ______
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo that the plan entitled “San Luis Obispo County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation
Plan” is hereby adopted, a copy of which will be kept on file by the City Clerk in the form adopted
herein.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2020.
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
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, on _____________________.
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
Item 6
Packet Page 50
Department Name: Administration & IT
Cost Center: 1101
For Agenda of: June 2, 2020
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Greg Hermann, Deputy City Manager
Prepared By: Lynn Wilwand, Administrative Analyst
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS RESEARCH INSTITUTE (ESRI)
ENTERPRISE LICENSE RENEWAL
RECOMMENDATION
Approve an agreement with Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), Inc. for a three -
year, small Government Enterprise License Agreement (ELA) in the amount of $112,100
payable on an annual basis at $36,100 for the first year, $37,500 for the second year, and $38,500
for the third year (Attachment A).
DISCUSSION
The City of San Luis Obispo utilizes ESRI software application products for all the City’s
Geographic Information System (GIS) software needs. The ESRI-ELA provides:
1. An unlimited number of licenses for ArcGIS Desktop.
2. An unlimited number of licenses for ArcGIS Server.
3. An unlimited number of licenses for extensions in ArcGIS desktop and ArcGIS Server.
4. ArcGIS Online account.
5. Technical support and software maintenance.
6. Self-Paced e-Learning
The continuation of the ESRI-ELA is required to continue to provide critical GIS services used
throughout the City. All GIS analysis and mapping performed by the GIS staff requires ESRI
software. ESRI GIS software is required for citywide enterprise software systems such as
Cityworks and EnerGov as they are all GIS Centric, meaning that the applications requires the
ESRI platform to provide GIS maps and layers enabling Cityworks and EnerGov to manage
assets, parcels, permit and work history. In addition, the Spillman Public Safety Computer Aided
Dispatch and Records management System (CAD/RMS) utilizes ESRI for their dispatch, critical
incident mapping, Crime Analysis, Automatic Vehicle Location and Quickest Route systems.
Without the ESRI Suite of applications the citywide enterprise systems would not function.
Background
The City has utilized the ESRI GIS software suite of applications since 1995. ESRI is the only
vendor that provides the GIS software and applications that the City requires to power all the
critical enterprise systems, which are now all GIS-centric. ESRI software solutions meet all the
City’s needs and continues to mature to meet new technology changes and requirements.
Item 7
Packet Page 51
Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
The ESRI Enterprise license agreement was renewed by Council on 7-18-2017 Item 09.
COVID-19 Fiscal Health Contingency Plan Evaluation of Necessity
ESRI supplies geographic information system (GIS) software, web GIS and geodatabase
management applications. Through this platform the City utilizes ESRI to provide critical and
operational services throughout the City with enterprise programs such as Public Safety’s
CAD/RMS; EnerGov for permitting, planning, and fees; Cityworks to manage assets and work
history.
CONCURRENCE
All City Departments are supported directly or indirectly through GIS and support the
recommendation.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to the recommended act ion in this
report, because the action does not constitute a “Project” under CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15378.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: 2020-21
Funding Identified: Yes
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding Sources 2021 FY Cost
Annualized
On-going Cost
Total Cost
General Fund $36,100 $37,500/$38,000 $112,100
State
Federal
Fees
Other:
Total $36,100 $37,500/$38,000 $112,100
Continuing the ESRI-ELA for an additional three years will cost a total of $112,100, paid
annually ($36,100 year 1, $37,500 year 2 and $38,500 year 3). Since 1995, budget has been
approved in the Information Services Program’s operating budget on an annual basis to cover the
expense. The Information Services Program operating budget, as presented on June 2, 2020, with
the Budget Supplement therefore it includes the funding for FY2021 (Attachment B).
ALTERNATIVES
Do not approve the purchase. This alternative is not recommended as without the ESRI-ELA,
the City cannot maintain and support the current level of critical GIS services. Enterprise
Systems would not function without ESRI products.
Item 7
Packet Page 52
Attachments:
a - ESRI Quote Q-409932 and Agreement
b - Sole Source Justification_ESRI ELA 3 year agreement
Item 7
Packet Page 53
Quotation # Q-409932
Date: March 6, 2020
Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.
380 New York St
Redlands, CA 92373-8100
Phone: (909) 793-2853 Fax: (909) 307-3049
DUNS Number: 06-313-4175 CAGE Code: 0AMS3
Customer # 107504 Contract #
City of San Luis Obispo
Administration
919 Palm St
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
To expedite your order, please attach a copy of ATTENTION:David Yun
this quotation to your purchase order. PHONE:(805) 781-7189
Quote is valid from: 3/6/2020 To: 6/4/2020 EMAIL:dyun@slocity.org
Material Qty Term Unit Price Total
168178 1 Year 1 $36,100.00 $36,100.00
Populations of 25,001 to 50,000 Small Government Term Enterprise License Agreement
168178 1 Year 2 $37,500.00 $37,500.00
Populations of 25,001 to 50,000 Small Government Term Enterprise License Agreement
168178 1 Year 3 $38,500.00 $38,500.00
Populations of 25,001 to 50,000 Small Government Term Enterprise License Agreement
Subtotal:$112,100.00
Sales Tax:$0.00
Estimated Shipping and Handling (2 Day Delivery):$0.00
Contract Price Adjust:$0.00
Total:$112,100.00
The phased pricing quoted here is a onetime offer and valid through the 3 year term of this Enterprise Agreement. The Enterprise
Agreement renewal fee will be based on the List Price at the time of Renewal.
Esri may charge a fee to cover expenses related to any customer requirement to use a proprietary vendor management, procurement, or invoice program.
For questions contact:
Jacqueline Scott
Email:
jacqueline_scott@esri.com
Phone:
(909) 793-2853 x1650
The items on this quotation are subject to and governed by the terms of this quotation, the most current product specific scope of use document
found at https://assets.esri.com/content/dam/esrisites/media/legal/product-specific-terms-of-use/e300.pdf, and your applicable signed agreement
with Esri. If no such agreement covers any item quoted, then Esri’s standard terms and conditions found at https://go.esri.com/MAPS apply to your
purchase of that item. Federal government entities and government prime contractors authorized under FAR 51.1 may purchase under the terms of
Esri’s GSA Federal Supply Schedule. Supplemental terms and conditions found at https://www.esri.com/en-us/legal/terms/state-supplemental apply
to some state and local government purchases. All terms of this quotation will be incorporated into and become part of any additional agreement
regarding Esri’s offerings. Acceptance of this quotation is limited to the terms of this quotation. Esri objects to and expressly rejects any different
or additional terms contained in any purchase order, offer, or confirmation sent to or to be sent by buyer. Unless prohibited by law, the quotation
information is confidential and may not be copied or released other than for the express purpose of system selection and purchase/license. The
information may not be given to outside parties or used for any other purpose without consent from Esri. Delivery is FOB Origin.
SCOTTJ This offer is limited to the terms and conditions incorporated and attached herein.
Item 7
Packet Page 54
Esri Use Only:
Cust. Name
Cust. #
PO #
Esri Agreement #
Page 1 of 6 February 1, 2020
SMALL ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT
COUNTY AND MUNICIPALITY GOVERNMENT
(E214-2)
This Agreement is by and between the organization identified in the Quotation ("Customer") and Environmental
Systems Research Institute, Inc. ("Esri").
This Agreement sets forth the terms for Customer's use of Products and incorporates by reference (i) the
Quotation and (ii) the Master Agreement. Should there be any conflict between the terms and conditions of the
documents that comprise this Agreement, the order of precedence for the documents shall be as follows: (i) the
Quotation, (ii) this Agreement, and (iii) the Master Agreement. This Agreement shall be governed by and
construed in accordance with the laws of the state in which Customer is located without reference to conflict of
laws principles, and the United States of America federal law shall govern in matters of intellectual property. The
modifications and additional rights granted in this Agreement apply only to the Products listed in Table A.
Table A
List of Products
Uncapped Quantities
Desktop Software and Extensions (Single Use)
ArcGIS Desktop Advanced
ArcGIS Desktop Standard
ArcGIS Desktop Basic
ArcGIS Desktop Extensions: ArcGIS 3D Analyst,
ArcGIS Spatial Analyst, ArcGIS Geostatistical
Analyst, ArcGIS Publisher, ArcGIS Network
Analyst, ArcGIS Schematics, ArcGIS Workflow
Manager, ArcGIS Data Reviewer
Enterprise Software and Extensions
ArcGIS Enterprise and Workgroup
(Advanced and Standard)
ArcGIS Enterprise Extensions: ArcGIS 3D Analyst,
ArcGIS Spatial Analyst, ArcGIS Geostatistical
Analyst, ArcGIS Network Analyst, ArcGIS
Schematics, ArcGIS Workflow Manager
ArcGIS Monitor
Enterprise Additional Capability Servers
ArcGIS Image Server
Developer Tools
ArcGIS Engine
ArcGIS Engine Extensions: ArcGIS 3D Analyst,
ArcGIS Spatial Analyst, ArcGIS Engine Geodatabase
Update, ArcGIS Network Analyst, ArcGIS Schematics
ArcGIS Runtime (Standard)
ArcGIS Runtime Analysis Extension
Limited Quantities
One (1) Professional subscription to ArcGIS Developer
Two (2) Esri CityEngine Single Use Licenses
100 ArcGIS Online Viewers
100 ArcGIS Online Creators
17,500 ArcGIS Online Service Credits
100 ArcGIS Enterprise Creators
3 Insights in ArcGIS Enterprise
3 Insights in ArcGIS Online
10 Tracker for ArcGIS Enterprise
10 Tracker for ArcGIS Online
3 ArcGIS Parcel Fabric User Type Extensions (Enterprise)
3 ArcGIS Utility Network User Type Extensions (Enterprise)
OTHER BENEFITS
Number of Esri User Conference registrations provided annually 3
Number of Tier 1 Help Desk individuals authorized to call Esri 3
Maximum number of sets of backup media, if requested* 2
Self-Paced e-Learning Uncapped
Five percent (5%) discount on all individual commercially available instructor-led training classes at Esri
facilities purchased outside this Agreement
*Additional sets of backup media may be purchased for a fee
Item 7
Packet Page 55
Page 2 of 6 February 1, 2020
Customer may accept this Agreement by signing and returning the whole Agreement with (i) the Quotation
attached, (ii) a purchase order, or (iii) another document that matches the Quotation and references this
Agreement ("Ordering Document"). ADDITIONAL OR CONFLICTING TERMS IN CUSTOMER'S PURCHASE
ORDER OR OTHER DOCUMENT WILL NOT APPLY, AND THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT WILL
GOVERN. This Agreement is effective as of the date of Esri's receipt of an Ordering Document, unless otherwise
agreed to by the parties ("Effective Date").
Term of Agreement: Three (3) years
This Agreement supersedes any previous agreements, proposals, presentations, understandings, and
arrangements between the parties relating to the licensing of the Products. Except as provided in Article 4—
Product Updates, no modifications can be made to this Agreement.
Accepted and Agreed:
(Customer)
By:
Authorized Signature
Printed Name:
Title:
Date:
CUSTOMER CONTACT INFORMATION
Contact: Telephone:
Address: Fax:
City, State, Postal Code: E-mail:
Country:
Quotation Number (if applicable):
Item 7
Packet Page 56
Page 3 of 6 February 1, 2020
1.0—ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS
In addition to the definitions provided in the Master
Agreement, the following definitions apply to this
Agreement:
"Case" means a failure of the Software or Online
Services to operate according to the Documentation
where such failure substantially impacts operational
or functional performance.
"Deploy", "Deployed" and "Deployment" mean to
redistribute and install the Products and related
Authorization Codes within Customer's
organization(s).
"Fee" means the fee set forth in the Quotation.
"Maintenance" means Tier 2 Support, Product
updates, and Product patches provided to Customer
during the Term of Agreement.
"Master Agreement" means the applicable master
agreement for Esri Products incorporated by this
reference that is (i) found at
https://www.esri.com/en-us/legal/terms/full-master-
agreement and available in the installation process
requiring acceptance by electronic acknowledgment
or (ii) a signed Esri master agreement or license
agreement that supersedes such electronically
acknowledged master agreement.
"Product(s)" means the products identified in
Table A—List of Products and any updates to the list
Esri provides in writing.
"Quotation" means the offer letter and quotation
provided separately to Customer.
"Technical Support" means the technical
assistance for attempting resolution of a reported
Case through error correction, patches, hot fixes,
workarounds, replacement deliveries, or any other
type of Product corrections or modifications.
"Tier 1 Help Desk" means Customer's point of
contact(s) to provide all Tier 1 Support within
Customer's organization(s).
"Tier 1 Support" means the Technical Support
provided by the Tier 1 Help Desk.
"Tier 2 Support" means the Esri Technical Support
provided to the Tier 1 Help Desk when a Case
cannot be resolved through Tier 1 Support.
2.0—ADDITIONAL GRANT OF LICENSE
2.1 Grant of License. Subject to the terms and
conditions of this Agreement, Esri grants to
Customer a personal, nonexclusive,
nontransferable license solely to use, copy, and
Deploy quantities of the Products listed in
Table A—List of Products for the Term of
Agreement (i) for the applicable Fee and (ii) in
accordance with the Master Agreement.
2.2 Consultant Access. Esri grants Customer the
right to permit Customer's consultants or
contractors to use the Products exclusively for
Customer's benefit. Customer will be solely
responsible for compliance by consultants and
contractors with this Agreement and will ensure
that the consultant or contractor discontinues
use of Products upon completion of work for
Customer. Access to or use of Products by
consultants or contractors not exclusively for
Customer's benefit is prohibited. Customer may
not permit its consultants or contractors to install
Software or Data on consultant, contractor, or
third-party computers or remove Software or
Data from Customer locations, except for the
purpose of hosting the Software or Data on
Contractor servers for the benefit of Customer.
3.0—TERM, TERMINATION, AND EXPIRATION
3.1 Term. This Agreement and all licenses
hereunder will commence on the Effective Date
and continue for the duration identified in the
Term of Agreement, unless this Agreement is
terminated earlier as provided herein. Customer
is only authorized to use Products during the
Term of Agreement. For an Agreement with a
limited term, Esri does not grant Customer an
indefinite or a perpetual license to Products.
3.2 No Use upon Agreement Expiration or
Termination. All Product licenses, all
Maintenance, and Esri User Conference
registrations terminate upon expiration or
termination of this Agreement.
3.3 Termination for a Material Breach. Either party
may terminate this Agreement for a material
breach by the other party. The breaching party
will have thirty (30) days from the date of written
notice to cure any material breach.
3.4 Termination for Lack of Funds. For an
Agreement with government or government-
owned entities, either party may terminate this
Agreement before any subsequent year if
Item 7
Packet Page 57
Page 4 of 6 February 1, 2020
Customer is unable to secure funding through
the legislative or governing body's approval
process.
3.5 Follow-on Term. If the parties enter into
another agreement substantially similar to this
Agreement for an additional term, the effective
date of the follow-on agreement will be the day
after the expiration date of this Agreement.
4.0—PRODUCT UPDATES
4.1 Future Updates. Esri reserves the right to
update the list of Products in Table A—List of
Products by providing written notice to
Customer. Customer may continue to use all
Products that have been Deployed, but support
and upgrades for deleted items may not be
available. As new Products are incorporated into
the standard program, they will be offered to
Customer via written notice for incorporation into
the Products schedule at no additional charge.
Customer's use of new or updated Products
requires Customer to adhere to applicable
additional or revised terms and conditions in the
Master Agreement.
4.2 Product Life Cycle. During the Term of
Agreement, some Products may be retired or
may no longer be available to Deploy in the
identified quantities. Maintenance will be subject
to the individual Product Life Cycle Support
Status and Product Life Cycle Support Policy,
which can be found at
https://support.esri.com/en/other-
resources/product-life-cycle. Updates for
Products in the mature and retired phases may
not be available. Customer may continue to use
Products already Deployed, but Customer will
not be able to Deploy retired Products.
5.0—MAINTENANCE
The Fee includes standard maintenance benefits
during the Term of Agreement as specified in the
most current applicable Esri Maintenance and
Support Program document (found at
https://www.esri.com/en-
us/legal/terms/maintenance). At Esri's sole
discretion, Esri may make patches, hot fixes, or
updates available for download. No Software other
than the defined Products will receive Maintenance.
Customer may acquire maintenance for other
Software outside this Agreement.
a. Tier 1 Support
1. Customer will provide Tier 1 Support
through the Tier 1 Help Desk to all
Customer's authorized users.
2. The Tier 1 Help Desk will be fully trained in
the Products.
3. At a minimum, Tier 1 Support will include
those activities that assist the user in
resolving how-to and operational questions
as well as questions on installation and
troubleshooting procedures.
4. The Tier 1 Help Desk will be the initial point
of contact for all questions and reporting of a
Case. The Tier 1 Help Desk will obtain a full
description of each reported Case and the
system configuration from the user. This
may include obtaining any customizations,
code samples, or data involved in the Case.
5. If the Tier 1 Help Desk cannot resolve the
Case, an authorized Tier 1 Help Desk
individual may contact Tier 2 Support. The
Tier 1 Help Desk will provide support in such
a way as to minimize repeat calls and make
solutions to problems available to
Customer’s organization.
6. Tier 1 Help Desk individuals are the only
individuals authorized to contact Tier 2
Support. Customer may change the Tier 1
Help Desk individuals by written notice to
Esri.
b. Tier 2 Support
1. Tier 2 Support will log the calls received
from Tier 1 Help Desk.
2. Tier 2 Support will review all information
collected by and received from the Tier 1
Help Desk including preliminary documented
troubleshooting provided by the Tier 1 Help
Desk when Tier 2 Support is required.
3. Tier 2 Support may request that Tier 1 Help
Desk individuals provide verification of
information, additional information, or
answers to additional questions to
supplement any preliminary information
gathering or troubleshooting performed by
Tier 1 Help Desk.
4. Tier 2 Support will attempt to resolve the
Case submitted by Tier 1 Help Desk.
Item 7
Packet Page 58
Page 5 of 6 February 1, 2020
5. When the Case is resolved, Tier 2 Support
will communicate the information to Tier 1
Help Desk, and Tier 1 Help Desk will
disseminate the resolution to the user(s).
6.0—ENDORSEMENT AND PUBLICITY
This Agreement will not be construed or interpreted
as an exclusive dealings agreement or Customer's
endorsement of Products. Either party may publicize
the existence of this Agreement.
7.0—ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
7.1 OEM Licenses. Under Esri's OEM or Solution
OEM programs, OEM partners are authorized to
embed or bundle portions of Esri products and
services with their application or service. OEM
partners' business model, licensing terms and
conditions, and pricing are independent of this
Agreement. Customer will not seek any discount
from the OEM partner or Esri based on the
availability of Products under this Agreement.
Customer will not decouple Esri products or
services from the OEM partners' application or
service.
7.2 Annual Report of Deployments. At each
anniversary date and ninety (90) calendar days
prior to the expiration of this Agreement,
Customer will provide Esri with a written report
detailing all Deployments. Upon request,
Customer will provide records sufficient to verify
the accuracy of the annual report.
8.0—ORDERING, ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURES, DELIVERY, AND
DEPLOYMENT
8.1 Orders, Delivery, and Deployment
a. Upon the Effective Date, Esri will invoice
Customer and provide Authorization Codes to
activate the nondestructive copy protection
program that enables Customer to download,
operate, or allow access to the Products. If this
is a multi-year Agreement, Esri may invoice the
Fee up to thirty (30) calendar days before the
annual anniversary date for each year.
b. Undisputed invoices will be due and payable
within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of
invoice. Esri reserves the right to suspend
Customer's access to and use of Products if
Customer fails to pay any undisputed amount
owed on or before its due date. Esri may charge
Customer interest at a monthly rate equal to the
lesser of one percent (1.0%) per month or the
maximum rate permitted by applicable law on
any overdue fees plus all expenses of collection
for any overdue balance that remains unpaid
ten (10) days after Esri has notified Customer of
the past-due balance.
c. Esri's federal ID number is 95-2775-732.
d. If requested, Esri will ship backup media to the
ship-to address identified on the Ordering
Document, FOB Destination, with shipping
charges prepaid. Customer acknowledges that
should sales or use taxes become due as a
result of any shipments of tangible media, Esri
has a right to invoice and Customer will pay any
such sales or use tax associated with the receipt
of tangible media.
8.2 Order Requirements. Esri does not require
Customer to issue a purchase order. Customer
may submit a purchase order in accordance with
its own process requirements, provided that if
Customer issues a purchase order, Customer
will submit its initial purchase order on the
Effective Date. If this is a multi-year Agreement,
Customer will submit subsequent purchase
orders to Esri at least thirty (30) calendar days
before the annual anniversary date for each
year.
a. All orders pertaining to this Agreement will be
processed through Customer's centralized point
of contact.
b. The following information will be included in
each Ordering Document:
(1) Customer name; Esri customer number, if
known; and bill-to and ship-to addresses
(2) Order number
(3) Applicable annual payment due
9.0—MERGERS, ACQUISITIONS, OR
DIVESTITURES
If Customer is a commercial entity, Customer will
notify Esri in writing in the event of (i) a
consolidation, merger, or reorganization of Customer
with or into another corporation or entity;
(ii) Customer's acquisition of another entity; or (iii) a
transfer or sale of all or part of Customer's
organization (subsections i, ii, and iii, collectively
referred to as "Ownership Change"). There will be
Item 7
Packet Page 59
Page 6 of 6 February 1, 2020
no decrease in Fee as a result of any Ownership
Change.
9.1 If an Ownership Change increases the
cumulative program count beyond the maximum
level for this Agreement, Esri reserves the right
to increase the Fee or terminate this Agreement
and the parties will negotiate a new agreement.
9.2 If an Ownership Change results in transfer or
sale of a portion of Customer's organization, that
portion of Customer's organization will transfer
the Products to Customer or uninstall, remove,
and destroy all copies of the Products.
9.3 This Agreement may not be assigned to a
successor entity as a result of an Ownership
Change unless approved by Esri in writing in
advance. If the assignment to the new entity is
not approved, Customer will require any
successor entity to uninstall, remove, and
destroy the Products. This Agreement will
terminate upon such Ownership Change.
Item 7
Packet Page 60
City of San Luis Obispo Sole Source Justification Form
Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI)
It is the policy of the City of San Luis Obispo to solicit quotations or bids for purchases of commodities or
services for specified dollar amounts and to select vendors on a competitive basis (See City of San Luis
Obispo Financial Management Manual, Section 201, Exhibit 201-B).
Pursuant to San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 3.24.060, certain acquisitions in which the products
or services may only be obtained from a single source may be purchased without engaging in bidding
procedures. Such Sole Source acquisitions must be justified in sufficient detail to explain the basis for
suspending the usual competitive procurement process and approved by the approving authority before
such a purchase is made.
1. What product or service is being requested? Why is it necessary?
ESRI Small Government Term Enterprise License Agreement. This enterprise system supports
many City enterprise systems such as Public Safety’s Computer Aided Dispatch and Records
Management System (CAD/RMS), Cityworks, EnerGov, and provides critical GIS services
throughout the City. All GIS analysis and mapping requires ESRI software.
2. Is this “brand” of product or services offered the only one that meets the City’s requirements? If
yes, what is unique about the product/services?
Yes, the software is used by GIS for all analysis throughout the City on enterprise software systems,
along with Public Safety’s CAD/RMS system, crime analysis, Automatic Vehicle Location and Quickest
Route systems.
3. Is the product or service proprietary or is it available from various dealers? Have you verified this?
Yes, it is proprietary and not available from others. Verified
4. Have other products/vendors been considered? If yes, which products/vendors have been
considered and how did they fail to meet the City’s requirements?
No
5. Is the purchase an upgrade or addition to an existing system or brand of products adopted citywide?
If so, will purchase of this product avoid other costs as opposed to purchasing another product or
service (e.g., additional training required; data conversion; implementation of a new system; etc.)?
Yes, this is a renewal of the existing agreement and is necessary for the City’s Information Services
Division to work. Existing enterprise applications would fail which would be costly and other products
would not have the functionality that ESRI encompasses.
6. Is this a request for services by a contractor with necessary, unique and critical knowledge of
established City systems or programs? If so, will using the contractor’s services avoid other costs
(e.g.: significant staff time in compiling information, data transfers, etc.)?
n/a
Item 7
Packet Page 61
City of San Luis Obispo Sole Source Justification Form
7.What is the quoted price for the product or services and is it reasonable (based on other products
or services in the same field or based on historical pricing for the City for similar products or
services)?
Yes, $112,000 total cost over 3 years is reasonable based on the services being provided.
Requestor
______________________________________
Lynn Wilwand
Approved:
___________________________________ _____________________
Daniel Clancy Date
Purchasing Analyst
5/4/2020
Item 7
Packet Page 62
Department Name: Public Works
Cost Center: 5010
For Agenda of: June 2, 2020
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Matt Horn, Acting Public Works Director
Prepared By: Jennifer Rice, Transportation Planner/Engineer
SUBJECT: ORCUTT/TANK FARM ROUNDABOUT DESIGN BUDGET AMENDMENT
REQUEST (SPEC. #91611)
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt a draft Resolution approving an amendment to the Orcutt Tank Farm Roundabout
Design and Related Budgetary Appropriations (Attachment A); and
2. Appropriate from the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee Fund balance $100,435 to support
the Orcutt/Tank Farm Roundabout (Spec. #91611) design phase (Attachment B); and
3. Authorize the Finance Director to increase the Purchase Order to GHD for design services in
the amount of $100,435.
DISCUSSION
Background
The Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR), adopted in
2010, identified various transportation infrastructure upgrades that would be necessary to support
development of the OASP area, including significant impr ovements to the intersection of Tank
Farm Road and Orcutt Road. The OASP initially recommended geometric modifications and
installation of a traffic signal at Orcutt/Tank Farm to improve traffic safety and operations. With
adoption of the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) in 2014, the City
officially adopted a “roundabout first” policy, prioritizing roundabouts as the preferred design
solution where intersection control upgrades are proposed. Subsequently, as part of the
entitlement process for the Righetti Ranch development project, the City determined that the
Tank Farm/Orcutt intersection should be reconstructed as a roundabout in lieu of a traffic signal
as previously proposed. The final conditions of approval for the Righetti Ranch development
dictate that the City would take the lead on developing designs for the roundabout and the project
would be constructed either by the developer (if construction documents complete by November
2018) or as a City Capital Improvement Plan project prior to issuance of occupancy permits for
Righetti Ranch Phase 2 or issuance of building permits for Phase 3 of the development.
In Spring of 2018, GHD was awarded the design contract for the roundabout and has since been
working closely with the City and Righetti Ranch development team to prepare plans,
specifications and estimates for the project. At this point, 90% level construction documents
have been completed; however, GHD has expended their current budget due the need for
additional design coordination and utility conflict investigation beyond the levels assumed in
their original scope of work.
Item 8
Packet Page 63
The remaining tasks needed for GHD to complete a construction-ready bid package include (a)
response to City comments on 90% design package, (b) preparation of the 100% plans and
specifications, and (c) completion of a value engineering and construction phasing analysis,
which includes development of innovative construction staging and traffic detour strategies to
reduce total construction costs and duration. The purpose of this Council Agenda Report is to
request approval to appropriate an additional $100,435 to the project to complete the design
work (Attachment C).
The Tank Farm/Orcutt Roundabout project supports the Housing and Sustainable Transportation
Major City Goals by providing infrastructure needed to support safe and efficient mobility for all
users with the planned and pending development of the Orcutt Area. This project also improves
pedestrian and bicycle connectivity between the new Orcutt Area neighborhoods and Islay Park.
Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
On May 19, 2015 the City Council adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approved the
Vesting Tentative Map #3063 for the Righetti Ranch development. The original conditions of
approval required the development to construct geometric improvements at the Tank
Farm/Orcutt intersection and pay a fair share of costs towards future signalization.
On January 10, 2018 the Planning Commission proposed recommendations to be forwarded to
the City Council regarding amendments to the conditions of approval for Righetti Ranch,
including the requirement for construction of a roundabout at the Tank Farm/Orcutt intersection
in lieu of a signalized intersection.
On February 6, 2018 the City Council approved amendments to the conditions of approvals for
the Righetti Ranch development (Tract 3063), including requiring construction of the roundabout
prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 2 or building permits for Phase 3 of the
development.
In July 2018, the Council adopted the FY2017-19 Financial Plan Supplement, allocating
$100,000 to start preliminary design work for the roundabout project. Three additional project
budget amendments (Attachment D) have subsequently been approved to date to continue
incremental design progress (see Fiscal Impact discussion below).
Policy Context
Per the City’s Purchasing Policy, this request for appropriation of $100,435 Citywide Traffic
Impact Fee Funds requires City Council approval.
Consistency with COVID-19 Orders and Current Fiscal Contingency Plan. The need for this
additional design work was established prior to the COVID-19 orders and the current fiscal
contingency Plan. Additionally, the activity of design services is not prohibited under the State
and Local emergency orders associated with COVID-19. Finally, completing this effort will
result in a shovel-ready project that is anticipated to compete well for future infrastructure
stimulus funds and once constructed will provide an economic benefit to the community.
Item 8
Packet Page 64
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. 15378,
however the following environmental review has been completed relative to the establishment of
this project.
The Orcutt Area Specific Plan and its Final EIR were approved and certified in March 2010. The
Land Use and Circulation Element Final EIR was approved September 2014 includes policy 7.02
stating that where feasible, roundabouts shall be the City’s preferred intersection control
alternative due to the vehicle speed reduction, safety and operational benefits of a roundabout.
Finally, the Righetti Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) #3603 (Attachment E) was analyzed
in a project-specific Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and was adopted on May 19,
2015. On February 6, 2018 the City council considered and approved amendments to specified
mitigation measures and conditions of approval, which included, but was not limited to, a
requirement for the design and construction of the Orcutt/Tank Farm roundabout (MOD-1220-
2017). The Council made a finding that the proposed mitigation measure amendments are
consistent with the requirements of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR) certified and adopted by the City Council on March 2, 2010, and the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted by the City Council on May 19, 2015 for the
VTTM #3063.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: No Budget Year: 2017-18
Funding Identified: Yes
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding Sources Current FY Cost
Annualized
On-going Cost
Total Project
Cost
General Fund
State
Federal
Fees (Citywide TIF)
Previous Allocation $277,490 $277,490
Current Request $100,435 $100,435
Other:
Total $377,925 $377,925
GHD is currently one of the City’s consultants on the Traffic Engineering On-Call list that was
developed using a competitive Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process. To perform this
roundabout design, GHD submitted a proposal for design work for $213,050. The 2017-19
Financial Plan Supplement allocated only $100,000 for Fiscal Year 2017-18 for the study and
design of a roundabout at Tank Farm and Orcutt. In order to move forward on the project, GHD
was authorized to begin work not to exceed $100,000. In July 2018, the City Council approved
additional funding of $113,050 to continue design.
Item 8
Packet Page 65
Subsequently, two budget increases were approved in the amounts of $20,645 and $43,795 for
additional design updates needed to address utility conflicts and ensure design consistency with
adjacent frontage improvements to be constructed by the Righetti Ranch developer. These
increases brought the contract amount to a total of $277,490. With this additional request, the
total design costs will reach $377,925.
As all design work to date was funded through Citywide Transportation Impact Fees (TIF), the
TIF Fund is recommended to fund this request of $100,435. The balance of the TIF Fund was
approximately $7.4 million as of January 2020. $7.2 million of that balance has been obligated
for remaining Capital Improvement Plan Projects and Development Agreement Reimbursements
through the 2019-21 Financial Plan. This leaves a balance of approximately $200,000, which is
sufficient to support this request of $100,435.
Based on current engineer’s estimates, the anticipated construction cost for the roundabout,
including contingency, materials testing, and construction management support, is approximately
$3.7 million. The total design costs represent approximately 10% of the estimated project
construction cost—a ratio consistent with most infrastructure projects of this type. Staff is not
requesting authorization to fund construction of this project at this time, but requesting funding
to continue progress towards a “shovel-ready” project that could be well-situated for potential
Federal or State infrastructure stimulus funding opportunities that may arise in response to t he
ongoing COVID-19 emergency.
Preparation of the FY 2020-21 Budget Supplement is currently underway and will include
recommended adjustments to the FY 2020-21 Capital Improvement Plan program based on
anticipated revenue shortfalls due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Funding strategies for
construction of the Tank Farm/Orcutt Roundabout project will be assessed as part of this effort.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council could choose not to approve the budget amendment request . Staff does not
recommend this option as it could result in more costly changes to the design during construction
and potential for a delay during construction.
Attachments:
a - Draft Resolution
b - Budget Amendment Request
c - Additional Scope of Work No. 3
d - COUNCIL READING FILE - Council Agenda Report dated July 17, 2018
e - Project Map
Item 8
Packet Page 66
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2020 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
ORCUTT TANK FARM ROUNDABOUT DESIGN AND RELATED
BUDGETARY APPROPRIATIONS
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo’s (City) 2017‐19 Financial Plan Supplement
allocated $100,000 for FY 17‐18 for the study and design of a roundabout at the intersection of
Orcutt and Tank Farm Roads; and
WHEREAS, on October 26, 2017 GHD submit a proposal under their current on-call
agreement for transportation services for $213,048.80 and was subsequently awarded the work
with authorization not to exceed $100,000; and
WHEREAS, additional budget was subsequently authorized up to $277,490 funded from
the Transportation Impact Fee Fund; and
WHEREAS, City staff has requested the additional budget allocation of $100,435 from
the Transportation Impact Fee fund balance; and
WHEREAS, the project is a high priority project as it supports the Housing and
Sustainable Transportation Major City Goals by providing infrastructure needed to support safe
and efficient mobility for all users with the planned and pending development of the Orcutt Area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
Item 8
Packet Page 67
Resolution No. _____ (2020 Series) Page 2
R ______
SECTION 1. The City Council authorizes staff to transfer $100,435 from the
Transportation Impact Fund to the design phase of this project.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2020.
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
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, on ______________________.
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
Item 8
Packet Page 68
Department
Public Works
Fiscal Officer Date
Cori Ryan 4/23/2020
Department Head Date
Matt Horn 4/23/2020
Cost Center and Account Title Fund Cost Center Account Am ount
-
Cost Center and Account Title Fund Cost Center Account Am ount
Transportation Plan/Engineering - Contract Services 507 5010 71006 100,435.00
100,435.00
Project Title Aw ard Project Task Am ount
Orcutt Tank Farm Roundabout Design 91611 91611 2 100,435.00
100,435.00
Account Title Fund Cost Center Account Am ount
Transportation Impact Fees 507 0000 (100,435.00)
(100,435.00)
Accounting Date
Budget Manager or Finance Director Date
Posted By Date Period
BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST
CHANGE TO FUND BALANCE, WORKING CAPITAL OR DESIGNATION
PROJECTS AND AWARDS
EXPENDITURES AND TRANSFERS OUT
REVENUES AND TRANSFERS IN
PURPOSE
Per May 2020 CAR, appropriate $100,435 from TIF fund to Orcutt/Tank Farm Roundabout Design project (91611) account
Item 8
Packet Page 69
GHD Project
No.
11151202
Date 02/26/2020
1 M2460AA007 / 11151202
AMENDMENT TO
AGREEMENT BETWEEN CONSULTANT AND CLIENT
Amendment No. 3 to Agreement dated 01/29/2018 between GHD Inc. (Consultant) and City of
San Luis Obispo (Client).
Project Number / Name: 11151202/Purchase Order #24218 – Provide Professional Consultant
for Design of the Orcutt & Tank Farm Roundabout per City Specification #91611.
Client hereby requests and authorizes Consultant to perform additional and/or revised services
as set forth in this Amendment.
Scope of work and terms of compensation as set forth below.
Additional Scope of Work
0601: Tank Farm Road Culvert Modification Evaluation & Preliminary Design
At the request of the City, GHD proceeded with evaluating piping directly from the basin into the culvert
on Tank Farm Road. Base on this direction, GHD has prepared a basis of design and calculations, and
have developed the preliminary Tank Farm Road culvert modification design.
0602: 90% Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E)
At the request of the City, GHD proceeded with updating theTank Farm Road/Orcutt Road Roundabout
P&E to reflect additional comments provided by the City on the previous design; evaluate and revise the
plans (as needed) to reflect utility pothole information and any identified conflicts; complete and
incorporate the Tank Farm culvert modification plans into the 90% P&E; and expand the project design
both north on Orcutt Road and west on Tank Farm Road to match to conform limits with Cannon’s
improvements. The project drainage study was also re-evaluated and updated to address additional
project drainage resulting from expanding the project limits to match the conform limits with Cannon’s
improvements. Finally, the City has determined that they will be responsible for construction and that
specifications will need to be prepared. Ninety-percent (90%) P&E and updated drainage report will be
submitted to the City for review.
0603: 100% Final PS&E
Upon receiving 90% comments from the City, GHD shall update 90% PS&E to 100% Final PS&E and
resubmit to the City for final review. GHD will also update and submit a final drainage report. The City’s
90% comments will be summarize, responses provided and the comments/responses submitted to the
City concurrent with the 100% submittal.
0604: Orcutt Road Shoofly Feasibility Study
This phase is to evaluate the feasibility of constructing a shoofly on the northeast corner of the Orcutt
Road/Tank Farm intersection. From the concept drawing and description provided by the City, the
purpose of the shoofly is to provide a temporary two-way by-pass route for Orcutt Road (both north and
south legs) while closing the west leg of Tank Farm Road assumed from Wavertree Street east through
the project intersection. The intent is to allow most of the roundabout construction to occur at the same
time to accelerate the construction schedule.
Item 8
Packet Page 70
GHD Project
No. 11151202
Date 02/26/2020
2 M2460AA007 / 11151202
Within this phase, GHD will evaluate the feasibility of constructing the shoofly. This evaluation will include
identifying in plan view the preliminary construction limits of the shoofly and potential physical limitations
including the existing Orcutt Road culvert and right of way encroachments primarily limited to temporary
construction easements (TCE’s). The preliminary design will also accommodate a “California Legal 65-ft”
design vehicle. GHD will also develop preliminary stage construction exhibits with initial construction
working days estimates for each construction stage. The preliminary construction stages and working
days estimates will be compared to the current stage construction plans and working days estimate and a
conclusion will be provided as to whether construction would be accelerated with shoofly option.
GHD will also prepare a traffic analysis that evaluates and compares current traffic operations and safety
conditions to conditions projected to result with construction of the shoofly and closure of Tank Farm
Road between Wavertree Street and the Orcutt Road intersection to through traffic. It is assumed that
this study will focus on weekday AM and PM hour conditions at the following intersections:
1. Orcutt Rd/Spanish Oaks Dr (GHD to obtain new intersection counts)
2. Orcutt Rd/Tank Farm Rd (available City intersection data)
3.Orcutt Rd/Johnson Ave (available City intersection data)
4.Orcutt Rd/Laurel Ln (available City intersection data)
5.Orcutt Rd/Broad St (available City intersection data)
6.Broad St/Industrial Wy (available City intersection data)
7.Broad St/Tank Farm Rd (available City intersection data)
8.Tank Farm Rd/Brookpine Dr (available City intersection data)
9.Tank Farm Rd/Wavertree St (GHD to obtain new intersection counts)
The results, conclusions and recommendations developed both from the preliminary shoofly engineering
evaluations and traffic analysis will be summarized in an Orcutt Road Shoofly Feasibility Study that will be
submitted to the City for review and comment.
0605: Optional Orcutt Road Temporary Shoofly Design
If requested by the City, this phase includes preparing plans, specifications and Engineer’s estimate to
construct the temporary Orcutt Road shoofly. At this time the following plans are estimated (14 Sheets):
Title Sheet (1)
General Notes (1)
Typical Cross Sections (1)
Demolition Plan (1)
Layout (1)
Profile (1)
Construction Details (1)
Grading Plan (1)
Utility Plan (1)
Temporary Drainage Plan/Details (1)
Construction Area Signs (1)
Stage Construction (3)
GHD will prepare 90% PS&E to be submitted to the City for review. Upon receiving 90% comments from
the City, GHD shall update 90% PS&E to 100% Final PS&E and resubmit to the City for final review. The
City’s 90% comments will also be summarize, responses provided and the comments/responses
submitted to the City concurrent with the 100% submittal.
0606: Optional Miscellaneous Coordination
This task includes additional services that can be provided by GHD that is not included in Phases 0601
Item 8
Packet Page 71
GHD Project
No.
11151202
Date 02/26/2020
3 M2460AA007 / 11151202
through 0605. These services include, but not limited to, assisting the City in coordinating with Cannon
and minor design revisions and miscellaneous items not covered within the previous phases. GHD will
notify the City and receive authorization to proceed prior to providing additional services within this phase.
0607: Optional Construction Support Services
If requested of the City, GHD will provide the following services under this phase as needed:
1. Project Management and Coordination: GHD will be available to respond to the City to resolve
issues raised by the City or contractor (through the City) during construction of the project. Also
included are the project management duties for the work performed under this construction
support services task.
2. Respond to Requests for Information (RFI): GHD will provide support to the City in response
to formal requests for information from the contractor (provided through the City) and clarification
of questions from the City. For budgeting purposes, GHD’s responses to up to 10 RFI’s are
assumed for this task.
3. Review Submittals: GHD will review specific material submittals for specialty items as requested
by the City.
4. Project and Field Meetings: GHD’s attendance at project progress meetings and field meetings
will be as requested by the City. For budgeting purposes, up to five (5) project progress meetings
and/or field meetings are assumed by GHD within this task.
5. Changes and Revisions: Changes and revisions to the project plans may be required due to
differing site conditions encountered in the field during construction. GHD will revise the project
plans as needed to address the differing conditions or accommodate changes requested by the
City or contractor (through the City). For budgeting purposes, GHD’s assumes up to five (5)
changes and revisions to the project plans requested by the City and not included under other
Construction Support Services tasks.
6. Technical Support of Contract Change Orders: GHD will, if requested, provide advice and
technical support for up to five (5) construction contract change orders.
GHD shall provide responses to RFI’s and other questions provided by the City within three (3) working
days unless notified by GHD that the response(s) will require additional time to prepare. The primary
contact for GHD shall be Joe Weiland (805.858.3131, joseph.weiland@ghd.com). The alternative contact
shall be Jorge Vanegas-Moran (805.858.3130, jorge.vanegas-moran@ghd.com).
Fee Estimate
GHD’s estimated fee to complete the services described in the “Additional Scope of Work” under Phases
0601 through 0604 is $64,933.00 as summarized below by phase.
Item 8
Packet Page 72
GHD Project
No.
11151202
Date 02/26/2020
4 M2460AA007 / 11151202
Phase/Description Phase Fee
0601: Tank Farm Road Culvert Modification Evaluation & Preliminary Design $13,809.00
0602: 90% PS&E $24,259.00
0603: 100% Final PS&E $ 7,145.00
0604: Orcutt Road Shoofly Feasibility Study $19,720.00
Total Estimated Fee: $64,933.00
GHD’s estimated fee to complete the “Optional” services described in the “Additional Scope of Work”
under Phases 0605 through 0607 is $74,717.00 as summarized below by phase.
Phase/Description Phase Fee
0605: Optional Orcutt Road Temporary Shoofly Design1 $20,502.00
0606: Optional Miscellaneous Coordination1 $15,000.00
0607: Optional Construction Support Services1 $39,215.00
Total Estimated Optional Fee: $74,717.00
1. Use of the “Optional Phase” fee requires prior authorization from the City of San Luis Obispo
Terms and conditions
All terms and provisions specified in the original Agreement dated 01/29/2018 are in effect. No other
agreements, guarantees, or warranties are in effect.
Please contact me if there are any questions regarding this requested amendment.
Sincerely,
GHD Inc.
Joseph W. Weiland, PE
Senior Manager
Item 8
Packet Page 73
Orcutt Tank Farm Roundabout
Project Location Map
Item 8
Packet Page 74
Department Name: Administration
Cost Center: 1021
For Agenda of: May 19, 2020
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Greg Hermann, Deputy City Manager
Prepared By: Teresa Purrington, City Clerk
SUBJECT: SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1682 (2020
SERIES) AMENDING CHAPTER 2.40 OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIRING ELECTRONIC FILING OF CAMPAIGN
DISCLOSURE DOCUMENTS AND PROVIDING FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
ENFORCEMENT OF CAMPAIGN REGULATIONS VIOLATIONS
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Ordinance No. 1682 (2020 Series) amending Chapter 2.40 (Election Campaign
Regulations) of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code adding a subsection to Section
2.40.060 (Campaign Statements) titled Electronic Signature and Submission of Campaign
Disclosure Documents.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 84615, the City Council must officially adopt
Ordinance No. 1682 (2020 Series) (Attachment A) memorializing their approval to require and
authorize complete electronic signature and submission of electronic campaign disclosure forms.
Furthermore, certain defined criteria is prescribed that must be satisfied by a local government
agency, including, among others, that the system be available free of charge to filers, available to
the public to view filings and include procedures for filers to comply with the requirement that
they sign statements and reports under penalty of perjury. Tonight’s action is the final step to
implement electronic filing.
In addition, this amendment makes a change the penalties section which allows for the City
Clerk to issue a Notice of Violation and/or Administrative Citation for those violations that the
City Attorney’s office does not find warrant a civil action and/or criminal prosecution.
Previous Council Action
• On December 12, 2017, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1643 (2017 Series)
(Attachment C). The purpose of this ordinance was to readopt Chapter 2.40 (Campaign
Regulations), removing the expiration provision and incorporating minor modificat ions to
continue regulating local election campaigns.
• On May 5, 2020, the City Council voted unanimously to introduce Ordinance No. 1682
(2020 Series).
Item 9
Packet Page 75
Policy Context
By eliminating manual processing of filings, electronic filing requirements will conserve
resources and ensure the public has access to information disclosed in campaign statements and
reports in a timelier manner, and as such, is consistent with the City’s Organizational Values of
dedication to providing quality service through innovative use of resources to best serve the
community and promote public trust.
Public Engagement
This item was on the May 5, 2020 agenda and will be again for final adoption on June 2, 2020
and will follow all required postings and notification requirements. The public will have an
opportunity to comment on this item during or before the meeting.
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. 15378.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: 2019-20
Funding Identified: N/A
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing Cost
General Fund $4,000 $2,000 $6,000
State
Federal
Fees
Other:
Total $4,000 $2,000 $6,000
The Annual subscription for Statement of Economic Interest (Form 700) is $4,000 and is
budgeted in the City Clerk budget. Adding the Campaign Statements is an additional $2,000
annually. The additional funding is available in the City Clerk’s budget. There is no additional
impact to the General Fund. Approval of an electronic and paperless filing would ultimately
result in long term savings in staff time.
ALTERNATIVES
Deny the amendment. Staff does not recommend this action because we believe that electronic
and paperless filing would ultimately result in long term savings and offer a streamlined process
to serve those interested in running for office.
Item 9
Packet Page 76
Attachments:
a - Ordinance No. 1682 (2020 Series)
b - Legislative Draft
Item 9
Packet Page 77
O 1682
ORDINANCE NO. 1682 (2020 SERIES)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 2 OF THE CITY OF SAN
LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE ADDING TO SECTION 2.40.060 –
ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE AND SUBMISSION OF CAMPAIGN
DISCLOSURE DOCUMENTS, AND AMENDING SECTION 2.40.100
(CIVIL ACTIONS) TO PROVIDE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
ENFORCEMENT OF VIOLATIONS
WHEREAS, On January 1, 2013, Assembly Bill 2452 went into effect adding section
84615 to the California Government Code, which allows local government agencies to require an
elected officer, candidate, committee or other person to file statements, reports, or other documents
online or electronically with its local filing officer ; and
WHEREAS, the City Council expressly finds and determines that the City Clerk’s web-
based system contains multiple safeguards to protect the integrity and security of the data, and will
operate securely and effectively and will not unduly burden filers; and
WHEREAS, the software used by the City Clerk's electronic filing system has been
certified by the Secretary of State and meets the requirements set by Government Code Section
84615; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk will operate the electronic filing system in compliance with
the requirements of California Government Code Section 84615 and any other applicable laws.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to require online electronic filing
of campaign statements and require online reporting of contributions and independent expenditures
relating to elections of candidates to City offices and the qualification or passage of local ballot
measures within the City as currently required under the Political Reform Act, (commencing with
California Government Code Section 84200 et seq.) in order to facilitate review and maximize the
availability of this information to the public.
SECTION 2. Authority. This Ordinance is adopted pursuant to California Government
Code Section 81013, which authorizes local agencies to impose additional requirements on any
person so long as the requirements do not prevent the person from complying with the Political
Reform Act.
Item 9
Packet Page 78
Ordinance No. 1682 (2020 Series) Page 2
O 1682
SECTION 3. Application of Ordinance. The provisions of this Ordinance shall only apply
to Candidates seeking election to a City office, their Controlled Committees or Committees formed
or existing primarily to support or oppose their candidacies, and to Committees formed or existing
primarily to support or oppose a Candidate or to support or oppose the qualification, passage or
defeat of, a local ballot measure which is being voted on only in the City, and to Local General
Purpose Committees active only in the City. In the event a City Candidate also runs for a non-City
office, the provisions of this Ordinance do not apply to the Local Candidate’s campaign for such
other office, nor to any Committee established solely for the purpose of running for such st ate,
federal, city, special district, or other non-City office.
SECTION 4. Section 2.40.060 C (Campaign Statements. Filing.) of Chapter 2.40
(Election Campaign Regulations) is hereby amended to read as follows:
C. Filing. Each document required to be filed in this chapter shall be filed with the city
clerk, and elsewhere as may be required by the Government Code, in accordance with such
deadlines as may be specified by the elections official or otherwise required by applicable law.
SECTION 5. Section 2.40.060 E (Electronic Campaign Disclosure) shall be added to
Section 2.40.060 (Campaign Statements) of Chapter 2.40 (Election Campaign Regulations) to read
as follows:
E. Electronic Campaign Disclosure. Each Candidate, Candidate Controlled
Committee and Independent Committee that is required to file a semi-annual campaign
statement, a pre-election campaign statement, or an amended campaign statement with the
City Clerk pursuant to the Political Reform Act, and that receives a total of $2,000 or more
in Contributions or makes a total of $2,000 or more in Independent Expenditures, shall file
the statement with the City Clerk in an electronic format.
1. In addition to any other report required by this Ordinance, all Persons subject to the
requirements of this Section shall file the following reports with the City Clerk in an
electronic format:
a. A report disclosing a Contribution received by or made to a Candidate or local
ballot measure, or an Independent Expenditure made for or against a Candidate or
local ballot measure, of $2,000 or more during an Election Cycle. The report shall
be filed within twenty-four (24) hours of the Independent Expenditure or receipt of
the Contribution.
b. A report disclosing a Contribution received by or made to a Candidate or a local
ballot measure, or an Independent Expenditure made for or against a Candidate or
local ballot measure, of $2,000 or more at any time other than during an Election
Cycle. The report shall be filed within ten (10) business days of the Independent
Expenditure or receipt of the Contribution.
2. A Candidate or Committee that has filed an electronic statement or report is not
required to file a paper copy.
Item 9
Packet Page 79
Ordinance No. 1682 (2020 Series) Page 3
O 1682
3. Once a Candidate or Committee is subject to the electronic filing requirements imposed
by this Ordinance, the Candidate or Committee will remain subject to the electronic
filing requirements until the Candidate or Committee files a termination statement
pursuant to the Political Reform Act.
4. Any Candidate or Committee not required to file an electronic statement or report by
this Section may voluntarily opt to file an electronic statement or report by submitting
written notice to the City Clerk’s Office. A Candidate or Committee that opts to file an
electronic statement or report is not required to file a paper copy.
SECTION 5. Sections 2.40.100 (Civil actions), subsections A and D, of Chapter 2.40
(Election Campaign Regulations) shall be amended to read as follows:
2.40.100 Civil or Administrative actions.
A. Any person who intentionally or negligently violates any provision of this chapter
relating to campaign contribution limits or disclosures may be liable in a civil action
brought by the city attorney or by a person residing within the city for an amount not more
than three times the amount of the unlawful contribution or expenditure. If, after
consultation with the City Clerk and review of the facts surrounding an alleged violation,
the City Attorney does not find the alleged violation to warrant the filing of a civil action
and/or criminal prosecution, the City Clerk may issue a Notice of Violation and/or
Administrative Citation pursuant to Chapter 1.24 of the Municipal Code.
D. Any person, before filing a civil action pursuant to this section, shall first file with the
city attorney a written request for the city attorney to commence the action or the city clerk
to issue a Notice of Violation as provided in Section A. The request shall contain a
statement of the grounds for believing a cause of action exists and/or a violation has
occurred. The city attorney and/or the city clerk shall respond within ten days after receipt
of the request indicating whether he or she intends to file a civil action, notice of violation
or administrative citation. If the city attorney or the city clerk indicates in the affirmative
and files a suit or serves a notice of violation and/or administrative citation within thirty
days thereafter, no other action may be brought, unless any action by the city attorney or
city clerk is dismissed without prejudice.
SECTION 6. Ordinance Number 1643 (2017 Series) is hereby superseded to the extent
inconsistent herewith.
Item 9
Packet Page 80
Ordinance No. 1682 (2020 Series) Page 4
O 1682
SECTION 7. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members
voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in The
New Times, 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 5th day of May 2020, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council
of the City of San Luis Obispo on the ____ day of ________, 2020, on the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington, 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, on ______________________.
______________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
Item 9
Packet Page 81
Ordinance No. 1643 (2017 Series)
0 1643
2.40.010 Title.
This chapter may be cited as the election campaign regulations of the city.
2.40.020 Purpose and intent.
A. It is the purpose and intent of this chapter:
1. To promote integrity, honesty, fairness, and transparency in municipal election campaigns.
2. To prevent corruption, or the appearance of corruption, which results from the real or
imagined influence of large contributions on the conduct or actions of candidates elected
to office.
3. To ensure a level of discussion of public issues adequate for a viable campaign by
providing voters with the information necessary to make an assessment of each candidate
or measure before voting.
4. To require public disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures made in support
of or in opposition to candidates or measures in municipal elections.
5. To place realistic and enforceable limits on the amounts persons may contribute in
municipal election campaigns.
6. To ensure that funds contributed to a campaign committee are used solely for campaign
purposes.
7. To provide full and fair enforcement of all the provisions of this chapter.
B. By enacting this chapter, the council does not intend to deprive or restrict any citizen of the
exercise of rights guaranteed under the United States Constitution and the California
Constitution.
C. The city council takes specific notice of the findings and declarations made in the Political
Reform Act and finds and declares them applicable to San Luis Obispo and a basis for enacting
this chapter.
D. It is the intent of this chapter to impose limits on the amount of money that may be contributed
to a candidate or controlled committee to achieve the purposes specified in this section. This
chapter is not intended, and shall not be construed, to establish any reporting, filing, or
procedural requirement in addition to, or different from, the Political Reform Act or the
regulations adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), except as specifically
set forth in Sections 2.40.050 and 2.40.090 infra.
2.40.030 Definitions.
The terms used in this chapter shall have the same definitions as specified in the Political Reform
Act and FPPC regulations. In those cases where definitions in the Political Reform Act or FPPC
regulations contain a specific reference to any state election, candidate, or electoral criteria, the
definition shall be modified to reflect the municipal equivalent, or, in the absence of a municipal
equivalent, to delete the specific reference.
2.40.040 Contribution limitations.
A. Contributions by Persons to Candidates and/or Controlled Committees. No person shall
make any contribution to a candidate and/or any controlled committee connected with that
candidate, with respect to any single election, which would cause the total amount
contributed by such person to the candidate and any controlled committee connected with
that candidate, when combined, to exceed three hundred dollars.
Item 9
Packet Page 82
Ordinance No. 1643 (2017 Series)
0 1643
B. Acceptance or Solicitation by Candidates or Controlled Committees. No candidate or
controlled committee shall solicit or accept any contribution from any person which
would cause the total amount contributed by such person, with respect to any single
election, to the candidate and/or any controlled committee connected with that candidate,
when combined, to exceed the sum of thr ee hundred dollars.
C. Contributions by Candidates. The provisions of subsections A and B of this section shall
not apply to contributions from a candidate or from his or her immediate family to any
controlled committee connected with that candidate, nor to the expenditure, by the
candidate, of his or her personal funds. For purposes of this section, "immediate family"
means a candidate's or elected officeholder's spouse or domestic partner, and/or
dependent children.
D. Anonymous Contributions. No candidate or controlled committee shall accept
anonymous contributions, with respect to any single election, which exceed fifty dollars.
Subject to the provisions of state law, in the event a candidate or controlled committee
receives an anonymous contribution that would result in a violation of this subsection,
the candidate or controlled committee shall promptly pay that sum to the city for deposit
into the general fund to be used to defray the costs of municipal elections.
2.40.050 Election campaign accounts.
A. Campaign Bank Accounts. An individual who plans to run for a city elective office and
who plans to accept contributions and make campaign-related expenditures must set up a
campaign bank account at a financial institution with a branch located in the city of San
Luis Obispo.
B. Access to Records by City Clerk. The city clerk shall have full access at all reasonable
hours to the bank's records concerning all election campaign accounts.
2.40.060 Campaign statements.
A. Required Filing Schedule. Every campaign treasurer shall file with the city clerk
campaign statements as required by the provisions of the Government Code and in a
format acceptable to the city clerk.
B. Contents. Each state campaign statement filed shall contain the information required
under the provisions of the Government Code and any contributions greater than $50.
C. Filing. Each document required to be filed in this chapter shall be filed with the city clerk
during business hours, and elsewhere as may be required by the Government Code, in
accordance with such deadlines as may be specified by the elections official or otherwise
required by applicable law.
D. Publication. The city clerk shall promptly, following receipt for filing, post a c opy of
each campaign statement on the city of San Luis Obispo's website for public inspection,
redacting personal information in accordance with state law. The city clerk shall report
on the website of any candidate and/or committee that has failed to comply by the
required deadline with the campaign statement requirements pursuant to this section or
state law. In addition, the city clerk shall cause to be published a display ad in a newspaper
of general circulation advising the public how and where to access copies of the filed
campaign statements on the city of San Luis Obispo's website, at the time mail ballots are
distributed for said election.
Item 9
Packet Page 83
Ordinance No. 1643 (2017 Series)
0 1643
E. Electronic Campaign Disclosure. Each Candidate, Candidate Controlled Committee and
Independent Committee that is required to file a semi-annual campaign statement, a pre-
election campaign statement, or an amended campaign statement with the City Clerk pursuant
to the Political Reform Act, and that receives a total of $2,000 or more in Contribution s or
makes a total of $2,000 or more in Independent Expenditures, shall file the statement with the
City Clerk in an electronic format.
1. In addition to any other report required by this Ordinance, all Persons subject to the
requirements of this Section shall file the following reports with the City Clerk in an
electronic format:
a. A report disclosing a Contribution received by or made to a Candidate or local ballot
measure, or an Independent Expenditure made for or against a Candidate or local ballot
measure, of $2,000 or more during an Election Cycle. The report shall be filed within
twenty-four (24) hours of the Independent Expenditure or receipt of the Contribution.
b. A report disclosing a Contribution received by or made to a Candidate or a local ballot
measure, or an Independent Expenditure made for or against a Candidate or local ballot
measure, of $2,000 or more at any time other than during an Election Cycle. The report
shall be filed within ten (10) business days of the Independent Expenditure or recei pt
of the Contribution.
2. A Candidate or Committee that has filed an electronic statement or report is not required
to file a paper copy.
3. Once a Candidate or Committee is subject to the electronic filing requirements imposed by
this Ordinance, the Candidate or Committee will remain subject to the electronic filing
requirements until the Candidate or Committee files a termination statement pursuant to
the Political Reform Act.
4. Any Candidate or Committee not required to file an electronic statement or report by this
Section may voluntarily opt to file an electronic statement or report by submitting written
notice to the City Clerk’s Office. A Candidate or Committee that opts to file an electronic
statement or report is not required to file a paper copy.
2.40.070 Campaign signs.
A. Severability. This section is a separate and severable provision of the election campaign
regulations.
B. Campaign Signs. Campaign signs shall not exceed three square feet per sign in residential
zones and ten square feet per sign in nonresidential zones and shall be removed no later than
ten days following the election.
C. Definition. "Campaign sign" means a sign intended to draw attention to or communicate a
position on any issue, candidate, or measure in any national, state, local, college or university
campus election, the placement of which is in conformity with Section 15.40.300 (Prohibited
signs); and which otherwise is not subject to regulation under Chapter 15.40 (Sign
Regulations).
Item 9
Packet Page 84
Ordinance No. 1643 (2017 Series)
0 1643
2.40.080 Responsibilities of city clerk.
A. Duties. In addition to any other duties required of the city clerk under this chapter, the city
clerk shall:
1. Prescribe and furnish, without charge, appropriate forms for all campaign statements,
documents and reports required to be filed by this chapter.
2. Determine whether required statements and declarations have been filed and, if so,
whether they conform on their face with the requirements of this chapter.
3. Promptly notify all persons who have failed to file a statement in the form and at the time
required by this chapter.
4. Report, in writing, apparent violations of this chapter to the city attorney.
5. Promptly, following receipt for filing, post a copy of each campaign statement on the city
of San Luis Obispo's website for public inspection. The city clerk shall report on the
website of any candidate and/or committee that has failed to comply by the required
deadline with the campaign statement requirements pursuant to this section or state law.
In addition, the city clerk shall cause to be published one display ad in a newspaper of
general circulation advising the public how and where to access copies of the filed
campaign statements on the city of San Luis Obispo's website.
6. Compile and maintain a current log of all filed statements pertaining to each reporting
committee.
2.40.090 Criminal misdemeanor actions.
Any person who violates any provision of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person
who causes any other person to violate any provision of this chapter, or who aids and abets any
other person in the violation of any provision of this chapter, shall be liable under the provisions
of this section.
2.40.100 Civil or Administrative actions.
A. Any person who intentionally or negligently violates any provision of this chapter relating to
campaign contribution limits or disclosures may be liable in a civil action brought by the city
attorney or by a person residing within the city for an amount not more than three times the
amount of the unlawful contribution or expenditure. If, after consultation with the City Clerk
and review of the facts surrounding an alleged violation, the City Attorney does not find the
alleged violation to warrant the filing of a civil action and/or criminal prosecution, the City
Clerk may issue a Notice of Violation and/or Administrative Citation pursuant to Chapter 1.24
of the Municipal Code.
B. If any person files an original city campaign statement after any deadline imposed by this
chapter, he or she shall pay, in addition to any other penalties provided for under this
chapter, the sum of one hundred dollars per day after the deadline until the statement or
report is filed. Liability may not be enforced if on an impartial basis the city clerk
determines that the late filing was not willful and that enforcement of the liability will
not further the purposes of this chapter. In addition, the city clerk may assess any
applicable fines in accordance with state law.
C. If two or more persons are responsible for any violation, they shall be jointly and
severally liable.
Item 9
Packet Page 85
Ordinance No. 1643 (2017 Series)
0 1643
D. Any person, before filing a civil action pursuant to this section, shall first file with the city
attorney a written request for the city attorney to commence the action or the city clerk to issue
a Notice of Violation as provided in Section A. The request shall contain a statement of the
grounds for believing a cause of action exists and/or a violation has occurred. The city attorney
and/or the city clerk shall respond within ten days after receipt of the request indicating whether
he or she intends to file a civil action, notice of violation or administrative citation. If the city
attorney or the city clerk indicates in the affirmative and files a suit or serves a notice of
violation and/or administrative citation within thirty days thereafter, no other action may be
brought, unless any action by the city attorney or city clerk is dismissed without prejudice.
E. In determining the amount of liability, the court may take into account the seriousness of
the violation and the degree of culpability of the defendant. If a judgment is entered
against the defendant or defendants in an action, the plaintiff shall receive fifty percent
of the amount recovered. The remaining fifty percent shall be deposited into the city
treasury. In an action brought by the city attorney, the entire amount shall be paid to the
city treasury.
F. No civil action alleging a violation of any provision of this chapter shall be filed more
than four years after the date the violation occurred.
2.40.110 Injunctive relief.
The city attorney or any person residing in the city may sue for injunctive relief to enjoin
violations or to compel compliance with the provisions of this chapter.
2.40.120 Cost of litigation.
The court may award to a plaintiff or defendant who prevails in any action authorized by
this chapter his or her costs of litigation, including reasonable attorneys' fees; provid ed,
however, no costs of litigation or attorneys' fees shall be awarded against the city.
2.40.130 Construction of provisions.
A. This chapter shall be in addition to all other city and state laws applicable to municipal
elections. Unless the contrary is stated or clearly appears from the context, the definitions
and terms set forth in the Government Code shall govern the interpretations of terms used
in this chapter. This chapter shall be construed liberally in order to effectuate its purposes.
B. If any provision of this chapter, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance,
is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of the chapter and the applicability of such
provision to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
Item 9
Packet Page 86
Department Name: Finance
Cost Center: 2001 Administration
For Agenda of: June 2, 2020
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Brigitte Elke, Finance Director
SUBJECT: FISCAL YEAR 2020-21 CENTRAL SERVICE COST ALLOCATION PLANS,
COST OF SERVICES FEE CALCULATION, AND LABOR RATES
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the 2020-21 Central Service Cost Allocation Plans including the Cost of Services
Allocation Plans and Labor Rates.
DISCUSSION
Cost Allocation and Reimbursement to the General Fund
Consistent with best practices, the City has prepared a formal Central Service Cost Allocation Plan
(CAP). One of the primary uses of the CAP is to quantify in dollars, the relationship between
administrative and support services contained within the General Fund, also known as central
service cost centers, and the programs they support throughout the City to provide reimbursement
for those services to the General Fund. The CAP can also be used to determine the appropriate
amount of administrative and support costs that may be charged to an existing or new grant and
provides the base for the labor rates used for cost recovery charges.
The CAP is prepared using actual operating expenses from the last audited year and the resulting
cost allocations are programmed into the City’s budget two years later. Basing the CAP on actual
amounts allows the City to avoid the need to recalculate and true-up the allocations at a later date,
making it easier for the programs to manage the costs represented by the calculation. It also ensures
that the allocation is based on actual cost and not budget assumptions. In this case, the CAP is based
on 2018-19 actual costs and the cost allocations are reflected in the 2020-21 proposed budget.
Two CAP Documents Required
There are two CAP documents presented. The first is a full cost plan which considers all
administrative and support costs that are allocated across all programs (Attachment A). The second
CAP is the “2 Code of Federal Regulations Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost
Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards” (2 CFR 200) (Attachment B). The 2 CFR
200 supersedes, consolidates, and streamlines requirements from the Office of Management &
Budget Circular A-87. The purpose of 2 CFR 200 is to streamline Federal government’s guidance
on administrative requirements, costs principles, and audit requirements to more effectively focus
Federal resources on improving performance and outcomes, while ensuring the financial integrity of
taxpayer dollars in partnership with non-Federal stakeholders. The 2 CFR 200 is used to determine
which costs can be allocated to federal grant programs.
Item 10
Packet Page 87
The 2 CFR 200 is used to allocate costs to the Transit Fund because it receives grants from the
Federal Transit Authority. Under the 2 CFR 200, the costs of the City Council are not allocated to
other programs.
The full cost version of the CAP establishes the allocable costs shown in the table below for the
Water, Sewer, Parking and Whale Rock Funds. The amounts shown in the column labeled
“Direct Billing Adjustments” represent amounts that offset the CAP-generated cost allocations to
the enterprise funds because certain costs can be charged back to the General Fund by the
programs that receive allocated costs from the CAP.
2020-21 Reimbursement Transfers (Full CAP)
Fund
Cost Allocation
Based on 2018-19
Actuals
Direct Billing
Adjustments Actual
Water $1,729,965 $0 $1,729,965
Sewer $1,632,521 $0 $1,632,521
Parking $710,211 $0 $710,211
Whale Rock $183,978 $0 $183,978
Total $4,256,675 $0 $4,256,675
2020-21 Reimbursement Transfers (2 CFR 200)
Fund
Cost Allocation
Based on 2017-18
Actuals
Direct Billing
Adjustments Actual
Transit $317,129 $0 $317,129
Total $317,129 $0 $317,129
Upon approval by the Council, the 2 CFR 200 certification will be signed by the Finance
Director/City Treasurer.
Cost of Services Analysis
In addition to the Cost Allocation Plan, the City has also prepared a Cost of Service Analysis
which establishes the annual cost of providing the Water and Sewer Enterprise Funds with access
to the City’s right of way property, as well as the cost of providing police and fire protection for
both funds in accordance with Proposition 218. As part of the fee analysis that was prepared,
enterprise facilities that are not within the City limits were excluded from consideration. This
document was incorporated into the Cost Allocation Plan as Appendix A.
Item 10
Packet Page 88
Water Enterprise 2019-20 2020-21
Public Safety $213,588 $239,335
Right of Way $730,149 $597,564
Total $ 943,737 $836,899
Sewer Enterprise 2019-20 2020-21
Public Safety $207,716 $213,358
Right of Way $515,621 $449,746
Total $718,515 $663,104
The labor rates applicable for 2020-21 are included in the Cost Allocation Plan as Appendix B.
Policy Context
The annual cost allocation plan informs the City of the true cost of delivering the services
through the various departments and programs. This forms the base for policies related to cost
recovery goals, including reimbursement transfers and labor rates.
Public Engagement
This cost allocation plan is updated annually based on the City’s audited financials and the
comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) and adopted at a public meeting of the City
Council.
CONCURRENCES
The Public Works and Utilities Departments concur with the recommendations contained within
this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This is not a project under CEQA. 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. 15378.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: 2020-21
Funding Identified: N/A
Item 10
Packet Page 89
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing Cost
General Fund $N/A
State
Federal
Fees
Other:
Total $N/A
The 2020-21 Central Services Full Cost Allocation Plan including Appendix A, net of direct billing
adjustments results in a total cost recovery of $6,073,807 in 2020-21, including the Cost of Services
reimbursement as outlined in Appendix A. This amount is consistent with the estimate that is shown
in the Five-Year Fiscal Forecast.
ALTERNATIVES
Do not approve the 2020-21 Central Services Full Cost Allocation Plan. This is not recommended
as the General Fund would bear the full costs for various programs, contracts, and agreements
provided on behalf of the City’s Enterprise Funds.
Attachments:
a - COUNCIL READING FILE - Combined Full Cost Allocation Plan
b - 2020-21 Labor Rates
Item 10
Packet Page 90
Appendix B
Labor Rates
Item 10
Packet Page 91
PUBLIC SAFETY - POLICE LABOR RATES
Source: 05/30/2019 Salary Schedule
Regular Paid Hourly
Annual Benefit Total Productive Hourly Billing
* Salary Rate Compensation Hours Rate Citywide ** Program Rate
Operations
Police Officer ***$112,289 94.91% $218,862 1,816 $120.52 20.4% 32.5% $192.28
Police Sergeant 128,856 94.91% 251,153 1,816 138.30 20.4% 32.5% 220.64
Police Lieutenant 148,226 94.91% 288,907 1,816 159.09 20.4% 32.5% 253.81
Police Field Service Technician***79,918 94.67% 155,579 1,703 91.36 20.4% 32.5% 145.75
Evidence Technician 106,574 94.67% 207,471 1,703 121.83 20.4% 32.5% 194.36
Neighborhood Outreach Manager 92,716 45.61% 135,001 1,703 79.27 20.4% 32.5% 126.47
Support
Police Chief 203,632 94.91% 396,898 1,703 233.06 20.4% 0.0% 280.57
Police Captain 170,508 94.91% 332,336 1,703 195.15 20.4% 0.0% 234.93
Communications & Records Manager 110,552 45.61% 160,972 1,703 94.52 20.4% 0.0% 113.79
Communications Supervisor 95,238 45.61% 138,673 1,703 81.43 20.4% 0.0% 98.03
Communications Technician 79,820 45.61% 116,224 1,703 68.25 20.4% 0.0% 82.16
Records Clerk II ***69,842 45.61% 101,695 1,703 59.72 20.4% 0.0% 71.89
Records Supervisor 85,930 45.61% 125,120 1,703 73.47 20.4% 0.0% 88.45
Senior Administrative Analyst 88,296 45.61% 128,565 1,703 75.49 20.4% 0.0% 90.89
Administrative Assistant III 59,878 45.61% 87,187 1,703 51.20 20.4% 0.0% 61.63
* Represents top step in range except Police Officer which is shown at Step 5.
** Program indirect costs are not allocated to support positions.
***Police Officer and Records Clerk include 5.26% Education Incentive; Field Service Technician includes 2.63% Education Incentive
Indirect Cost Allocation (Source: Mahoney & Associates
Leave Benefits Sworn Operations Support Office FY2019 CAP Amount Percent
Total Days (2080 hours)260 260 260 260 Citywide Indirect Costs 3,625,909 20.4%
Vacation Days (15) (15) (15) (15)
Holidays (12) (12) (12) (12)Program Costs
Sick (12 days @ 50%)(6)(6)(6)(6)Direct Costs
Productive Days 227 227 227 227 Patrol 9,700,945
Productive Hours 1,816 1,816 1,816 1,816 Traffic Safety 829,542
Breaks (30 minutes daily)(114) (114) (114)Investigation 2,625,952
Total Productive Hours 1,816 1,703 1,703 1,703 Neighborhood Services 263,697
Animal Regulation
Total Direct Costs 13,420,136
Paid Benefit Rate Sworn Operations Support Office Indirect Costs
Retirement (including UAL)81.56% 81.56% 32.87% 32.87%Administration 1,866,869
Medicare 1.45% 1.45% 1.45% 1.45%Animal Control
Unemployment 0.40% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40%Support Services 2,577,373
Group Insurance 10.72% 10.72% 10.35% 10.35%Fire Dispatch *(79,820)
Uniform 0.78% 0.54% 0.54% 0.54%Total Indirect Costs 4,364,422 32.5%
Total Paid Benefits Rate 94.91% 94.67% 45.61% 45.61%Total Program Costs 17,784,558
Indirect Cost Rate
Item 10
Packet Page 92
PUBLIC SAFETY - FIRE LABOR RATES
Source: 05/30/2019 Salary Schedule
Regular Paid Hourly
Annual Benefit Total Productive Hourly Indirect Cost Rate Billing
* Salary Rate Compensation Hours Rate Citywide ** Program Rate
Operations
Battalion Chief $144,404 84.09% $265,830 2,532 $105.00 16.2% 10.3% $134.56
Deputy Fire Chief $155,376 84.09% 286,028 2,532 112.97 16.2% 10.3% 144.78
Fire Captain $107,016 97.09% 210,915 2,532 83.31 16.2% 10.3% 106.76
Fire Engineer $91,572 97.09% 180,477 2,532 71.28 16.2% 10.3% 91.35
Fire Engineer/EMT $101,712 97.09% 200,462 2,532 79.18 16.2% 10.3% 101.47
Firefighter $84,552 97.09% 166,642 2,532 65.82 16.2% 10.3% 84.35
Firefighter/EMT $94,692 97.09% 186,626 2,532 73.71 16.2% 10.3% 94.47
Fire Marshal $120,614 95.53% 235,831 1,703 138.48 16.2% 10.3% 177.47
Fire Inspector III $92,248 95.53% 180,368 1,703 105.91 16.2% 10.3% 135.73
Hazardous Materials Coordinator $110,318 95.53% 215,699 1,703 126.66 16.2% 10.3% 162.32
Support
Fire Chief $178,620 95.69% 349,537 1,703 205.25 16.2% 0.0% 238.49
Fire Vehicle Mechanic $93,834 46.37% 137,342 1,703 80.65 16.2% 0.0% 93.71
Administrative Assistant III $59,878 52.28% 91,185 1,703 53.54 16.2% 0.0% 62.21
Administrative Analyst $80,106 52.28% 121,989 1,703 71.63 16.2% 0.0% 83.23
* Represents top step in range.
** Program indirect costs are not allocated to support positions.
Indirect Cost Allocation (Source: Mahoney & Associate
Leave Benefits Sworn Technical Office Operations FY2019 CAP Amount Percent
Total Annual Hours 2,912 2,080 2,080 2,080 Citywide Indirect Costs 2,142,258$ 16.2%
Vacation Hours (168) (120)(120) (120)
Holiday Hours (145)(96)(96) (96)Program Costs
Sick (@ 50% of accrual)(67)(48)(48) (48)Direct Costs
Breaks (30 minutes daily)(114)(114) (114)Emergency Response 11,067,375$
Total Productive Hours 2,532 1,703 1,703 1,703 Hazard Prevention 926,601
Total Direct Costs 11,993,976$
Indirect Costs
Paid Benefits Sworn Technical Office Operations Administration 872,652$
Retirement (including UAL)81.56% 81.56% 32.87% 32.87%Training 118,945
Medicare 1.45% 1.45%1.45% 1.45%Fire Station Fac Sup 45,881
Unemployment 0.40% 0.40%0.40% 0.40%Disaster Preparedness 276,820
Group Insurance 11.65% 11.65% 17.56% 11.65%Dispatch*(79,820)
FLSA overtime 1.56% 0.00%0.00% 0.00%Total Indirect Costs 1,234,478$ 10.3%
Uniform 0.47% 0.47%0.00% 0.00%Total Program Costs 13,228,454$
Total Paid Benefits Rate 97.09% 95.53% 52.28% 46.37%
Item 10
Packet Page 93
PUBLIC UTILITIES LABOR RATES
Source: 05/30/2019 Salary Schedule
Regular Paid Hourly
Annual Benefit Total Productive Hourly Billing
* Salary Rate Compensation Hours Rate Citywide ** Program Rate
Operations Support
Director of Utilities $170,508 52.28%$259,657 1,703 $152.52 26.7% 0.0%$193.27
Dep Dir-Utilities/Water 137,306 52.28% 209,096 1,703 122.82 26.7% 0.0% 155.63
Dep Dir-Utilities/Wastewater 137,306 52.28% 209,096 1,703 122.82 26.7% 0.0% 155.63
Utilities Business Manager 102,206 52.28% 155,644 1,703 91.42 26.7% 0.0% 115.85
Utilities Engineer 102,206 52.28% 155,644 1,703 91.42 26.7% 0.0% 115.85
Utilities Projects Manager 102,206 52.28% 155,644 1,703 91.42 26.7% 0.0% 115.85
Supervising Administrative Assistant 64,766 52.28% 98,629 1,703 57.93 26.7% 0.0% 73.41
Administrative Assistant III 59,878 52.28% 91,185 1,703 53.56 26.7% 0.0% 67.87
Water Services
Water Distribution Supervisor 97,370 52.28% 148,279 1,703 87.10 26.7% 0.0% 110.37
Water Distribution Chief Operator 86,164 52.28% 131,214 1,703 77.07 26.7% 0.0% 97.66
Water Distribution System Operator 78,754 52.28% 119,930 1,703 70.44 26.7% 0.0% 89.27
Underground Utilities Locator 59,878 52.28% 91,185 1,703 53.56 26.7% 0.0% 67.87
Water Treatment Plant Supervisor 107,328 52.28% 163,444 1,703 96.00 26.7% 0.0% 121.65
Water Treatment Plant Operator 89,804 52.28% 136,758 1,703 80.33 26.7% 0.0% 101.79
Water Treatment Plant Chief Operator 96,824 52.28% 147,448 1,703 86.61 26.7% 0.0% 109.75
Water Distribution Supervisor 97,370 52.28% 148,279 1,703 87.10 26.7% 0.0% 110.37
Water Supply Operator 78,754 52.28% 119,930 1,703 70.44 26.7% 0.0% 89.27
Wastewater Services
Wastewater Collection Supervisor 97,370 52.28% 148,279 1,703 87.10 26.7% 0.0% 110.37
Wastewater Collection Systems Operator 78,754 52.28% 119,930 1,703 70.44 26.7% 0.0% 89.27
Water Res Recovery Chief Maint Tech 91,910 52.28% 139,965 1,703 82.21 26.7% 0.0% 104.18
Water Res Recovery Maint 89,804 52.28% 136,758 1,703 80.33 26.7% 0.0% 101.79
Water Res Recovery Operator 89,804 52.28% 136,758 1,703 80.33 26.7% 0.0% 101.79
Laboratory Analyst 89,804 52.28% 136,758 1,703 80.33 26.7% 0.0% 101.79
Laboratory Manager 102,206 52.28% 155,644 1,703 91.42 26.7% 0.0% 115.85
Environ Compliance Inspector 75,660 52.28% 115,218 1,703 67.68 26.7% 0.0% 85.76
Environ. Programs Manager 97,370 52.28% 148,279 1,703 87.10 26.7% 0.0% 110.37
* Represents top step in range.
** Program indirect costs are not allocated to support positions.
Leave Benefits Indirect Cost Allocation (Source: Mahoney & Associates)
Total Days (2080 hours)260 FY2019 CAP Amount Percent
Vacation Days (15) Water 1,729,965
Holidays (12) Sewer 1,632,521
Sick (12 days @ 50%) (6) Jack House
Productive Days 227 Whale Rock 183,978
Productive Hours 1,816 Total Indirect Costs 3,546,464 26.7%
Breaks (30 minutes daily)(114)
Total Productive Hours 1,703 Program Costs
Direct Costs
Water 5,547,399
Paid Benefit Rate Sewer 6,598,843
Retirement 32.87% Jack House 0
Medicare 1.45% Whale Rock 1,126,670
Unemployment 0.40% Total Direct Costs 13,272,912
Group Insurance 17.56% Indirect Costs - Public Utilities Admin & Eng 0.0%
Total Paid Benefit Rate 52.28%Total Program Costs 13,272,912
Indirect Cost Rate
Item 10
Packet Page 94
TRANSPORTATION LABOR RATES
Source: 05/30/2019 Salary Schedule
Regular Paid Hourly
Annual Benefit Total Productive Hourly Indirect Cost Rate Billing
* Salary Rate Compensation Hours Rate Citywide ** Program Rate
Transportation Planning & Engineering
Principal Planner $112,710 52.28% $171,640 1,816 $94.52 31.1% 0.0% 123.87$
Supervising Civil Engineer 112,710.00 52.28% 171,640 1,816 $94.52 31.1% 0.0% 123.87
Transportion Manager 112,710.00 52.28% 171,640 1,816 $94.52 31.1% 0.0% 123.87
Engineer III 98,098.00 52.28% 149,388 1,816 82.26 31.1% 0.0% 107.81
Streets, Creek & Flood Protection -
Streets Supervisor 88,296.00 52.28% 134,461 1,816 74.04 43.3% 0.0% 106.14
Streets Crew Coordinator 70,122.00 52.28% 106,785 1,816 58.80 43.3% 0.0% 84.29
Street Maintenance Operator 63,076.00 52.28% 96,055 1,816 52.89 43.3% 0.0% 75.82
Signal & Streetlight Technician 71,838.00 52.28% 109,398 1,816 60.24 43.3% 0.0% 86.35
Parking -
Parking Services Manager 102,206.00 52.28% 155,644 1,816 85.71 28.0% 0.0% 109.67
Parking Enforcement Officer II 59,878.00 52.28% 91,185 1,816 50.21 28.0% 0.0% 64.25
Parking Services Supervisor 80,106.00 52.28% 121,989 1,816 67.17 28.0% 0.0% 85.96
Parking Coordinator 64,766.00 52.28% 98,629 1,816 54.31 28.0% 0.0% 69.50
Administrative Assistant III 59,878.00 52.28% 91,185 1,816 50.21 28.0% 0.0% 64.25
Supervising Administrative Assistant 64,766.00 52.28% 98,629 1,816 54.31 28.0% 0.0% 69.50
Parking Meter Repair Worker 56,862.00 52.28% 86,592 1,816 47.68 28.0% 0.0% 61.02
Transit -
Transit Assistant 59,878.00 52.28% 91,185 1,816 50.21 32.7% 0.0% 66.62
Transit Manager 102,206.00 52.28% 155,644 1,816 85.71 32.7% 0.0% 113.71
* Represents top step in range.
** Public works administration costs are allocated as part of the citywide rate
Indirect Cost Allocation (Source: Mahoney & Associates)
Leave Benefits FY2019 CAP Amount Percent
Total Days (2080 hours)260 Transportation Planning
Vacation Days (15) Citywide Indirect Rate 31.1%
Holidays (12)
Sick (12 days @ 50%)(6)Streets, Creek & Flood Protection
Productive Days 227 Citywide Indirect Costs 1,126,504 43.3%
Productive Hours 1,816 Program Direct Costs 2,599,012
Total Productive Hours 1,816
Parking
Citywide Indirect Costs 710,211 28.0%
Paid Benefit Rate Program Direct Costs 2,539,814
Retirement (including UAL) 32.87%
Medicare 1.45%
Unemployment 0.40% Transit
Group Insurance 17.56%Citywide Indirect Costs 321,727 32.7%
Total Paid Benefit Rate 52.28%Program Direct Costs 984,727
Item 10
Packet Page 95
LEISURE, CULTURAL & SOCIAL SERVICES LABOR RATES
Source: 05/30/2019 Salary Schedule
Regular Paid Hourly
Annual Benefit Total Productive Hourly Billing
* Salary Rate Compensation Hours Rate Citywide ** Program Rate
Programs Managed by Parks & Recreation
Recreation Programs
Director of Parks & Recreation $170,508 52.28% $259,657 1,703 $152.52 31.0% 0.0% $199.77
Recreation Manager 92,716 52.28% 141,192 1,703 82.93 31.0% 0.0% 108.63
Recreation Coordinator 64,766 52.28% 98,629 1,703 57.93 31.0% 0.0% 75.88
Recreation Supervisor 80,106 52.28% 121,989 1,703 71.65 31.0% 0.0% 93.85
Ranger Maintenance Worker 54,002 52.28% 82,237 1,703 48.30 31.0% 0.0% 63.27
Supervising Administrative Assistant 64,766 52.28% 98,629 1,703 57.93 31.0% 0.0% 75.88
Administrative Assistant III 59,878 52.28% 91,185 1,703 53.56 31.0% 0.0% 70.15
Golf Maint Crew Coordinator 64,766 52.28% 98,629 1,703 57.93 26.9% 0.0% 73.54
Programs Managed by Public Works
Parks & Landscape Maintenance
Parks Maintenance Supervisor 88,296 52.28% 134,461 1,703 78.98 28.9% 0.0% 101.81
Parks Maintenance Specialist 63,076 52.28% 96,055 1,703 56.42 28.9% 0.0% 72.73
Maintenance Worker III-Parks 56,862 52.28% 86,592 1,703 50.86 28.9% 0.0% 65.57
Urban Forest Sup/Arborist 88,296 52.28% 134,461 1,703 78.98 28.9% 0.0% 101.81
* Represents top step in range.
** Recreation and public works administration costs are allocated as part of the citywide rate.
Indirect Cost Allocation (Source: Mahoney & Associates)
Leave Benefits FY2019 CAP Amount Percent
Total Days (2080 hours)260 Recreation Programs
Vacation Days (15)Citywide Indirect Costs ***1,081,789 31.0%
Holidays (12)Program Direct Costs 3,491,823
Sick (12 days @ 50%)(6)
Productive Days 227 Golf
Productive Hours 1,816 Citywide Indirect Costs 167,485 26.9%
Breaks (30 minutes daily)(114)Program Direct Costs 621,659
Total Productive Hours 1,703
Parks & Landscape Maintenance
Citywide Indirect Costs 1,138,926 28.9%
Paid Benefit Rate Program Direct Costs 3,939,760
Retirement (including UAL)32.87%
Medicare 1.45% *** Excludes direct costs of facilities use.
Unemployment 0.40%
Group Insurance 17.56%
Total Paid Benefit Rate 52.28%
Indirect Cost Rate
Item 10
Packet Page 96
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LABOR RATES
Source: 05/30/2019 Salary Schedule
Regular Paid Hourly
Annual Benefit Total Productive Hourly Billing
* Salary Rate Compensation Hours Rate Citywide ** Program Rate
Programs Managed by Community Development
Operations Support
Director of Community Development $170,508 52.28% $259,657 1,703 $152.52 45.3% 0.0% $221.60
Supervising Administrative Assistant 64,766 52.28% 98,629 1,703 57.93 45.3% 0.0% 84.17
Planning - 1,703
Dep Dir-CDD-Long Range Planning 137,306 52.28% 209,096 1,703 122.82 45.3% 20.7% 215.34
Associate Planner 86,164 52.28% 131,214 1,703 77.07 45.3% 20.7% 135.13
Senior Planner 92,716 52.28% 141,192 1,703 82.93 45.3% 20.7% 145.41
Planning Technician 59,878 52.28% 91,185 1,703 53.56 45.3% 20.7% 93.91
Housing Programs Manager 92,716 52.28% 141,192 1,703 82.93 45.3% 20.7% 145.41
Administrative Assistant III 59,878 52.28% 91,185 1,703 53.56 45.3% 20.7% 93.91
Permit Technician II 59,878 52.28% 91,185 1,703 53.56 45.3% 20.7% 93.91
Building & Safety
Dep Dir-CDD-Dev Review 137,306 52.28% 209,096 1,703 122.82 17.5% 19.4% 172.41
Chief Building Official 137,306 52.28% 209,096 1,703 122.82 17.5% 19.4% 172.41
Administrative Assistant III 59,878 52.28% 91,185 1,703 53.56 17.5% 19.4% 75.18
Permit Technician II 59,878 52.28% 91,185 1,703 53.56 17.5% 19.4% 75.18
Code Enforcement Officer II 81,796 52.28% 124,563 1,703 73.16 17.5% 19.4% 102.71
Plans Examiner 86,164 52.28% 131,214 1,703 77.07 17.5% 19.4% 108.19
Permit Services Coordinator 80,106 52.28% 121,989 1,703 71.65 17.5% 19.4% 100.58
Building Inspector II 81,796 52.28% 124,563 1,703 73.16 17.5% 19.4% 102.71
* Represents top step in range.
** Program indirect costs are not allocated to support positions.
Indirect Cost Allocation (Source: Mahoney & Associates)
Leave Benefits FY2019 CAP Amount Percent
Total Days (2080 hours) 260 Planning
Vacation Days (15)Citywide Indirect Costs 1,438,467 45.3%
Holidays (12)
Sick (12 days @ 50%)(6)Program Indirect Costs
Productive Days 227 Community Development Administration 511,645
Productive Hours 1,816 Commissions & Committees 32,292
Breaks (30 minutes daily)(114)Total Program Indirect Costs 543,937 20.7%
Total Productive Hours 1,703 Program Direct Costs 2,631,478
Program Total 3,175,415
Paid Benefit Rate Building & Safety
Retirement (including UAL)32.87% Citywide Indirect Costs 438,668 17.5%
Medicare 1.45%
Unemployment 0.40%Program Indirect Costs - Comm Dev Admin 407,444 19.4%
Group Insurance 17.56%Program Direct Costs 2,095,557
Total Paid Benefits Rate 52.28%Program Total 2,503,001
Indirect Cost Rate
Item 10
Packet Page 97
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LABOR RATES (cont.)
Source: 05/30/2019 Salary Schedule
Regular Paid Hourly
Annual Benefit Total Productive Hourly Billing
* Salary Rate Compensation Hours Rate Citywide ** Program Rate
Programs Managed by Public Works
Engineering
Supervising Civil Engineer 112,710 52.28% 171,640 1,703 100.82 30.5% 0.0% $131.56
Senior Civil Engineer 102,206 52.28% 155,644 1,703 91.42 30.5% 0.0% 119.30
Engineering Inspector IV 98,098 52.28% 149,388 1,703 87.75 30.5% 0.0% 114.50
Engineer III 98,098 52.28% 149,388 1,703 87.75 30.5% 0.0% 114.50
Engineering Technician III 71,838 52.28% 109,398 1,703 64.26 30.5% 0.0% 83.85
Construction Engineering Manager 112,710 52.28% 171,640 1,703 100.82 30.5% 0.0% 131.56
Programs Managed by Administration
Economic Development
Economic Development Manager 112,710 52.28% $171,640 1,703 $100.82 35.6% 0.0% $136.69
Administrative Assistant III 59,878 52.28% 91,185 1,703 53.56 35.6% 0.0% 72.62
Adminstrative Analyst 80,106 52.28% 121,989 1,703 $71.65 35.6% 0.0% $97.15
Natural Resource Protection -
Natural Resources Manager 112,710 52.28% 171,640 1,703 100.82 35.6% 0.0% 136.69
City Biologist 97,370 52.28% 148,279 1,703 87.10 35.6% 0.0% 118.09
* Represents top step in range.
** Public works and city administration costs are allocated as part of the citywide rate.
Indirect Cost Allocation (Source: Mahoney & Associates)
Leave Benefits FY2019 CAP Amount Percent
Total Days (2080 hours) 260 Engineering-Development Review
Vacation Days (15) Citywide Indirect Costs 625,102
Holidays (12) Program Direct Costs 2,049,917 30.5%
Sick (12 days @ 50%)(6)
Productive Days 227 Economic Health
Productive Hours 1,816 Citywide Indirect Costs 107,505 35.6%
Breaks (30 minutes daily)(114) Program Direct Costs 302,094
Total Productive Hours 1,703
Natural Resource Protection
Citywide Indirect Costs 308,473 0.0%
Paid Benefit Rate Program Direct Costs 0
Retirement 32.87%
Medicare 1.45%
Unemployment 0.40%
Group Insurance 17.56%
Total Paid Benefits Rate 52.28%
Indirect Cost Rate
Item 10
Packet Page 98
GENERAL GOVERNMENT LABOR RATES
Source: 05/30/2019 Salary Schedule
Regular Paid Hourly
Annual Benefit Total Productive Hourly Billing
* Salary Rate Compensation Hours Rate Citywide ** Program Rate
Administration
City Manager $218,374 52.28% $332,550 1,703 $195.33 22.8% 0.0% $239.91
Assistant City Manager 196,144 52.28% 298,697 1,703 175.45 22.8% 0.0% 215.49
Asst to City Manager 107,328 52.28% 163,444 1,703 96.00 22.8% 0.0% 117.91
Administration Executive Assistant 62,920 52.28% 95,817 1,703 56.28 22.8% 0.0% 69.12
City Clerk 112,710 52.28% 171,640 1,703 100.82 22.8% 0.0% 123.82
Deputy City Clerk II 64,766 52.28% 98,629 1,703 57.93 22.8% 0.0% 71.15
Attorney
City Attorney 206,622 52.28% 314,653 1,703 184.82 22.8% 0.0% 227.00
Assistant City Attorney II 147,576 52.28% 224,735 1,703 132.00 22.8% 0.0% 162.13
Legal Assistant/Paralegal 68,640 52.28% 104,528 1,703 61.40 22.8% 0.0% 75.41
Finance
Director of Finance 170,508 52.28% 259,657 1,703 152.52 22.8% 0.0% 187.32
Accounting Manager/Controller 120,614 52.28% 183,676 1,703 107.89 22.8% 0.0% 132.51
Supervising Acct Assistant 64,766 52.28% 98,629 1,703 57.93 22.8% 0.0% 71.15
Senior Accountant 88,296 52.28% 134,461 1,703 78.98 22.8% 0.0% 97.00
Financial Analyst 80,106 52.28% 121,989 1,703 71.65 22.8% 0.0% 88.01
Principal Budget Analyst 97,370 52.28% 148,279 1,703 87.10 22.8% 0.0% 106.97
Accounting Assistant III 56,862 52.28% 86,592 1,703 50.86 22.8% 0.0% 62.47
Information Technology
Information Technology Manager 128,336 52.28% 195,436 1,703 114.79 22.8% 0.0% 140.99
Information Technology Supp Service Sup 80,106 52.28% 121,989 1,703 71.65 22.8% 0.0% 88.01
Information Technology Assistant 59,878 52.28% 91,185 1,703 53.56 22.8% 0.0% 65.78
Information Services Supervisor 97,370 52.28% 148,279 1,703 87.10 22.8% 0.0% 106.97
Network Administrator 90,740 52.28% 138,183 1,703 81.16 22.8% 0.0% 99.69
Database Administrator 90,740 52.28% 138,183 1,703 81.16 22.8% 0.0% 99.69
Network Services Supervisor 102,206 52.28% 155,644 1,703 91.42 22.8% 0.0% 112.28
GIS Specialist II 86,164 52.28% 131,214 1,703 77.07 22.8% 0.0% 94.66
Human Resources
Director of Human Resources 170,508 52.28% 259,657 1,703 152.52 22.8% 0.0% 187.32
Human Resources Analyst II 88,296 52.28% 134,461 1,703 78.98 22.8% 0.0% 97.00
Human Resource Manager 97,370 52.28% 148,279 1,703 87.10 22.8% 0.0% 106.97
Human Resources Specialist 65,104 52.28% 99,143 1,703 58.23 22.8% 0.0% 71.52
Human Resources Admin Assistant III 62,920 52.28% 95,817 1,703 56.28 22.8% 0.0% 69.12
* Represents top step in range.
** All general government program indirect costs are allocated as part of the citywide rate.
Indirect Cost Rate
Item 10
Packet Page 99
GENERAL GOVERNMENT LABOR RATES (cont.)
Source: 05/30/2019 Salary Schedule
Regular Paid Hourly
Annual Benefit Total Productive Hourly Billing
* Salary Rate Compensation Hours Rate Citywide ** Program Rate
Programs Managed by Public Works
Public Works Administration
Director of Public Works 170,508 52.28% 259,657 1,703 152.52 22.8% 0.0% 187.32
Dep Dir-PW/City Engineer 144,222 52.28% 219,628 1,703 129.00 22.8% 0.0% 158.44
Administrative Analyst 80,106 52.28% 121,989 1,703 71.65 22.8% 0.0% 88.01
Supervising Administrative Assistant 64,766 52.28% 98,629 1,703 57.93 22.8% 0.0% 71.15
Administrative Assistant III 59,878 52.28% 91,185 1,703 53.56 22.8% 0.0% 65.78
Building Maintenance
Facilities Maintenance Supervisor 88,296 52.28% 134,461 1,703 78.98 22.8% 0.0% 97.00
Facilities Maintenance Technician 70,122 52.28% 106,785 1,703 62.72 22.8% 0.0% 77.04
Maintenance Worker I 51,272 52.28% 78,079 1,703 45.86 22.8% 0.0% 56.33
Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance
Fleet Maintenance Supervisor 88,296 52.28% 134,461 1,703 78.98 22.8% 0.0% 97.00
Heavy Equipment Mechanic 64,766 52.28% 98,629 1,703 57.93 22.8% 0.0% 71.15
* Represents top step in range.
** All general government program indirect costs are allocated as part of the citywide rate.
Leave Benefits
Total Days (2080 hours)260 Rate Calculation Data (Source: Mahoney & Associates)
Vacation Days (15)Total Exp 89,616,792
Holidays (12)CS Dept Exp
Sick (12 days @ 50%)(6)1011001 City Administration 1,150,564
Productive Days 227 1011501 City Attorney 705,105
Productive Hours 1,816 1011021 City Clerk 668,355
Breaks (30 minutes daily)(114)1012001 Financial - Admin(only) 885,100
Total Productive Hours 1,703 1011101 Network Services 2,284,252
1011102 IT Support Services 207,284
1011103 Information Services 553,125
Paid Benefit Rate 1012006 Finance Support Services 160,507
Retirement (including UAL)32.87%1013001 Human Resources 1,307,603
Medicare 1.45%1013002 Risk Management 3,662,499
Unemployment 0.40%1013003 Wellness Program 14,236
Group Insurance 17.56%1015001 Public Works Admin 991,570
Total Paid Benefit Rate 52.28%1015005 Facilities Maintenance 1,215,167
1015008 Fleet 1,197,319
1015010 Transportation Plan/Eng 896,897
15,899,583
Citywide Exp 73,717,209
Citywide CAP(FY19)16,823,792
16,823,792
73,717,209 22.82%
Indirect Cost Rate
Citywide CAP (FY19)
Citywide Exp
Item 10
Packet Page 100
Department Name: Community Development
Cost Center: 4003
For Agenda of: June 2, 2020
Placement: Public Hearing
Estimated Time: 60 minutes
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY SAN LUIS ARCHITECTURAL
PROTECTION) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO
APPROVE A FOUR-STORY MIXED-USE PROJECT CONSISTING OF 5,241
SQUARE FEET OF GROUND-FLOOR RETAIL, EIGHT HOTEL SUITES,
AND 39 RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH A REQUEST FOR A THREE-LEVEL
MECHANICAL PARKING LIFT SERVING 48 SPACES, A FOURTH-FLOOR
ROOF DECK, AND ASSOCIATED TREE REMOVALS, WITH A CLASS 32
(INFILL) EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (545 HIGUERA
STREET AND 486 MARSH STREET)
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution (Attachment A) denying the appeal and upholding the Planning
Commission’s approval of a new four-story mixed-use project with 5,241 square feet of ground-
floor retail, eight hotel suites, and 39 residential (apartment) units, with a request for a three -level
mechanical parking lift serving 48 spaces, a fourth-floor roof deck, and associated tree removals.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The applicant, Taylor Judkins, submitted an application for a new four -story mixed-use project
located in the Downtown Commercial (C-D) zone. The Architectural Review Commission
(ARC) reviewed the proposed project on September 9, 2019 and October 21, 2019 for
consistency with the Community Design Guidelines (CDG) and voted to recommend approval of
the project with additional direction for minor modifications (7-0). Following the ARC meeting,
the applicant submitted revised plans to address the ARC’s recommendations for the Planning
Commission’s (PC) consideration (Attachment B). On January 8, 2020, the PC reviewed the
proposed project, and a motion passed (5-2) to continue the item to a date uncertain with
direction provided to the applicant, related to consistency with the CDG. The applicant
incorporated design changes to the project, which were reviewed by the PC, resulting in the PC’s
approval of the project on February 26, 2020 (4-2-1) (Attachment C).
The scope of this report is to provide an evaluation of the project in terms of its consistency with
the City’s General Plan, Zoning Regulations and Design Guidelines and other applicable City
policies and standards. The Council is being asked to review the proposed project in
consideration of the appeal, however, the review is considered de novo and Council is not limited
to acting on the items brought up in the appeal.
Item 12
Packet Page 101
Based on the analysis set forth below, staff is recommending the City Council deny the appeal,
thereby upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of the project, and approve the waiver of
development standards to allow increased height and lot coverage, as requested by the Appl icant
(Attachment D). If the Council denies the appeal, the project will have the necessary entitlements
needed to move forward for building permits. While the staff recommendation is to deny the
appeal and approve the project, the City Council may choose to uphold the appeal. If the City
Council chooses to uphold the appeal and deny the project, or approve the project with reduced
density, special findings are needed as required by State law to form an adequate basis for the
action. Should the Council want to pursue either of these options, specific direction should be
provided so that Staff can return during a future meeting with the necessary findings. The
following discussion provides additional background and analysis of the proposed project and
the appeal.
DISCUSSION
Site Information and Setting
The project applicant is Taylor Judkins, G3 Concepts and he is represented by Ten Over Studios.
The 0.79-acre project site consists of two parcels located between Higuera and Marsh Streets,
within the Downtown Planning Area (Downtown Commercial zone). Surrounding uses include
offices, a bank, commercial uses, a senior living facility, and residential uses. Surrounding zones
include Commercial Retail to the north, south, and west, and Downtown Commercial to the
north and east. Historic structures in the immediate vicinity include the Pollard House (adjacent
to the site, to the southwest), the Norcross House (across Higuera Street, to the north), and the
Jack House and Gardens (approximately 100 feet to the east).
Proposed Project
The proposed mixed-use project consists of two buildings, each up to 50 feet in height,
connected by an unenclosed bridge on the fourth floor. Parking would be provided within a
ground-floor garage, and surface parking spaces (totaling 74 vehicle spaces). The mechanical
parking lifts would be located within the garage. The proposed development would consist of the
following:
Building A: 3,198 square feet of retail space fronting Higuera Street; three studio units (448 to
530 square feet in size), six one-bedroom units (671 to 874 square feet in size), and three two-
bedroom units (938 to 1,001 square feet in size); eight hotel suites (372 to 1,260 square feet in
size); wrap-around walkways and decks; private balconies; and, a long-term bicycle storage
room.
Building B: 2,043 square feet of retail space fronting Marsh Street; five studio units (447 to 629
square feet in size), 14 one-bedroom units (700 to 807 square feet in size), and eight two-
bedroom units (798 to 1,174 square feet in size); wrap-around walkways and decks; a 705-square
foot roof deck on the fourth floor; private balconies; and, an enclosed garage and three-level
mechanical parking lift (48 spaces).
Item 12
Packet Page 102
Site Improvements: The existing non-historic buildings onsite would be demolished, and trees
proposed for removal include one jacaranda, three Chinese elms, two carrot wood trees, one
bottlebrush tree, and one Pyrus tree. Existing Chinese Pistache and New Zealand Christmas
street trees would remain, in addition to existing parking lot trees adjacent to the bank to the
northeast. Proposed site landscaping includes 19 strawberry trees (10 to 15 feet in height at
maturity), seven coral gum eucalyptus (36 feet tall at maturity), five forest pansy redbud trees
(20 feet tall at maturity), one Chinese Pistache (25 feet tall at maturity), and a variety of shrubs.
A decorative paver walkway and patios would surround the proposed buildings. An artificial turf
play area, pea gravel patio, and sitting bench are proposed adjacent to the southwest side of
Building A; this public area would be located behind a proposed six-foot tall wood screen wall.
The existing access drive between Marsh and Higuera Streets would remain, and a crosswalk
with decorative pavers is proposed between the new buildings and the shared parking area to the
northeast; this walkway is also intended to accommodate a future connection to the Jack House,
as envisioned in the Downtown Concept Plan1. Short-term bicycle parking would be provided
adjacent to each building.
Project Phasing: The applicant proposes to construct the project in phases. The first phase
would consist of the construction of Building B, followed by the construction of Building A.
Recommended condition of approval 12 would require submittal of a Constructi on Phasing Plan
to ensure trash/recycling, provision of parking, and other potential temporary effects would be
addressed during construction of the project.
Previous Advisory Body Action
On January 8, 2020, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project, and a motion
passed (5-2) to continue the item to a date uncertain with direction provided to the applicant,
related to consistency with the CDG. The applicant incorporated design changes to the project,
which were reviewed by the Planning Commission, resulting in the Planning Commission’s
approval of the project on February 26, 2020 (4-2-1).
The ARC reviewed the proposed project on September 9, 2019 and October 21, 2019 for
consistency with the CDG and voted to recommend approval of the project with additional
direction for minor modifications (7-0-0). Following the ARC meeting, the applicant submitted
revised plans to address the ARC’s recommendations for the Planning Commission’s
consideration.
Policy Context
Land Use Element
The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element,2 because: the proposed retail,
hotel, and residential uses are consistent with uses intended for the Downtown area (Land Use
Element Policies 3.8.5, 4.1, and 4.2.1); as proposed and conditioned the project incorporates
landscaping, setbacks, and step-backs to provide a protection of existing residential uses (Land
Use Element Policy 4.2); and, the project includes public gathering space, onsite walkways and
1 Downtown Concept Plan: https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-
development/planning-zoning/specific-area-plans/downtown
2 City of San Luis Obispo Land Use Element: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6635
Item 12
Packet Page 103
paths, and connections to sidewalks (Land Use Element Policies 4.4 and 4.5). The project is
compatible with historically significant and other existing buildings in the immediate
neighborhood (Land Use Element Policies 4.16 and 4.20.4). The project is consistent with
General Plan Land Use Element Policy 2.2.7, because the project is located within a half-mile of
an existing transit stop, and is proximate to bicycle routes, parks, open space, and commercial
uses.
Appeal
On March 9, 2020, Babak Naficy, Attorney filed an appeal on behalf of San Luis Architect ural
Protection (“SLAP”) and Save Our Downtown (“SOD”) of the Planning Commission’s decision
to approve the proposed project (Attachment D).
Staff Analysis of Appeal Letter
Staff has provided an analysis below of the points outlined in the Appeal Letter .
1. The project is not consistent with the Community Design Guidelines (CDG).
The appellant states that the proposed project is inconsistent with the Community Design
Guidelines, citing specific guidelines contained within CDG Chapter 5 (Residential Project
Design), including 5.3.A.1, 5.3.B, 5.3.C, 5.4.A.1, 5.4.A.3, 5.4.C.1, 5.4.C.2. The CDG states that
Chapter 5 guidelines apply to “the design of new residential subdivisions and to multi-family and
clustered residential projects…. single-family homes on sensitive sites, vacant infill parcels, and
that are proposed as replacement structures within established neighborhoods.”
The proposed mixed-use project is located within the Downtown Commercial (C-D) zone;
therefore, the appropriate and applicable CDG Chapter is Chapter 4 (Downtown Design
Guidelines). The CDG states that “the primary goal of the following downtown design guidelines
is to preserve and enhance its attractiveness to residents and visitors as a place where: people
prefer to walk rather than drive; and where the pleasant sidewalks, shading trees, and variety of
shops, restaurants, and other activities encourage people to spend time, slow their pace, and
engage one another. The design of buildings and their setting, circulation, and public spaces in
the downtown have, and will continue to play a crucial role in maintaining this character and
vitality. Another principal goal of these guidelines is to implement the vision of the downtown
Conceptual Physical Plan [Downtown Concept Plan] wherever feasible.”
The appellant also cites inconsistency with CDG 1.4(A)(4), which states:
1.4 – Goals for Design Quality and Character
A. Keep San Luis Obispo architecturally distinctive, don’t let it come “anywhere USA.”
4. Design with consideration of the site context in terms of the best nearby examples
of massing, scale, and land uses when the site is located in a notable area of the
city (for example, the Downtown, Old Town).
Item 12
Packet Page 104
The CDG states that: “the ARC may interpret these design guidelines with some flexibility in
their application to specific projects, as not all design criteria may be workable or appropriate for
each project. Guidelines that contain ‘should’ language will be followed unless not doing so will
result in better implementation of other guidelines or General Plan policies. The overall objective
is to ensure that the intent and spirit of the design guidelines are followed.”
As described in the February 26, 2020 Planning Commission Agenda Report, the proposed
project includes a two-story façade facing Higuera Street (proximate to the historic Pollard
House) and provides a visual transition between this project site and one and two-story buildings
immediately adjacent to the project site. In response to Planning Commission direction at the
January 8, 2020 hearing, the applicant had revised the project to incorporate a variety of revised
elements, which reduce the apparent massing of the structure by better reflecting pedestrian-scale
elements present in the Downtown, and complementing elements of historic structures present
within the area. The most prominent project revision was the use of brick and stucco materials,
which are more commonly found throughout the Downtown and demonstrate improved
compatibility with the neighborhood.
The plans reviewed by the Planning Commission on February 26, 2020 incorporate a variety of
exterior changes intended to promote consistency with the CDG. The proposed revisions that
promote improved neighborhood compatibility and preservation of the historic character of the
downtown area, and soften the overall appearance of the buildings include: limestone material is
replaced by brick, and metal and wood siding materials are replaced by smooth-finished stucco,
consistent with Downtown Design Guidelines for finish materials; the shape, size, orientation,
framing, and location of the windows has been modified to reflect existing vertically -oriented
windows on neighboring buildings, the windows on all elevations will be consistent, and clear
glass is proposed; revised window design incorporates larger window headers (light in color) and
a reduction in the metal and glazing between windows; the material between the second and
third-floor windows would match the window frame to further enhance the vertical composition
on the elevation; a bulkhead is incorporated into the stepped-back storefront (which also reduces
the size of the storefront windows) on the north elevation of Building B; the application of
vertical rather than angular canopy posts to better reflect linear posts present on proximate
buildings; addition of an awning on the north elevation of Building A; overall massing is broken
down with decks and balconies, additional decks and balconies are shown on the second and
third floors, and modification of balcony railings from metal and glass to all metal; and the use of
lighter shades of tan, particularly on the second and third floors (compared to the previously
proposed project).
The sum of these exterior changes would result in improved compatibility with the surrou nding
area while allowing for the project to maintain its own identity, consistent with the CDG. In
addition to improved consistency with the CDG, the proposed changes also promote visual
compatibility with the surrounding area, and maintain the visual character of the neighborhood,
particularly this southern extent of the Downtown.
Item 12
Packet Page 105
Based on the applicant’s previous revisions and a condition of approval requiring further
refinement of exterior materials through review by staff and the Community Development
Director upon submittal of building permits, staff recommended and the Planning Commission
found the project consistent with the CDG and applicable regulations, guidelines, and standards.
2. The project is not exempt from the California Environmental Quali ty Act (CEQA) because
it may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of “historic resources,”
particularly the Pollard House, Norcross House, and Pinho House.
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 (Categorical Exemptions, Exceptions) states that: A
categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a historical resource. The State CEQA Guidelines specifies how to
determine if there would be a significant impact to a historical resource, and states the following:
15064.5 (b) (Determining the Significance of Impacts to Archaeological and Historical
Resources): A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the
environment.
• Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical
demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate
surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially
impaired.
• The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project:
demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of
an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its
inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical
Resources, local register of historical resources.
The SWCA Historic Preservation Report and Historical Compatibility Improvement Letter
prepared for the project: 1) does not identify a substantial adverse change as defined by CEQA;
and 2) states that none of the adjacent historic properties and none of the more distantly located
historic properties will be subject to any indirect impacts that threaten their eligibility as
significant historical resources.
Therefore, pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, the project would not cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of an historical resource and would not have a significant
effect on the environment.
3. Owing to unusual circumstances, the project is capable of causing a significant adverse
impact on historical resources unlike a typical “infill project” this project is surrounded by
historically significant structures in a neighborhood that has a strong historic feel.
Item 12
Packet Page 106
The project is consistent with the General Plan, which identifies the role of the Downtown as
followed: Downtown is the community’s urban center serving as the cultural, social,
entertainment, and political center of the City for its residents, as well as home for those who
live in its historic neighborhoods. The City wants its urban core to be economically healthy, and
realizes that private and public investments in the Downtown support each other…. Downtown's
visitor appeal should be based on natural, historical, and cultural features, retail services,
entertainment and numerous and varied visitor accommodations. By providing storefront
commercial retail uses, a limited number of hotel units, and residential units, the project meets
the intent of the General Plan for the Downtown.
The Downtown Concept Plan identifies the project block (27) for commercial mixed use and
hospitality uses, and states that: “New commercial mixed use and hospitality are envisioned in
this block, with historic resources remaining. A mid-block paseo in alignment with Beach Street
connects pedestrians between Marsh and Higuera Streets and to Block 28.” The mixed-use
project includes commercial and hospitality uses and incorporates a public paseo with the
potential for a future connection to the Jack House, consistent with the plan. The site does not
include any historic resource, and the existing historic resources in the proximity would remain ,
consistent with the Downtown Concept Plan.
What constitutes an unusual circumstance is dependent on the context of the project, and whether
that circumstance is unusual for the type of project in the actual area in which the project occurs.
The proposed project consists of a mixed-use development and is consistent with Zoning
Regulations specific to the C-D zone. As noted in the project statistics, the height of the structure
(50 feet) meets the height standard, the FAR and lot coverage is less than what is allowed to be
considered in the C-D zone, and the property line setbacks exceed the minimum required. The
project’s height, size, and scale are generally consistent with other buildings in the Downtown.
The appellant notes that the City has approved multi-story, multi-family, residential [and mixed
use projects] in the vicinity, and consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, it is
reasonably expected that additional applications would be received for similar types of
developments. A project that is consistent with zoning standards and the size and scale of other
buildings in the City’s Downtown is not unusual. The fact the project would be located in an area
with historic resources is not unusual. because the presence of historic resources adjacent to the
site is not an unusual circumstance in this area of the City’s Downtown.
This issue has been carefully studied by City staff because there is an “exception” to normal
CEQA exemptions, like the infill exemption, for projects “which may cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a historical resource.”3 However, staff has determined through the
evaluation process of this project that its construction will not impact or change the significance
of any historical resource.
4. The project is not subject to the “infill” exemption or any exemption because the project is
inconsistent with the CDG and LUCE CR-2 3.3.5.
3 Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(f))
Item 12
Packet Page 107
Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 3.3.5 (Historic districts and neighborhoods) states
that: “In evaluating new public or private development, the City shall identify and protect
neighborhoods or districts having historical character due to the collective effect of Contributing
or Master List historic properties.” The project site is not located within an identified historic
district or neighborhood, and as noted above, the project site is currently developed with
commercial and office development, and the General Plan and Downtown Concept Plan calls for
the type of development proposed in this location. The project incorporates features to provide
separation and transition between the site and the identified historic resource and would not
affect the eligibility of those resources to remain.
5. The project is not subject to an exemption from CEQA because the project was required to
incorporate mitigation measures in order to reduce the significance of the project’s impacts
and inconsistency with historical resources.
The proposed project’s modifications through staff and advisory body review do not constitute
mitigation measures as defined by CEQA. No significant adverse impact to historic resources
was identified for the project as proposed.
6. The project is capable of causing a cumulatively significant impact on historical resources.
The State CEQA Guidelines state that categorical exemptions are inapplicable when the
cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is
significant. While the combination of other projects in the vicinity have resulted in a cumulative
effect, none of the projects resulted in a significant effect and as noted above, the proposed
project would not have a significant effect on historical resources as defined by the State CEQA
Guidelines. Furthermore, the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Regulations,
in addition to the CDG, and would not have a project-specific or cumulative effect on aesthetics.
7. The project is not a “housing development project” subject to and as defined by the Housing
Accountability Act [Government Code 65589.5 (h)(2)(B)].
The section of the Government Code cited by the appellant clearly states that this mixed -use
housing project is a “housing development project” subject to the process prescribed by the Act:
(h) The following definitions apply for the purposes of this section:
(2) “Housing development project” means a use consisting of any of the following:
(B) Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with
at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use.
Staff concludes that this project is subject to the requirements of the Housing Accountability Act.
8. Staff incorrectly advised the Planning Commission that the project would not cause a
significant impact on a historic resource because losing eligibility for listing as a historic
resource is not the only measure of the significance of project’s impacts on a historic
resource. The Historic Preservation Ordinance (HPO) identifies an adverse impact as
“effects, impacts or actions that are detrimental or potentially detrimental to a historic
resource’s condition, architectural or historical integrity.”
Item 12
Packet Page 108
As reviewed by the Planning Commission, the project would not result in an adverse impact as
defined by the HPO. The Historical Compatibility Letter provides a basis for this conclusion,
stating that “Although the heights of Buildings A and B are greater than the height of the existing
office buildings, the general footprint remains roughly the same and provides a measure of
architectural continuity as a result, particularly for the Norcross House and the Pinho House. The
setting for the Pollard House at 535 Higuera Street will be much improved by the widening of
the buffer between the historic property and the project; removal of the asphalt driveway and the
addition of landscaping and attractive hardscape represents a design approach that relates well to
the concrete driveway, trees, and shrubbery on the Pollard parcel. As mentioned in the Historic
Preservation Report, none of the adjacent historic properties (and I would include the Pinho
House in that designation) and none of the more distantly located historic properties will be
subject to any indirect impacts that threaten their eligibility as significant historical resources.”
9. Staff failed to refer the project to the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) for evaluation:
The HPO, specifically section 14.01.030(C)(7) states that the Cultural Heritage Committee
(CHC) shall review and make recommendations…on applications and development review
projects which include…the following: Proposed actions of public agencies that may affect
historic or cultural resources within the City.
HPO Section 14.01.040 states that the Community Development Director is responsible for
interpreting and implementing this ordinance and helping the CHC carry out its duties.
Notwithstanding Section 14.01.030C 1-5 and 7 of this ordinance, the Director may determine
that CHC review is not required for actions or projects that do not adversely affect historic
resources.
To ensure clarity about projects subject to Cultural Heritage Committee review, staff worked
with the CHC to develop a matrix identifying those projects that will be referred to the
Committee for a recommendation. In this case, the project is not located in a historic district and
there are no historic resources located on the property to be developed.
As noted above, the project would not have an adverse effect on historic resources; therefore, the
project was not referred to the CHC.
Public Engagement
Consistent with the City’s Public Engagement and Noticing (PEN) Manual and the City’s
Municipal Code, the project was noticed per the City’s notification requirements for
Development Projects. Newspaper legal advertisements were posted in the New Times ten days
prior to each advisory body meeting (Architectural Review, Planning Commission, City
Council). Additionally, postcards were sent to both tenants and owners of properties located
within 300 feet of the project site ten days before each advisory body hearing. Public comment
was provided to the advisory bodies through written correspondence and through public
testimony at each of the hearings.
Item 12
Packet Page 109
CONCURRENCE
Staff comments provided during review of the proposed project and appeal are incorporated into
the presented evaluation and conditions of approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is categorically exempt under Class 32, In-Fill Development Projects; Section 15332
of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, because the project is
consistent with General Plan policies for the land use designation and is consistent with the
applicable zoning designation and applicable regulations. The project site occurs on a property of
no more than five acres, which is currently developed with existing commercial and office uses
and associated parking, is substantially surrounded by urban uses, and has no value as habitat for
endangered, rare or threatened species. The project would be served by adequate required
utilities and public services. The project has been reviewed by the City Public Works
Department, Transportation Division, and no significant traffic impacts were identified, based on
the size and location of the project. Based on the current use of the site, the proposed project as
designed, the location of the project, and compliance with existing Zoning and Municipal Code
Regulations including the City’s Noise and Stormwater Regulations, the project would not result
in any significant effects related to noise, air quality, or water quality.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: N/A
Funding Identified: No
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding Sources Current FY Cost
Annualized
On-going Cost
Total Project
Cost
General Fund N/A
State
Federal
Fees
Other:
Total
Per policy, Development Services fees are based on 100% cost recovery. However, during the
2016 Fee Study the Council approved a 25% cost recovery for Appeals. The average estimated
labor cost for a Tier 1 Appeal is $3,116, and the current fee for non-applicants is $640.
When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which
found that overall, the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed
project is consistent with the General Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact. There is no fiscal
impact associated with the approval of this project.
Item 12
Packet Page 110
ALTERNATIVES
1. Uphold the appeal, thereby denying the project. The Council can deny the project based on
findings of inconsistency with California State Law, the City’s General Plan, Zoning
Regulations, and other applicable City regulations. Should Council want to pursue this
alternative, Staff recommends that specific information be provided in order for Staff to
return with findings to support Council direction.
2. Continue consideration of the appeal to a future date. The Council can continue review of
the appeal to a future meeting. If this alternative if taken, the Council should provide
direction to staff regarding additional information needed to make a decision.
Attachments:
a - Draft Resolution
b - COUNCIL READING FILE - Planning Commission and ARC Agenda Reports and
Minutes
c - COUNCIL READING FILE - Applicant Narrative and Plans
d - Appeal Application and Letter
Item 12
Packet Page 111
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2020 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF A 50-FOOT TALL MIXED-USE
PROJECT CONSISTING OF 5,241 SQUARE FEET OF GROUND-FLOOR
RETAIL, EIGHT HOTEL SUITES, AND 39 RESIDENTIAL UNITS,
INCLUDING MECHANICAL PARKING LIFTS, AND A CATEGORICAL
EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS REPRESENTED
IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS (545 HIGUERA STREET,
486 MARSH STREET, ARCH-0017-2019)
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, on September 9, 2019, and continued review of the project to a date uncertain,
pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-0017-2019, Taylor Judkins, applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, on October 21, 2019, recommending the Planning Commission find the project
consistent with the Community Design Guidelines and two directional items related to colors and
architectural details, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-0017-2019, Taylor Judkins,
applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
January 8, 2020, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-0017-2019, Taylor Judkins,
applicant, and moved to continue review of the entitlement to a date uncertain; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
February 26, 2020, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-0017-2019, Taylor Judkins,
applicant and approved the mixed-use project with a Categorical Exemption from environmental
review; and
WHEREAS, on March 9, 2020, Babak Naficy, Attorney filed an appeal on behalf of San
Luis Architectural Protection (“SLAP”) and Save Our Downtown (“SOD”) of the Planning
Commission’s action on February 26, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
via webinaron June 2, 2020, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under APPL-0201-2020, Babak
Naficy, Attorney filed an appeal on behalf of San Luis Architectural Protection (“SLAP”) and
Save Our Downtown (“SOD”), appellants; and
Item 12
Packet Page 112
Resolution No. _____ (2020 Series) Page 2
R ______
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has duly considered all
evidence, including the testimony of the appellants, the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation
and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
that the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision is denied pursuant to the following findings:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the
following findings to deny the appeal (APPL-0201-2020) of the Planning Commission decision,
thereby granting final approval to the project (ARCH-0017-2019):
a) As conditioned, the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare
of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the project respects
site constraints and will be compatible with the scale and character of the
neighborhood.
b) The project is consistent with the Zoning Regulations, since the proposed building
design complies with all property development standards including height, setbacks,
coverage, floor area ratio, density, and parking for the Downtown-Commercial zone.
c) The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element, because: the
proposed retail, hotel, and residential uses are consistent with uses intended for the
Downtown area (Land Use Element Policies 3.8.5, 4.1, and 4.2.1); as proposed and
conditioned the project incorporates landscaping, setbacks, and step-backs to provide
a protection of existing residential uses (Land Use Element Policy 4.2); and, the
project includes public gathering space, onsite walkways and paths, and connections
to sidewalks (Land Use Element Policies 4.4 and 4.5). As designed and conditioned,
the project is compatible with historically significant and other existing buildings in
the immediate neighborhood (Land Use Element Policies 4.16 and 4.20.4).
d) The project is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policy 2.2.7, because
the project is located within a half-mile of an existing transit stop, and is proximate to
bicycle routes, parks, open space, and commercial uses.
e) The project is consistent with the Zoning Regulations for Mixed-use Projects (Section
17.70.130) because the proposed building design complies with objective design
criteria and performance standards for mixed-use development.
f) The project is consistent with the Zoning Regulations for Rooftop Uses (Section
17.70.150) because the roof deck would be located at 40 feet, 6 inches in elevation,
which is below the maximum allowable building height for the structure (50 feet) and
would be in compliance with required performance standards related to lighting and
noise.
Item 12
Packet Page 113
Resolution No. _____ (2020 Series) Page 3
R ______
g) The project design is consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines
because the architectural design of the project is compatible with design and scale of
existing structures in the surrounding neighborhood, the project incorporates
articulation to minimize massing, visual linkages are provided through the use of
landscaping, and pedestrian walkways, the proposed design demonstrates use of
articulated facades by incorporating textured materials, balconies and decks, and a
variety of siding materials (brick and stucco) is proposed to provide texture, relief, and
visual interest consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines and visual character
of the neighborhood.
h) The use of mechanical lift parking results in superior design and implementation of
City goals and policies for infill development, because it would allow for the provision
of parking spaces for proposed retail, hotel, and residential uses in a compact location
within an enclosed garage.
i) As the mechanical lift parking system would be located within an enclosed garage, it
will be adequately screened and compatible with the character of surrounding
development and the Community Design Guidelines.
j) As the mechanical lift parking system would be located within an enclosed garage, it
will comply with all development standards including but not limited to height and
setback requirements and parking and driveway standards, except for minimum
parking stall sizes, which are established by lift specifications.
k) As conditioned, there exists adequate agreement running with the land that mechanical
parking systems will be safely operated and maintained in continual operation except
for limited periods of maintenance.
l) There are no circumstances of the site or development or particular model or type of
mechanical lift system that could result in significant impacts to those living or
working on the site or in the vicinity.
m) The project is a “housing development project” subject to and as defined by the
Housing Accountability Act [Government Code 65589.5 (h)(2)(B)], as “housing
development projects” include mixed-use developments consisting of residential and
nonresidential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for
residential use, and does not require that the nonresidential use be located on the first
floor only. As such, the project meets this requirement.
Item 12
Packet Page 114
Resolution No. _____ (2020 Series) Page 4
R ______
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt under Class 32,
In-Fill Development Projects; Section 15332 of the State California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines, because the project is consistent with General Plan policies for the land use
designation and is consistent with the applicable zoning designation and applicable regulations.
The project site occurs on a property of no more than five acres, which is currently developed with
existing commercial and office uses and associated parking, is substantially surrounded by urban
uses, and has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. The project would be
served by adequate required utilities and public services. The project has been reviewed by the
City Public Works Department, Transportation Division, and no significant traffic impac ts were
identified, based on the size and location of the project. Based on the current use of the site, the
proposed project as designed, the location of the project, and compliance with existing Zoning and
Municipal Code Regulations including the City’s Noise and Stormwater Regulations, the project
would not result in any significant effects related to noise, air quality, or water quality. Based on
the projects location within the Downtown Commercial zone, and the project’s consistency with
the General Plan, Downtown Concept Plan, and Zoning Regulations, and presence of historic
resources throughout the Downtown and areas subject to the same policies and regulations, no
unusual circumstance exists in accordance with the Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. the City of
Berkeley, 60 Cal 4th 1086 (2015) case. Furthermore, based on the project’s design, which
incorporates forms, step backs, setbacks, landscaping, and materials found to be consistent with
the General Plan and Community Design Guidelines, and the initial recommendations of the
historic assessment and the conclusion of the Historical Compatibility Letter, the project would
not result in a significant adverse impact or cumulative impact to historical resources as defined
by the California Environmental Quality Act.
Item 12
Packet Page 115
Resolution No. _____ (2020 Series) Page 5
R ______
SECTION 3. Action. Based on the foregoing findings and evidence in the record, the City
Council does hereby deny the appeal of the Planning Commission’ s action to approve the design
of the proposed project thereby granting final approval of the application ARCH-0017-2019 for a
mixed-use project and the use of mechanical parking lifts for the proposed project at 454 Higuera
Street and 486 Marsh Street, as conditioned by the Planning Commission.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2020.
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
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, on _____________________.
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
Item 12
Packet Page 116
Date Received Filing Fee RECEIVED
MAR O 9 2020
O Applicant: $ 1,65964 la Non-applicant $ 55401
D Tree Appeal: $ 11999
·""' I SLO CITY CLERK For Office Use Received by:�
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION
San Luis Architecture! Protection
Name
805-593-0926
Phone
1540 Marsh St, Suite 110, SLO, CA 93401
Mailing Address and Zip Code
805-593-0946
Fax
Babak Naficy, 1540 Marsh St, Suite 110, SLO, CA 93401
Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code
attorney, ( same as above)
Title Phone Fax
SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAL
1.In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo·
Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the:
Planning Commission
(Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed)
2.The date the decision being appealed was rendered: February 26, 2020
3.The application or project was entitled: Mixed-Use Project at 545 Higuera/486 Marsh Street
Mixed-Use Project at 545 Higuera/486 Marsh Street
4.I discussed the matter with the following City staff member:
(Staff Member's Name and Department)(Date)
5.Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so, when was it heard and by whom:
SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL
Explain specifically what action/s you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider
your appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional
pages, if necessary. This form continues on the other side.
07/19 update Page 1 of 3
ATTACHMENT DItem 12
Packet Page 117
Reason 'for Appeal continued
Please See Attachment
This item is hereby calendared for ____________________ _
cc: City Attorney
City Manager
Department Head
Advisory Body Chairperson
Advisory Body Liaison
City Clerk (original)
07/19 update Page 2 of3
ATTACHMENT DItem 12
Packet Page 118
Supplement to Appeal to the City Council
San Luis Architectural Protection ("SLAP") and Save Our Downtown ("SOD", collectively
"Appellants") appeal the Planning Commission's February 26, 2020 approval of a mixed-use
Project at 545 Higuera/486 Marsh Street ("the Project"), including the Planning Commission's
conclusion that the Project is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality
Act ("CEQA"). This document supplements the City's Appeal form, which is currently filed
herewith.
By this reference, Appellants specifically incorporate February 26, 2020 written and oral
comments of Babak N aficy on behalf of SLAP, as well as the written and oral comments of
James Papp, PhD, Allan Cooper and Dan Krieger's at the Planning Commission hearings on
January 8, 2020 and February 26, 2020.
James Papp, PhD, is historian and architectural historian to the Secretary oflnterior's
professional qualification standards and former chair of San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage
Commission. Dr. Papp is a Cal Poly professor emeritus of architecture. Alan Cooper is former
Planning Commissioner and Cal Poly professor emeritus of history. Dan Kriege is a former chair
of the Cultural Heritage Commission. Owing to their extensive educational, teaching and
professional experience, these individual individually and collectively are experts on the issues
raised in this appeal.
Introduction
The Appellants' core objective is protection the historic and architectural integrity of the
historically mixed use, working-class neighborhood in which this Project is proposed. Appellans
are deeply concerned that owing to its mass, height and scale, this Project would have an
overwhelming effect on the affected historic resources and architectural and aesthetic integrity of
this neighborhood.
The Project consists of a two buildings, each 50 feet in height, sited on two connected parcels
located between Higuera and Marsh Streets. The Project will include retail space on the ground
floor, eight hotel units, and a mix of studios, and one and two-bedroom apartments on the upper
floors. A more detailed description of the Project is provided in the Planning Commission Staff
Report.
Argument
Appellants contend the Planning Commission's approval of the Project must be set aside for the
following reasons:
1.The Project is not consistent with San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines
("CDG"). In fact, the Staff Report prepared for the PC fails to adequately consider the
Project's consistency with CDG. For example, the Staff Report does not identify any
1 Appeal of Planning Commission's approval of 545 Higuera/486 Marsh Street Project
ATTACHMENT DItem 12
Packet Page 119
extenuating circumstances that could support the Project's failure to comply with the
provisions of the CDG, despite the City Council's November 6, 2007 amendments to the
CDG explaining that "should" language in the CDG must be complied with unless to do
so would be precluded owing to specific extenuating circumstances. The particular
provisions of the CDG with which the Project is inconsistent include the following:
5.3.A.1. Infill residential development should be compatible in scale, siting,
detailing, and overall character with adjacent buildings and those in the immediate
neighborhood.
At 50 feet in height, the Project is manifestly incompatible in scale and overall
character with the one and two-story adjacent historically significant buildings.
5.3.B. An infill residential structure should incorporate the traditional
architectural characteristics of existing houses in the neighborhood, including
window and door spacing, exterior materials, roof style and pitch, ornamentation,
and other details.
The Proposed structure does not incorporate or reflect the architectural
characteristics of the existing historic houses in the neighborhood.
5.3.C. The height of infill projects should be consistent with surrounding
residential structures. Where greater height is required, an infill structure should
set back upper floors from the edge of the first story to reduce impacts on smaller
adjacent homes, and to protect solar access.
The Project's height is inconsistent with the historic single-story residential
neighborhood, including mostly single-story historic houses.
5.4.A.1. Site planning for a multi-family ... housing project should ... consider
the existing character of the surrounding residential area. New development
should respect the privacy of adjacent residential uses through appropriate
building orientation and structure height, so that windows do not overlook and
impair the privacy of the indoor or outdoor living space of adjacent units.
The height of the proposed multi-family Project is inconsistent with the character
of the surrounding residential area, and the Project does not respect the privacy of
the adjacent historically significant houses.
5.4.A.3. Multi-family structures should be set back from adjacent public streets
consistent with the prevailing setback pattern of the immediate neighborhood.
The prevailing setback pattern of the immediate neighborhood is single cottages
or bungalows with front yards and open side parking areas for small businesses.
2 Appeal of Planning Commission's approval of 545 Higuera/486 Marsh Street Project
ATTACHMENT DItem 12
Packet Page 120
5.4.C.1. A structure with three or more attached units should incorporate
significant wall and roof articulation to reduce apparent scale. . .. Structures
exceeding 150 feet in length are discouraged.
The Project, designed as a single block almost 300 feet long, now consists of two
blocks slightly offset and separated, with large expanses of flat roof and flat wall,
and connected by a skybridge, presenting as a single building from most street
and neighbor vantage points, without reduction to its apparent scale.
5.4.C.2. Structures with greater height may require additional setbacks at the
ground floor level and/or upper levels (stepped down) along the street frontage so
they do not shade adjacent properties or visually dominate the neighborhood.
Large projects should be broken up into groups of structures, and large single
structures should be avoided.
The Project does not have setbacks at the ground floor level and has minimal
setbacks at the upper levels and manifestly visually dominates the neighborhood
with a large single structure on the two lots (543 and 545) facing Higuera Street
and another large single structure on the lot (586) facing Marsh Street and
presenting from most street and neighbor vantage points as an even larger single
structure.
1.4(A)(4)7 (5): (4) Design with consideration of the site context in terms of the
best nearby examples of massing, scale, and land uses when the site is located in a
notable area of the city (for example, the Downtown, Old Town) and (5) Protect
the scale and character of historic neighborhoods.
The Project design does not relate to and is inconsistent with the nearby examples
of massing and scale, and, the Project does not protect the scale and character of
this historic neighborhood.
2.Contrary to the Staffs suggestion and the Planning Commission's finding, the Project is
not exempt from CEQA. It should be noted that notwithstanding the fact the Planning
Commission adopted a finding that the Project is exempt from CEQA, according to the
Staff Report, the Planning Commission's purview is limited to reviewing the Project's
consistency with the applicable provisions of the General Plan, Zoning Regulations,
Community Design Guidelines, and applicable City development standards. See, Staff
Report, at P. 12. Moreover, the Planning Commissioners did not discuss the Project's
compliance with CEQA, and did not direct any questions in this regard towards the Staff
or the City Attorney.
•This Project is not exempt from CEQA because it may cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of"historic resources". CEQA Guideline §15300.2(f).
Substantial evidence, including the April 2019 SWCA Environmental
Consultants' Historic Preservation Report ("Report"), and the comments of Dr.
James Papp, and other members of the public, supports a finding that the Project
3 Appeal of Planning Commission's approval of 545 Higuera/486 Marsh Street Project
ATTACHMENT DItem 12
Packet Page 121
may cause significant impact on historically significant buildings -particularly
the Pollard House, Norcross House and Pinho House-in the Project's vicinity.
•Owing to unusual circumstance, the Project is capable of causing a significant
adverse impact on historical resources. CEQA Guideline §15300.2(c).The
Project's circumstances are unusual because unlike a typical "infill project"
subject to the infill exemption, this Project is surrounded by historically
significant structures in a neighborhood that has a strong historic feel. Owing to
this unusual circumstance, the Project may cause a significant impact on historic
resources. Owing to these unusual circumstances, it can be fairly argued that the
Project may have a significant impact on historical resources, as set forth above
and in the SWCA Report.
•The Project is not subject to the "infill" exemption (or any exemption because the
Project is inconsistent with the CDG, as set forth above. CEQA Guideline
§15332(a). The Project is also inconsistent with LUCE CR-2, 3.3.5 requirement
that "in evaluating new public or private development, the City should identify
andprotect neighborhoods or districts that have historical character due to the
colletive effect of Contributing or Master List historic properties."
•The Project is not subject to an exemption from CEQA because the Project was
required to incorporate mitigation measures in order to reduce the significance of
the Project's impacts and inconsistency with historical resources. Salmon
Protection and Watershed Network v. County of Marin (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th
1098, 1102.
•The Project is capable of causing a cumulatively significant impact on historical
resources. CEQA Guideline § l 5300.2(b ). The evidence shows that the City has
already approved multi-story multi-family, residential projects in the same
neighborhood. In fact, at the February 26, 2020 Planning Commission heraring,
Michael Codron, the City's Director of Community Development, emphasized
that the Commission will likely continue to see applications for similar multi
story projects in this neighborhood. Yet, the Planning Commission and Staff
made no adequate effort to consider whether the cumulative impact of successive
projects of the same type in the same place could result in a cumulative aesthetic
and/or historic impacts. Accordingly, Appellants contend that there is a
"reasonable possibility" that this Project "will have a significant effect on the
environment due to unusual circumstances. CEQA Guideline §15300.2(b
4 Appeal of Planning Commission's approval of 545 Higuera/486 Marsh Street Project
ATTACHMENT DItem 12
Packet Page 122
3.Contrary to the Staff Report's explanation, this Project is not a "housing development
project" subject to the Housing Accountability Act because it includes hotel rooms (i.e. a
commercial use) above the first floor of the building. See, Gov. Code§ 65589.5, subd.
(h)(2)(B). Accordingly, the provisions and limitations of Gov. Code§ 65589.50) do not
apply to this case and have no effect on the City's discretion.
4.The Staff incorrectly advised the Planning Commission that the Project would not cause a
significant impact on a historic resource because despite the Project's impacts, the
Pollard House, Norcross House and Pinho House would remain eligible for listing as a
historic resource. Losing eligibility for listing as a historic resource, however, is not the
only measure of the significance of project's impacts on a historic resource. According to
San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance, for example, adverse impacts are
defined as "effects, impacts or actions that are detrimental or potentially detrimental to a
historic resource's condition, architectural or historical integrity." §14.01.020(3). Comm.
to Save the Hollywoodland Specific Plan v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 161 Cal. App.
4th 1168, 1187 held that a project involving the building of a fence atop a historically
significant was not exempt from CEQA in part because the "wall will significantly
impact the environment by altering the historic resource, both as to its physical integrity
and its aesthetic appeal from the neighboring streets." Accordingly, the Stafrs failure to
correctly advise the Planning Commission concerning the legal definition of an adverse
impact on historic resources undermined the Planning Commission's ability to assess the
significance of the Project or the finding that the Project is exempt from CEQA.
5.The City was required but failed to refer the Project to the Cultural Heritage Committee
for evaluation of the potential impact on historic resources. Pursuant to
§14.0l.030(C)(7), "The Committee shall review and make recommendations to the
Director, Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission or City Council on
applications and development review projects which include any of the following: ...
Proposed actions of public agencies that may affect historic or cultural resources within
the City." The Planning Commission's approval of the Project constitutes a "proposed
action" of a public agency that may affect historic resources within the City. As such, the
Project should have been referred to the Cultural Resource Committee for review and
recommendations.
For all of the foregoing reasons, I urge you to grant this appeal and send the Project back
to the Planning Commission and the Cultural Heritage Committee for further
consideration and environmental review.
Rer.,(/s��
Rfs}ctfully,
Babak Naficy, for Appellants
S Appeal of Planning Commission's approval of 545 Higuera/486 Marsh Street Project
ATTACHMENT DItem 12
Packet Page 123
15 40 Marsh Street
Suite 110
San Luis Obispo
California 93401
ph: 805-593-0926
fax: 805-593-0946
babaknaficy@sbcglobal.net
.------------------------·LawOffices of Babak Naficy
February 26, 2020
Via Email
San Luis Obispo Planning Commission
Shawna Scott, Senior Planner
sscott@slocity.org
advisorybodies@slocity.org
Re: PC February 26, 2020 Meeting Item Number 2: 545 Higuera & 486 Marsh
Honorable Commissioners.
I submit these comments on behalf of San Luis Architectural Preservation (SLAP) in
connection with the Planning Commission's (PC) ongoing review of the 545 Higuera/484
Marsh Street Project ("Project"). As more fully explained below, SLAP contends the City
may not lawfully rely on a categorical exemption in this case because t�e Project will likely
cause a significant and substantial adverse impact on historically significant resources in the
Project's vicinity. CEQA exemptions do not apply to a discretionary project that could
potentially cause a significant impact and therefor requires mitigation. I urge you to
continue the hearing and direct Staff to undertake a more comprehensive and detailed
review of the Project's impacts and potentially feasible mitigation measures and
alternatives.
The Planning Department has proposed that this project is exempt from CEQA review as a
Class 32, in-fill development project. For reasons that are stated below, the Planning
Department's conclusion is wrong. This Project is not exempt because a number of
exceptions apply. To begin with, the Project does not come within the scope of the
exemption because it does not comply with all applicable rules and regulations. The Project
is not exempt also because it may cause a substantial adverse impact on one or more historic
resources. Moreover, owing to special circumstances, it can be fairly argued that this Project
would have a potentially significant impact on a historic resource. Finally, the Project is not
exempt because the proposed conditions of approval and required changes to the Project
amount to mitigation measures that are intended to lessen the severity of the Project's
adverse impacts on historic resources.
Categorical exemptions are not absolute
Categorical exemptions are not absolute. If there is any "reasonable possibility" that a
project or activity may have a significant effect on the environment, an exemption is
improper. Guideline §15300.2(c); Wildlife Alive v. Chickering, (1976) 18 Cal. 3d 190, 205-
06.Categorical exemptions must be strictly construed to ensure they are applied only to the
1
ATTACHMENT DItem 12
Packet Page 124
classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant impact on the
environment. Azusa Land Reclamation Co v. Maio San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52
cal.App.4th 1165, 1192.
There are several "exceptions" to the application of a categorical exemption, three of which
apply here:
•There is a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment due to
unusual circumstances. Guideline §15300.2(c);
•Significant cumulative impacts from projects of the same type will result. Guideline
§15300.2(b);
•Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which
may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
Guideline §15300.2(f).
A project is not exempt from CEQA where the agency's conclusion that the project would not
result in any potentially significant environmental impacts is based on consideration of
mitigation measures. In other words, if mitigation measures are needed to avoid or lessen
potentially significant impacts, then at a minimum, a mitigated negative declaration must be
prepared. See, Kostka and Zischke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act,
2nd Ed., at §5.75, citing Azusa Land Reclamation Co v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster
(1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1200.
The Proiect is not exempt from CEOA because it may cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of historical resources
This Project subject is not exempt from CEQA because the Project may cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of "historic resources" as the term is defined under CEQA. According to
the April 2019 SWCA Environmental Consultants' Historic Preservation Report ("Report"), a
number of historically significant buildings may be adversely affected and changed by the Project.
According to the Report: Five parcels in the immediate project area are occupied by seven
buildings and one cultural landscape included on the City' s Master List of Historic Resources and
one parcel by one building (the Wilkinson House) included on the Contributing List (Table 1). Of
these, one property-the Jack House-is also listed on the NRHP. One additional property within
the neighborhood-the c 1887 Pinho House-is also included as an example of early residential
development typical of the neighborhood.(Report p. 7). "Historic structures in the immediate
vicinity include the Pollard House (adjacent to the site, to the southwest), the Norcross House (
across Higuera Street, to the north), and the Jack House and Gardens ( approximately 100 feet to
the east)." Consistent with the Report, the staff report correctly identifies the Project's vicinity as
containing a mosaic of historically si gnificant buildings.
2
ATTACHMENT DItem 12
Packet Page 125
The Report itself amounts to substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project "may
cause a substantial adverse effect" on several historic resources.
Regarding the Pollard House, which is located immediately adjacent to the Project site, the Report
explains
The adjacency, height, mass, and design (and, to a lesser extent, the materials) of
the proposed development (especially of the building at 545 Higuera Street) would
completely dominate the neighboring Pollard House and would greatly impact its
integrity of setting, feeling, and association. (Report at p. 19).
Likewise, concerning the Norcoss House, the Report explains:
Along with the Pollard House, the Norcross House will bear the brunt of project
impacts to the integrity of setting, feeling, and association. Considering that the
Norcross House has already been subject to a slight loss of integrity of location (
from being moved closer to Higuera Street) and a severe loss of integrity of design,
materials, workmanship, setting, feeling, and association from its own on-site
redevelopment project, the impacts from the proposed project will constitute
additional cumulative impacts. (Report at p. 20).
The report also points out cumulative impacts to the Pinho House, which, like the Norcross House,
has been relocated on its lot and altered in its fabric ( e.g., with the addition of safety railing to the
Italianate porch) by development. The Jack House will also be affected by the Project, but not to
the same extent:
To the extent that these partial views [ of the Project] introduce large-scale modem
elements at very close range to the NRHP-listed historical property, the visual
intrusion would constitute a loss of integrity probably only minor) to the Jack
House setting, feeling, and association but would not impair its integrity of location,
design, materials, or workmanship. (Report at p. 22).
In a September 3, 2019 letter to Shawna Scott, the Report's author, Paula Carr, addressed the
developer's response to the Report's recommended mitigation measures: "These clarifications go a
long way, in my mind, toward meeting my earlier recommendations for improving compatibility"
(italics added). Significantly, she did not conclude that the proposed mitigation measures would
reduce the Project's impact on historic resources to a less than significant level, as was claimed by
the City in your Jan. 8th hearing. In any event, as explained below, any evaluation of the adequacy
of any proposed mitigation measures would be inappropriate in the context of an exemption.
While the Report states the cultural resources in question would retain their eligibility for Master
List status, that is not CEQA's definition of si gnificant impact, nor is that interpretation supported
3
ATTACHMENT DItem 12
Packet Page 126
by case law. The only relevant issue is that the inclusion of recommended mitigations is a clear
indication that the Project impacts are si gnificant. Accordingly, because individually and in the
aggregate, the Project as proposed may cause a substantial adverse change in the si gnificance of
these historical resources, the Project cannot be exempt from CEQA review. Please also refer to
the comments of James Papp, PhD, concerning the adverse impacts of the Project on the historic
resources identified in the Report.
Owing to Special Circumstances, the Project may have a significant adverse impact on
historic resources.
In addition to the "Historic Resource" exception, the "unusual circumstances" exception also
precludes the City's reliance on a CEQA exemption for this Project. According to the unusual
circumstances exception, an agency may not approve a project in reliance on a categorical
exemption if, owing to special circumstances, it can be fairly argued the project would have one or
more significant impact on the environment. Here, the circumstances of this Project are highly
unusual in that the Project is located in the midst of a several historically significant resources
which the Project may adversely affect.
To prove that an exemption does not apply owing to the "unusual circumstances," a
"challenger must prove both unusual circumstances and a si gnificant environmental effect that
is due to those circumstances. In this method of proof, the unusual circumstances relate to
some feature of the project that distinguishes the project from other features in the exempt
class."[] "Once an unusual circumstance is proved under this method, then the 'party need
only show a reasonable possibility of a significant effect due to that unusual circumstance.'
Walters v. City ofRedondo Beach (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 809, 819-820 ("Walters").
The Project presents unusual circumstances because, as set forth above, the Report clearly
indicates that there are ten mandatory and presumptive historic resources in the immediate Project
area, including the NRHP Jack House and Wash House; the Master List Jack Garden and Carriage
House, Kaetzel House, Pollard House, Norcross House, and Golden State Creamery; the
Contributing List Wilkinson House; and the Pinho House. The proximity of such a large number of
historically significant resources that could potentially be adversely affected by the Project is an
unusual Project feature that is unlike any typical infill project to which the Class 32 exemption
would apply. There is no evidence to suggest a typical infill project would be located in the
vicinity of, and be capable of causing adverse impacts on a substantial number of historically
significant structures.
The Resource agency [the author of CEQA Regulations] cannot have intended to exempt infill
projects capable of causing substantial adverse impacts on nine historically significant structures
and one cultural landscape. Comm. to Save the Hollywoodland Specific Plan v. City of Los
Angeles (2008) 161 Cal. App. 4th 1168, 1187(unusual circumstances exception applied where the
4
ATTACHMENT DItem 12
Packet Page 127
project --consisting of the placement of a 42 inch fence on a unique and historic wall--created an
environmental risk to a historic resource that does not exist for the general class of exempt
projects.) "A categorical exemption is based on a finding by the Resources Agency that a class or
category of projects does not have a significant effect on the environment." Davidon Homes v.
City of San Jose (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 106, 115. Accordingly, the circumstances of the Project
must be considered "unusual" within the meaning of CEQA.
Moreover, as set forth above and in the Report, the Project may have a substantial adverse impact
on a number of historically significant buildings, particularly the Pollard House, the Norcross
House, the Pinho House, and the Jack House. Accordingly, the unusual exception applies because
it can be fairly argued that owing to special circumstances, the Project is capable of causing a
significant adverse environmental impact. See, also, expert comments of James Papp., Ph.D., filed
separately, regarding the Project's adverse and substantial impact on the significance of historic
resources.
The Project does not come within the scope of Class 32 exemption because it is not consistent
with all applicable General Plan Policies and Guidelines.
To be eligible for a Class 32 exemption, the Project must be "consistent with the applicable
general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning
designation and regulations." Guidelines§ 15332. Here, the evidence shows the Project is not
consistent with all applicable policies.
Of particular relevance to this Project is City Design Guideline 3.2.2., according to which "New
development should not sharply contrast with, significantly block public views of, or visually
detract from, the historic architectural character of historically designated structures located
adjacent to the property to be developed, or detract from the prevailing historic architectural
character of the historic district." The comments of Dr. James Papp, Ph.D., and the analysis in the
Report support a finding that the Project sharply contrasts with, and visually detracts from historic
resources, particularly the Pollard House and the Norcross House.
The Project is also inconsistent with Guideline 5.3.C., which directs that "The height of infill
projects should be consistent with surrounding residential structures. Where greater height is
required, an infill structure should set back upper floors from the edge of the first story to reduce
impacts on smaller adjacent homes, and to protect solar access." There is no question that the
height of this Project is inconsistent with surrounding residential structure, particularly the Pollard
House which is immediately adjacent to the Project.
The City may not rely on mitigation measures to conclude the Proiect is exempt, or one of
the exceptions do not apply
It is well-settled that an agency may not rely on mitigation measures to conclude a project is
5
ATTACHMENT DItem 12
Packet Page 128
categorically exempt, or that that an exception to the exemption does not apply. See, Kostka and
Zischke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act, 2nd Ed., at §5.75, citing Salmon
Protection and Watershed Network v. County of Marin (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1102. See,
also, Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th
1165,1200. "In determining whether the significant effect exception to a categorical exemption
exists, "[i]t is the possibility of a significant effect ... which is at issue, not a determination of the
actual effect, which would be the subject of a negative declaration or an EIR. Appellants cannot
escape the law by taking a minor step in mitigation and then find themselves exempt from the
exception to the exemption."
"A mitigation measure, ... , involves "feasible changes in any or all activities involved in the
project in order to substantially lessen or avoid significant effects on the environment.. .. " (CEQA
Guidelines,§ 15041, subd. (a).)" Mission Bay All. v. Office ofCmty. Inv. & Infrastructure (2016)
6 Cal. App. 5th 160, 184. While the distinction between a mitigation measure and a project feature
may not always be crystal clear (Lotus v. Dep't of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 645,
656, fn 8), the general rule is that measures whose only function is to "reduce or eliminate" one or
more potentially significant impact on the environment are properly characterized as mitigation
measures and are not properly considered as project feature. Id.
The Report explains that "the incongruent height and massing of the building, which stretches the
full width of the block, is responsible for the incompatibility of the project as a whole." Report at
p.34. The "incompatibility of the Project with these historic resources, therefore, is largely owed
to the Project's height and massing.
To address this incompatibility, the author of report proposes the following "recommendations:"
•Break up the solid mass of the building, which stretches the full width of the
block, into two ( orthree) separate, offset elements that better reflect the surrounding
building scale and spatial relationships.
•Relocate the 545 Higuera Street building to the opposite side ofthe driveway
to allow the Pollard House more space. Landscaping the currently proposed
location would provide screening and a beneficial buffer.
•Confine the four-story set-back element to the middle of the block.
Report, at p. 35.
The PC, likewise, has suggested mitigation measures to reduce the Project's impact on the
surrounding historic resources. According to the Staff Report, at the January 8, 2020 meeting, the
PC provided the following direction to the applicant: "The exteriors of both buildings A and B
shall be redesigned to bring them into compatibility with adjacent and surrounding architectural
forms that reflect and preserve the historic character of the downtown area and equally important
6
ATTACHMENT DItem 12
Packet Page 129
in size and scale." This appears to be a mistake as it appears that the PC actually directed the
applicant to consider setback. In any event, the fact remains that the PC directed the applicant to
come up with mitigation measures to reduce the Project's impacts on the adjacent neighborhoods.
According to the Staff Report, the applicant's "proposed revisions" are intended to "promote
improved neighborhood compatibility and preservation of the historic character of the downtown
area, and soften the overall appearance of the buildings include: ... " These proposed revisions
must likewise be considered mitigation measures as they are clearly intended to reduce an adverse
impact, i.e., incompatibility with historic character of the neighborhood.
The foregoing demonstrates that the PC, staff and the applicant continue to struggle to find
mitigation measures to reduce the Project's impacts on historic resources. While SLAP comments
the PC and the applicant's efforts to improve the project, we must not lose site of the fact that
consideration of the efficacy and feasibility of mitigation measures must be governed by CEQA
standards that govern the preparation of negative declarations and EIRs.
Conclusion
This Project would cause particularly palpable and significant adverse impact on this historically
significant neighborhood because it is a "large-scale, multi-story pioneer in the neighborhood."
Report at p. 33. As such, this Project could set a new precedent in favor of large multi-story in this
neighborhood, making it nearly impossible for the City to deny any future large-scale projects on
the basis of incompatibility with the scale of the historic resources of the neighborhood. As such,
the law demands that the Project's impacts and any feasible mitigation measures and alternatives
be carefully and transparently considered in the regular course of environmental review. The infill
exemption was not intended to apply to such a Project. I therefore urge you not to approve the
Project at this time.
7
Sincerely
LAW OFFICE OF BABAK NAFICY
Babak Naficy,
Counsel for SLAP
ATTACHMENT DItem 12
Packet Page 130
Planning Commission
City of San Luis Obispo
Dear Planning Commissioners:
8 January 2020
The Community Development Department has claimed a Class 32 (Infill) Exemption from
Environmental Review for the four-story hotel, retail, and apartment complex at 545
Higuera/ 486 Marsh. This letter is presented as a fair argument supported by substantial
evidence that an exception to the exemption applies due to cumulative impact (Guidelines
15.300.2.b), both aesthetic and on historical significance (24084.1) on the Dana Street
North Higuera Street neighborhood, developed in the 1860s and 1870s on land owned by
Tomas Higuera, Blas Castro, Ramona Carillo de Pacheco de Wilson, and Governor
Romualdo Pacheco Jr. (Harris and Ward Map of San Luis Obispo, 1870; San Luis Obispo
County Deed Book, Castro-Simmler, 29 June 1865; Wilson and Pacheco-Simmler 27 Nov.
1869) and having in the intervening 150 years maintained a consistent, unified character of
low-built, widely-spaced family homes, gardens, outbuildings, and small business buildings.
In the last 3 years, 8 new major multi-story, multi-lot projects comprising 43 buildings that
dwarf the size and dramatically alter the density of this small but historic neighborhood
have been approved or are under construction: the 3-story Modern on Marsh, 4-story
Paseo Carmel, 30 2-story prefabs at 546 Higuera, 41h-story Lofts at the Creamery, 4-story
San Luis Square, 5-story Vespar Hotel, 4-story Monterey Place, 4-story Palm-Nipomo
Parking Structure, and the SLO Repertory Theater. The Palm-Nipomo Parking
Structure/SLO Rep was the only one of these with an EIR, concluding "the proposed project
would adversely affect the Downtown Historic District by inserting a new visual feature
that is inconsistent with the height, scale, and massing of the resources that characterize
the historic district." But the impact on the immediate Dana-Higuera residential section of
dramatically lower, smaller, and less dense buildings-is even more severe.
Unlike the majority of buildings in the neighborhood, these new projects comprise tens of
thousands of square feet each, are built to the lot lines, and are designed predominately as
glass, stucco, masonry, or metal boxes. The proposed project at 545 is a typical: a glass and
stone box complex fifty times the size of its gabled neighbor, the Robert Pollard House,
from 1876 the oldest documented wood frame structure in its original location in the city.
North Higuera-Dana neighborhood, Carleton Watkins, 1876 (detail).
ATTACHMENT DItem 12
Packet Page 131
The block formed by Higuera, Carmel, Marsh, and Nipomo Streets relates to the parallel
angled Dana Street across San Luis Obispo Creek as San Luis Obispo's original Western
residential and light industrial suburb, pictured in Carleton Watkins' 1876 earliest
photograph of the town (Metropolitan Museum of Art). The Norcross House, Jack Carriage
House, and Hays-Latimer Adobe are three still extant buildings identifiable in it. The Jack
Carriage House is the oldest surviving transport-related building in the city.
In the early 1990s, San Luis Obispo's Cultural Heritage Committee (according to Dan
Krieger, then chair) discussed creating a unified historic district of Dana and Higuera. An
early concept anticipated connecting them with a physical bridge. Instead, Dana Street and
West Monterey (with the Simmler/Butr6n, Hays-Latimer, and Heyd Adobes; Anderson,
Barneberg, and Nichols Houses; and Harmony Creamery) became attached to the
Downtown Historic District, of which they are atypica.l, and Higuera was orphaned, though
with as high a concentration National Register, Master List, and National Register-and
Master List-eligible resources as any of the city's designated historic districts, including
CURRENT STRUCTURES WITH HISTORIC DESIGNATION
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
536 Marsh St, Jack House (1878)
NRHP contributing
536 Marsh St, Jack Wash House (ca 1878)
Master List
535 Higuera St, Pollard House (1876)
546 Higuera St, Norcross House (1874)
Golden State Creamery (1928)
536 Marsh St, Jack House (1878)
536 Marsh St, Jack Wash House (ca 1878)
536 Marsh St, Jack Carriage House (before 1876)
54 7 Marsh St, Kaetzel House (1905)
Contributing List
412 Marsh St, Wilkinson House (E. D. Bray, 1915)
ELIGIBLE STRUCTURES AND LANDSCAPE
NRHP
536 Marsh St, Jack Garden (ca 1879)
536 Marsh St, Jack Carriage House (before 1876)
412 Marsh St, Wilkinson House (1915)
497 Marsh St, Pinho House (ca 1887)
10
1
1
7
1
24
4
Master List 7
508 Higuera St, Henry House (before 1903)
514 Parker Cottage (before 1903)
520 Higuera St, Howey Bungalow (after 1916)
525-27 Higuera St, Logan Apartments/Logan Stables (circa 1887
as the 16th District Fair stables, converted 1912 and 1923)
565 Higuera St, Negranti Packard Repair Shop (1928)
2
ATTACHMENT DItem 12
Packet Page 132
450 Marsh St, Lima House (ca 1900)
461-63 Marsh St, Firpo Duplex (1926)
Contributing List 13 452 Higuera St, Kinkade House (remodel circa 1921)
458-504 Higuera St, Dody Duplexes (1923) (3 buildings)
518 Higuera St, Connolly Cottage (1924)
523 Higuera St, Rogers House (1933)
532 Higuera St, Campbell Refrigeration ( ca 1941)
544 Higuera St, Johnston Bungalow (1922)
544 A, B, C, & D, Higuera St, Johnstone Court (1921) (2 structures)
563 Higuera St, Negranti Packard Dealership (late 1930s)
464 Marsh St, Craftsman duplex (now shops and apartments)
56 7 Marsh St, Smith House (1922) (Sources Historic Permit Archive, Cal Poly Special
Collections; Sanborn Maps; Tribune and Telegram reports; and oral histories)
These are not only individual historic buildings, they are numerous enough, and retain
enough of their original setting, to relate to one another as a California Register-eligible
historic district. The 32 listed and eligible buildings of the North Higuera section comprised
fifty percent of that area's buildings as of two years ago, based on a period of significance of
1874-1941 during which its mixed used nature continued to be emphasized by innovative
architecture. The fact that North Higuera was not designated as a city historic district is
likely class-based, as San Luis Obispo's current designated residential historic districts are
wealthy and purely residential, not mixed use with light industrial, and housed the city's
council members, commissioners, and other movers and shakers when the districts were
formed. A much younger district than Dana-Higuera was, ironically, designated the Old
Town Historic District.
All these buildings in the Higuera section, except for the Jack House, Kaetzel House, Henry
House, Logan Apartments, and Craftsman duplex at 464 Marsh, are one-story. The Modern
on Marsh next to 464 (below) demonstrates the impact of the flood of new projects on the
aesthetics of the North Higuera-Dana neighborhood and the resultant impact to its ability
to communicate its significance as a historic district. To refer to the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards on Rehabilitation, the massing, size, scale, and architectural features
( or lack thereof) are so incompatible as to jeopardize the historic integrity of these
properties and their environment.
3
ATTACHMENT DItem 12
Packet Page 133
Craftsman duplex at 464 Marsh (left) and the Modern on Marsh (center)
The 36 new 2-to 41h-story buildings approved or built just on this block already
outnumber the 32 National Register-, Master List-, and Contributing List-designated and -
eligible buildings that define the aesthetic and historic character and continuity of this
neighborhood. Without an EIR for cumulative impact, undoubtedly even more will flood in
piecemeal with none of the environmental review that the people of the neighborhood and
the citizens of San Luis Obispo and of California are entitled to under CEQA and to which
the courts have traditionally shown deference.
Allan Cooper, AIA
Emeritus Professor of Architecture, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Former Member, City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission
Dan Krieger, PhD
Professor Emeritus of History, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Former Chair, City of San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee
James Papp, PhD
Architectural Historian, Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards
Former Chair, City of San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee
4
ATTACHMENT DItem 12
Packet Page 134
Save Our Downtown
Seeking to protect and promote the historical character, design, livability and economic
success of downtown San Luis Obispo.
To:
Re:
From:
Date:
San Luis Obispo Planning Commission & Shawna Scott, Senior
Planner
January 8, 2020 Meeting Item Number 2: 545 Higuera & 486 Marsh
Allan Cooper, Secretary Save Our Downtown
January 6, 2020
0 fi!p�-·�:,S-::1· !!IE�-�....( i ,.;,,;, ::::��� i
MARSH ST.
" 0 ,I 0
HIGUERA ST.
Honorable Chair and Commissioners
Permit us to quote an excerpt from a January 6, 2020 letter that you received from Mr. James
Papp.
"As you're aware, the CHG and ARC now report to the Planning Commission, whose role must
now include correcting any deficiencies in those bodies' quasi-judicial deliberations, including
any whose arbitrariness and capriciousness put the city in legal jeopardy."
We concur with Mr. Papp. And staff has stated the same under 1.0 "Commission's Purview" in
your staff report. Your new purview is no longer limited to consistency with the General Plan
and Zoning Regulations. You are now obligated to review the project for its consistency with
the Community Design Guidelines (CDG) and other applicable City development standards.
ATTACHMENT DItem 12
Packet Page 135
Therefore, we are urging you to address this project's numerous inconsistencies with respect to
the City's Community Design Guidelines.
1)Overall design objectives for commercial projects includes the following: "Consider San
Luis Obispo's small town scale and demonstrate sensitivity to the design context of
the surrounding area." The architect has chosen a "contemporary" theme for these
buildings. However, there are very few examples of "contemporary" architecture in this
neighborhood (excepting of course the architect's two most recent additions -the cargo
container complex called Downtown Te rraces and the condominium complex flanking
Gennaro's). Previous additions to this neighborhood, including the Manse and the Bank of
the Sierra, have tried with some success to work with more "historical" and "residential"
themes. The ARC made no reference to this concern.
2)Neighborhood compatibility guidelines include the following: "Proportional building scale/
size;" and "Appropriate building setbacks and and massing;" Even though the architect
made a tentative attempt to step down the massing to the height of the Pollard House,
previous ARC direction called for stepping back the third floor massing not only along
Higuera Street but also along Marsh. This, in addition to breaking up the street setbacks,
would be a more sympathetic response to the predominantly two-story Manse, the two
story Bank of the Sierra and the one-story Pinho House. More variety in the color palette
along the horizontal dimension, particularly along the facades facing the parking lot, would
help to further break up the scale of the buildings. For example the "light bronze" color for
the storefront panels could change to a lighter or darker color halfway along the length of
either Buildings A or B.
3)Ta ll buildings (between 50 and 75 feet) shall be designed to achieve multiple policy
objectives, including design amenities, housing and retail land uses. Appropriate techniques
to assure that tall buildings respect the context of their setting and provide an appropriate
visual transition to adjacent structures include, but are not limited to: "On upper floors,
consider using windows or other architectural features that will reinforce the typical
rhythm of upper story windows found on traditional commercial buildings and provide
architectural interest on all four sides of the building;" Presently, the commercial scale of the
windows involve large expanses of glass facing both Marsh and Higuera Street. These jar in
both scale and proportion with the windows on the Bank of the Sierra (see below), with
those on the Norcross House and even with those on the architect's own Downtown
Te rraces project. A simple solution would be to introduce into these recessed window bays
dimensional fins running in both the vertical and horizontal direction as these would help to
break down the scale. These fins would also provide much needed solar shading.
4)Another appropriate technique to assure that tall buildings respect the context of their
setting and provide an appropriate visual transition to adjacent structures is to "Reinforce
the established horizontal lines of facades in adjacent buildings;" In order to
accomplish this the Marsh Street facade should step back above the second floor in order
to respect the height of the Bank of the Sierra. Similarly, the Higuera Street facade should
step back above the first floor in order to respect the height of the Pollard House.
Thank you for your consideration.
ATTACHMENT DItem 12
Packet Page 136
ATTACHMENT DItem 12
Packet Page 137