HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-06-2021 Agenda PacketSan Luis Obispo City Council Agenda Page 1
Tuesday, April 6, 2021
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):
➢URL: https://slocity-org.zoom.us/j/97707974297?pwd=cU0yaEJHK0kwZDUxTjRiVE0zMSttZz09
➢Telephone Attendee:+1 (669) 669-900-6833
➢Webinar ID: 977 0797 4297; Passcode: 038874
Note: The City utilizes Zoom Webinar for City Council Meetings. All attendees will enter the meeting
muted. An Attendee tutorial is available on YouTube; please test your audio settings.
•Televised live on Charter Cable Channel 20
•View a livestream of the meeting on the City’s YouTube channel: http://youtube.slo.city
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.
All emails will be archived/distributed to councilmembers, however, submissions after 3:00 p.m. on
the day of the meeting may not be archived/distributed until the following day. Emails will not be
read aloud during the meeting.
•Verbal Public Comment
➢In Advance 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. Voicemails will not be played during the meeting.
➢During the meeting – Join the webinar (instructions above). Once public comment for the item
you would like to speak on is called, please raise your virtual hand, your name will be called, and
your microphone will be unmuted. If you have questions, contact the office of the City Clerk at
cityclerk@slocity.org or (805) 781-7100.
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda April 6, 2021 Page 2
San Luis Obispo Page 2
5:00 PM CLOSED SESSION TELECONFERENCE
Closed Session Webinar Information:
➢Join on your computer or mobile app: Click here to join the meeting
➢Or call in (audio only) +1 209-645-4165,,162377771#
➢Phone Conference ID: 162 377 771#
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Heidi Harmon
ROLL CALL: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Jan Marx, Andy Pease,
Vice Mayor Erica A. Stewart, and Mayor Heidi Harmon
PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS ONLY
A.CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6
Agency Negotiators: Monica Irons, Nickole Sutter, Rick Bolanos,
Derek Johnson, Christine Dietrick
Represented Employee
Organizations: San Luis Obispo City Employee’s Association (SLOCEA)
San Luis Obispo Police Officer’s Association (POA)
San Luis Obispo Police Staff Officer’s Association (SLOPSOA)
International Association of Firefighters Local 3523
Unrepresented Employees: Unrepresented Management Employees
Unrepresented Confidential Employees
B.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code §54956.8
Property: APN 001-022-065
Agency Negotiators: Derek Johnson, City Manager
J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
Markie Jorgensen, Assistant City Attorney
Shelly Stanwyck, Assistant City Manager
Greg Hermann, Deputy City Manager
Matt Horn, Director of Public Works
Brian Nelson, Interim City Engineer
Manuel Guzman, Construction Manager
Shelsie Kloepper, Interim Supervising Civil
Miguel Barcenas, Utilities Engineer
Dave Hix, Deputy Director of Wastewater
Jeremy Gearhart, Wastewater Collection Supervisor
Hai Nguyen, Engineer
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda April 6, 2021 Page 3
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda Page 1
Negotiating Parties: AQT Properties, LLC
Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment
Property: APN 001-022-007
Agency Negotiators: Derek Johnson, City Manager
J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
Markie Jorgensen, Assistant City Attorney
Shelly Stanwyck, Assistant City Manager
Greg Hermann, Deputy City Manager
Matt Horn, Director of Public Works
Brian Nelson, Interim City Engineer
Manuel Guzman, Construction Manager
Shelsie Kloepper, Interim Supervising Civil
Miguel Barcenas, Utilities Engineer
Dave Hix, Deputy Director of Wastewater
Jeremy Gearhart, Wastewater Collection Supervisor
Hai Nguyen, Engineer
Negotiating Parties: Charles Neumeyer
Leslie Neumeyer
Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to the Regular Meeting of the City Council scheduled for Tuesday, April 6, 2021, at
6:00 p.m., via teleconference.
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda April 6, 2021 Page 4
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda Page 1
6:00 PM REGULAR MEETING TELECONFERENCE
Broadcast Via Webinar
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Heidi Harmon
ROLL CALL: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Jan Marx, Andy Pease,
Vice Mayor Erica A Stewart, and Mayor Heidi Harmon
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Jan Marx
PRESENTATIONS
1.CITY MANAGER REPORT (JOHNSON – 10 MINUTES)
Recommendation:
Receive a brief report from City Manager Derek Johnson.
2.SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS MONTH PROCLAMATION
(HARMON – 5 MINUTES)
Mayor Harmon will proclaim the month of April as “Sexual Assault Awareness Month.”
3.MONTH OF THE CHILD AND CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH
PROCLAMATION (HARMON – 5 MINUTES)
Mayor Harmon will proclaim the month of April as “Month of the Child and Child Abuse
Prevention Month.”
4.INTRODUCTION OF MARKIE JORGENSEN, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
(DIETRICK – 5 MINUTES)
City Attorney Christine Dietrick will introduce Markie Jorgensen, Assistant City Attorney.
5.INTRODUCTION OF REBECCA BERNSTORFF, BUSINESS MANAGER FOR
COMMUNITY SERVICES (STANWYCK – 5 MINUTES)
Assistant City Manager Shelly Stanwyck will introduce Rebecca Bernstorff, Business
Manager for Community Services.
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda April 6, 2021 Page 5
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda Page 1
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.
6.WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
(PURRINGTON)
Recommendation:
Waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.
7.MINUTES REVIEW - MARCH 16, 2021 COUNCIL MINUTES (PURRINGTON)
Recommendation:
Approve the minutes of the City Council meeting held on March 16, 2021.
8.SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1693 (2021 SERIES)
APPROVING A REZONE FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK LOCATED AT 533
BROAD STREET (CODRON / BELL / KLOEPPER)
Recommendation:
Adopt Ordinance No. 1693 (2021 Series) entitled, “An Ordinance of the City council of the
City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving a rezone for a Neighborhood Park. The
project includes amending the Zoning Regulations Map to change the zoning designation of
the associated property from Conservation/Open Space (C/OS) to Public Facility (PF),
respectively, including a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Review, as
represented in the staff report and attachments dated March 2, 2021 (533 Broad Street:
PARK-0320-2020, GENP-0612-2019, RZ-0322-2020, and EID-0321-2020).”
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda April 6, 2021 Page 6
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda Page 1
9. APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE FIRE MUTUAL AID REIMBURSEMENT
RESOLUTION (AGGSON / BLATTLER)
Recommendation:
Adopt a Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, identifying the terms and conditions for Fire Department response away
from their official duty station and assigned to an Emergency Incident” to expand the City’s
ability to seek full reimbursement for eligible mutual aid responses to fires and other
disasters.
10. CONFIRM THE 2020-21 LIST OF PROJECTS FUNDED BY THE ROAD REPAIR
AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT (SB-1) (HORN / NELSON)
Recommendation:
Adopt a Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, confirming the 2020-21 list of projects funded by Senate Bill 1: The
Road Repair and Accountability Act.”
11. REQUEST TO REMOVE THE PROPERTY AT 1136 IRIS STREET FROM THE
CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES LIST OF THE CITY’S INVENTORY OF
HISTORIC RESOURCES (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 1136 Iris Street from the Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources
(HIST-0020-2021).”
12. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 1694 (2021 SERIES) AMENDING
SECTIONS 10.36.170, 10.36.220, AND 10.36.221 OF THE CITY’S MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT DISTRICTS
(HORN / HUSSEY / FUCHS)
Recommendation:
Adopt Ordinance No. 1694 (2021 Series) entitled, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the
City of San Luis Obispo, California, amending Municipal Code Title 10 Chapter 36
regarding Stopping, Standing and Parking for certain purposes or in certain places.”
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda April 6, 2021 Page 7
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda Page 1
13. AUTHORIZE PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO INFRASTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT
(HERMANN / GUARDADO / ERQUIAGA)
Recommendation:
1. Authorize the City Manager to award the contract for purchase and installation of the
replacement of the QS2 Public Safety Radio System to Commline Inc.; and
2. Authorize waiver of formal bids to cooperatively purchase radio equipment as allowed
under Section 3.24.060 E of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code using the
NASPO Contract #06913.
PUBLIC HEARING AND BUSINESS ITEMS
14. REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE 2020 GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL REPORT
(CODRON / BULTEMA – 45 MINUTES)
Recommendation:
As recommended by the Planning Commission, review and accept the 2020 General Plan
Annual Report.
15. APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO COUNCIL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
REGARDING ORDER OF BUSINESS AND ADDING A POLICY REGARDING
SOCIAL MEDIA (DIETRICK / PURRINGTON – 30 MINUTES)
Recommendation:
Adopt a Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, amending its Council Policies and Procedure Manual.”
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)
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda April 6, 2021 Page 8
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda Page 1
ADJOURNMENT
The City Council will hold a Special Meeting on Tuesday, April 13, 2021 at 5:30 p.m. via
teleconference.
The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 5:30 p.m.
and 6:00 p.m., respectively, 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.
San Luis Obispo Page 1
Tuesday, March 16, 2021
Regular Meeting of the City Council
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, March
16, 2021 at time 5:33 p.m. by Mayor Harmon, with all Members present via teleconference.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Jan Marx, Andy Pease, Vice Mayor Erica
A. Stewart, and Mayor Heidi Harmon.
Council Members
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Derek Johnson, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; and Teresa
Purrington, City Clerk; were present at Roll Call. Other staff members presented
reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Harmon led the Pledge of Allegiance.
PUBLIC HEARING AND BUSINESS ITEMS
1. FIRE DEPARTMENT 2020 ANNUAL REPORT
Fire Chief Keith Aggson and Senior Administrative Analyst James Blattler provided an in-
depth staff report and responded to Council questions.
Public Comment:
Michael Giuffre
---End of Public Comments---
ACTION: By consensus, the Council directed staff to receive and file the report.
Item 7
Packet Page 1
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of March 16, 2021 Page 2
PRESENTATIONS
2. CITY MANAGER REPORT
City Manager Derek Johnson provided a report on Buy Local Bonus Program, Open SLO,
Downtown projects and COVID-19.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
John Ashbaugh
Christy Nosti
Michael Giuffre
---End of Public Comment---
CONSENT AGENDA
Council Member Marx indicated she would be recusing herself from items #7 and #11 due to a
possible real property purchase in the area.
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY VICE
MAYOR STEWART, CARRIED 5-0 (WITH COUNCIL MEMBER MARX RECUSED ON
ITEM #7 AND #11) to approve Consent Calendar Items 3 thru 11.
3. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
CARRIED 5-0, to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.
4. MINUTES REVIEW – FEBRUARY 23, 2021 AND MARCH 2, 2021 COUNCIL
MINUTES
CARRIED 5-0, to approve the minutes of the City Council meetings held on February 23,
2021 and March 2, 2021.
5. 2021 APPOINTMENTS TO CITY ADVISORY BODIES)
CARRIED 5-0, to make appointments to the City of San Luis Obispo's advisory bodies, grant
an exception for appointment to two concurrent positions on like (technical or special
purpose) advisory bodies, allow for a one-time appointment to three advisory bodies by the
same individual, and direct the City Clerk to continue to recruit for any unfilled vacant
positions.
6. ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE AVILA RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND COMMUNITY
FACILITIES DISTRICT
CARRIED 5-0, to receive and file the annual report for the Avila Ranch Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, Development Agreement and Community Facilities
District.
Item 7
Packet Page 2
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of March 16, 2021 Page 3
7. ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT FOR THE SAN LUIS RANCH MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT
CARRIED 4-0-1 (COUNCIL MEMBER MARX RECUSED), to receive and file the annual
monitoring report for the San Luis Ranch Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
and Development Agreement.
8. FY 2021-22 GRANT APPLICATION FOR OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANT
PROGRAM
CARRIED 5-0, to:
1. Authorize the Police Department to submit a grant application to the Office of Traffic Safety
for a FY 2021-22 Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) grant not to exceed
$250,000; and
2. If the grant is awarded, authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute all grant related
documents and authorize the Finance Director to make the necessary budget adjustments upon
the award of the grant.
9. APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR PARCEL MAP SLO 19-0081, 3700
RANCH HOUSE ROAD (SBDV-0826-2019 AND ARCH-0825-2019)
CARRIED 5-0, to adopt Resolution No. 11230 (2021 Series) entitled, “A Resolution of the City
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving the Final Parcel Map for Parcel
Map SLO 19-0081 (3700 Ranch House Road).
10. AUTHORIZATION TO FURTHER EXTEND THE LIFE OF ALL CITY
DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS AND THE OPEN SLO PILOT PROGRAM DUE
TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC EMERGENCY
CARRIED 5-0, to:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 11231 (2021 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 extending the life of discretionary
approvals, building permit applications, and cannabis operator permits to mitigate
economic impacts and aid in economic recovery superseding Council Resolution No.
11131 (2020 Series)” to extend the life of all City discretionary approvals; and
2. Adopt Resolution No. 11232 (2021 Series) entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of
the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving the City of San Luis Obispo Outdoor
Public Space Expansion Temporary COVID-19 Business Support and Recovery Program
to facilitate compliance with public health orders and to mitigate economic impacts by
supporting local businesses and restaurants,” superseding Council Resolution No. 11118
(2020 Series), to extend the life of the Open SLO temporary pilot program for temporary
use of City right-of-way to support physical distancing and COVID-19 economic
recovery.
Item 7
Packet Page 3
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of March 16, 2021 Page 4
11. CONSIDER AMENDING THE RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT FOR
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2019-1
(SAN LUIS RANCH), AND RELATED MATTERS
CARRIED 4-0-1 (COUNCIL MEMBER MARX RECUSED), to adopt Resolution No. 11233
(2021 Series) entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo,
California, of consideration to amend the Rate and Method of Apportionment (RMA) for City
of San Luis Obispo Community Facilities District No. 2019-1 (San Luis Ranch), and related
matters.”
STUDY SESSION ITEMS
12. STUDY SESSION: OPEN SPACE WINTER EVENING HOURS OF USE
Deputy City Manager Greg Hermann and Sustainability & Natural Resources Official Bob
Hill provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions.
Public Comments:
Mila Vujovich
Janine Rands
---End of Public Comment---
RECESS
Council recessed at 8:15 p.m. and reconvened at 8:25p.m., with all Council Members present.
ACTION: MOTION BY MAYOR HARMON, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER
PEASE, CARRIED 3-2 (COUNCIL MEMBERS CHRISTIANSON AND MARX VOTING
NO) to direct staff to complete the environmental review and make the required the Municipal
Code changes to continue the night hiking program with permits only required in the month
of December.
13. STUDY SESSION: HOUSING UPDATE
Community Development Director Michael Codron, Housing Coordinator Cara Vereschagin,
Associate Planner Rachel Cohen, and Special Projects Manager Teresa McClish provided an
in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions.
Public Comments:
None
---End of Public Comment---
By consensus, Council directed staff to receive and file the housing update.
Item 7
Packet Page 4
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of March 16, 2021 Page 5
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND LIAISON REPORTS
None
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:33 p.m. The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for
Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 5:30 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California.
__________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2021
Item 7
Packet Page 5
BLANK PAGE
This page is intended to be blank so that you can print double-sided.
Item 7
Packet Page 6
Department Name: Community Development
Cost Center: 4003
For Agenda of: April 6, 2021
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Cassidy Williams, Contract Planner and Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1693 (2021
SERIES) APPROVING A REZONE FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
LOCATED AT 533 BROAD STREET. THE ORDINANCE INCLUDES
AMENDING THE ZONING REGULATIONS MAP TO CHANGE THE
ZONING DESIGNATION OF THE ASSOCIATED PROPERTY FROM
CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE (C/OS) TO PUBLIC FACILITY (PF).
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Ordinance No. 1693 (2021 Series) (Attachment A) approving a rezone for a neighborhood
park located at 533 Broad Street. The Ordinance includes amending the zoning regulations map
to change the zoning designation of the associated property from Conservation/Open Space
(C/OS) to Public Facility (PF).
DISCUSSION
On March 2, 2021, the City Council voted 5:0 to adopt the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) prepared for the North Broad Street Neighborhood Park project, approve the North
Broad Street Neighborhood Park project and associated entitlements including a General Plan
Amendment, and introduce Ordinance No. 1693, approving an amendment to the zoning map to
change the zoning designation of the project parcel from Conservation/Open Space to Public
Facility.
Policy Context
As discussed in the Council Agenda Report dated March 2, 2021, the City Parks and Recreation
Element identifies the unmet need for a neighborhood park in the Broad Street area near U.S.
Highway 101 (US 101) and establishes a target rate of park development to be 10 acres of
parkland per 1,000 residents. This project would contribute to the City goal of achieving its
target park ratio and would meet the current need for a neighborhood park in a residential area of
the city that does not have access to other public park facilities. For a detailed analysis of the
project’s consistency with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Regulations, see the City Council
Agenda Report dated March 2, 2021.
Item 8
Packet Page 7
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 each public
hearing associated with the project. Newspaper legal advertisements were posted in the New
Times ten days prior to the hearing. The City provided direct notification of project hearings to
individuals who had requested to be notified about the project and postcards were sent to both
tenants and owners of the properties located within 300 feet of the project site ten days before
each public hearing.
CONCURRENCE
The City’s review of the 533 Broad Street Neighborhood Park has involved all City departments
involved in the development review process, including: Planning, Engineering, Transportation,
Building, Utilities, City Arborist, Natural Resources, and Fire. Conditions of approval have been
identified and mitigation measures will be implemented to ensure that the project is carried out in
a manner that is consistent with City standards. Staff has not identified any unusual site
conditions or circumstances that would require special conditions. Staff comments provided
during review of the proposed project have been incorporated into the presented evaluation and
conditions of approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
On March 2, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11226 (2021 Series), adopting the
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project (State Clearinghouse Number
2020120448). A Notice of Determination was filed with the San Luis Obispo Clerk Recorder’s
Office on March 5, 2021. The Final IS/MND is available at the following website:
https://www.slocity.org/government/departmentdirectory/communitydevelopment/documentsonl
ine/environmental-review-documents.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: 2018-19
Funding Identified: Yes
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding Sources Current FY Cost
Annualized
On-going Cost
Total Project
Cost
General Fund
State
Federal
Fees
Other: Parkland in Lieu
Fee Fund
$783,000 N/A $783,000
Total $783,000 N/A $783,000
Item 8
Packet Page 8
The 2018-19 Financial Plan Supplemental Budget identified $75,000 for the design of a
neighborhood park at 533 Broad Street. During the design process, staff identified that additional
funding would be required to complete the environmental review process needed for the rezone
of the parcel. City staff requested and was granted a budget transfer request for an additional
$43,000 for the environmental consultant services from the Parkland Development Fund in
February 2020. Additionally, the 2019-21 Financial Plan allocated $665,000 for the construction
of the project. This brings the total allocated budget of the project to $783,000.
This Council report is not requesting the use of any fund for construction. If the rezone of the
parcel is approved, the project will return to the City Council for the review of the final project
plans and request to advertise the project for construction.
ALTERNATIVES
Modify the proposed ordinance. The City Council may make minor, non-substantive changes to
the proposed Ordinance for the staff to incorporate in the final documents. Any material changes
to the Final Ordinance would require further review by staff and the Planning Commission
followed by re-introduction of the Ordinance by the Council.
Attachments:
a - Ordinance No. 1693 (2021 Series)
Item 8
Packet Page 9
ORDINANCE NO. 1693 (2021 SERIES)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A REZONE FOR A
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK. THE PROJECT INCLUDES AMENDING
THE ZONING REGULATIONS MAP TO CHANGE THE ZONING
DESIGNATION OF THE ASSOCIATED PROPERTY FROM
CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE (C/OS) TO PUBLIC FACILITY (PF),
RESPECTIVELY, INCLUDING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS REPRESENTED
IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED MARCH 2,
2021 (533 BROAD STREET: PARK-0320-2020, GENP-0612-2019, RZ-0322-
2020, AND EID-0321-2020)
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing on September 4, 2019, continuing the project with direction for
consistency with the Parks and Recreation Element; and
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing on November 6, 2019, recommending approval of the project with
direction that the Planning Commission find the project consistent with the Parks and Recreation
Element; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a web
based public hearing on January 27, 2021, recommending approval of the General Plan
Amendment, Rezone, and Development Review to the City Council pursuant to a proceeding
instituted under PARK-0320-2020, GENP-0612-2019, RZ-0322-2020 & EID-0321-2020; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a web based
public hearing on March 2, 2021, for the purpose of introducing an Ordinance for the rezone of
the property, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under PARK-0320-2020, GENP-0612-2019,
RZ-0322-2020 & EID-0321-2020;
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a web based
public hearing on April 6, 2021, for the purpose of adopting an Ordinance for the rezone of the
property, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under PARK-0320-2020, GENP-0612-2019, RZ-
0322-2020 & EID-0321-2020; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has duly considered all
evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and
recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
Item 8
Packet Page 10
Ordinance No. 1693 (2021 Series) Page 2
O 1693
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo makes the following findings:
1. As conditioned, the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of
persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the project respects site
constraints and will be compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood.
2. The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element Policy 1.8.6, which calls
for ensuring that continuous wildlife habitats are preserved, because the proposed
neighborhood park uses would maintain required setbacks from on-site creek and riparian
corridor areas, as well as install fencing between park activity use areas and the riparian
corridor.
3. The project is consistent with the General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element
Policy 2.2.4 because the project promotes the use of alternative modes of transportation
such as walking and biking through the provision of pedestrian infrastructure
improvements and bicycle racks.
4. The project is consistent with the General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element
Policy 9.1.1 because all proposed structural components would be visually subordinate and
compatible with the existing natural landscape features of the project site.
5. The project is consistent with the Zoning Regulations for the Public Facility (PF) Zone
because the project is consistent with the intended uses to be developed within the PF zone
and has been designed in compliance with the applicable development standards including
setbacks, lot coverage, and building height.
SECTION 2. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Findings, Mitigation
Measures, and Mitigation Monitoring Program. The City Council hereby adopts the proposed
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact finding that it adequately identifies the
project’s potential significant impacts (EID-0321-2020).
SECTION 3. Action. The City Council hereby adopts an ordinance to approve the
proposed project (PARK-0320-2020, RZ-0322-2020 & EID-0321-2020) that includes amending
the Zoning Regulations Map to change the Zoning designation of the subject property from
Conservation/Open Space (C/OS) to Public Facility (PF) (Exhibit A), subject to the following
conditions:
1. The City’s Zoning Map shall be updated to recognize the change in zoning from
Conservation/Open Space (C/OS-5) to Public Facility (PF), subject to the satisfaction of
the Community Development Director.
Item 8
Packet Page 11
Ordinance No. 1693 (2021 Series) Page 3
O 1693
SECTION 4. Severability. If any subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of
this Ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent
jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforcement of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance, or any other provisions of the city's rules and regulations. It
is the city's express intent that each remaining portion would have been adopted irrespective of the
fact that any one or more subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared
invalid or unenforceable.
SECTION 5. 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 2nd day of March 2021, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the ___ day of ______, 2021, 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 8
Packet Page 12
Ordinance No. 1693 (2021 Series) Page 4
O 1693
Exhibit A
A
Item 8
Packet Page 13
BLANK PAGE
This page is intended to be blank so that you can print double-sided.
Item 8
Packet Page 14
Department Name: Fire
Cost Center: 8501
For Agenda of: April 6, 2021
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Keith Aggson, Fire Chief
Prepared By: James Blattler, Senior Administrative Analyst
SUBJECT: FIRE MUTUAL AID REIMBURSEMENT RESOLUTION AMENDMENT
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution to expand the City’s ability to seek full reimbursement for eligible mutual
aid responses to fires and other disasters by clarifying that overtime compensation will be made
for Management Group Employees and repeal the previous Resolution No. 10903 (2018 Series).
DISCUSSION
The San Luis Obispo City Fire Department participates in mutual aid responses when requested.
Typically, these requests come through a State of California Coordination Center. When
responding with personnel, the City of San Luis Obispo incurs equipment, staffing and travel
related expenses. With few exceptions, responses to disasters outside the City’s jurisdiction are
eligible for reimbursement through the State or Federal government. This report recommends the
adoption of an amended resolution (Attachment A) that will allow the City to expand
reimbursement for all eligible expenses, including overtime compensation for all Fire
Department staff. This change supports the City’s Major City Goal of Economic Stability by
increasing potential reimbursement revenue to the General Fund.
The Fire Department participates in the California Fire Assistance Agreement (CFAA)
(Attachment B), which is managed by the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
(CalOES) and is a collective agreement that sets reimbursement guidelines for mutual aid
response to participating local, state, and federal government agency incidents. The CFAA is
renewed every five (5) years and the current agreement is set to expire on December 31, 2024.
To receive reimbursement for expenses incurred as part of the Fire Department’s response to
mutual aid incidents, each agency must abide by the requirements set forth in the CFAA. To
receive reimbursement for Fire Chief and Deputy Fire Chief overtime compensation, the CFAA
requires agencies to have a current Governing Body Resolution or Memorandum of Agreement
explicitly stating that Chief Officers of the department will be paid overtime when responding to
such incidents without adjoining contingent language.
Item 9
Packet Page 15
Currently, Resolution No. 10903 (Attachment C) states:
“the City will compensate its employees overtime in accordance with personnel rules and
regulations, their current Memorandum of Agreement, and other applicable state and
federal laws, while in the course of their employment and away from their official duty
station or assignment and assigned to an emergency incident, in support of an emergency
incident, or pre-positioned for emergency response”.
Correspondingly, the current Management Resolution (Attachment D) in which the Fire Chief
and Deputy Fire Chief are under states:
“When specifically authorized by the department head due to extraordinary
circumstances, a management employee may receive overtime payment of time and one-
half for hours worked above and beyond what would be considered normal work
requirements during an emergency event lasting at least eight (8) hours”.
Staff submitted the current Management Resolution to CalOES for overtime reimbursement
approval; however, the City was notified that the language “when specifically authorized by the
department head” was deemed contingent under the CFAA and insufficient for overtime
reimbursement.
The intent of this amendment is to clarify that management personnel will be paid overtime
when working above normal hours while assigned to a mutual aid incident, thus allowing for
increased reimbursement from the various agencies. To avoid a financial burden on the City, the
Fire Chief and Deputy Chief have foregone permissible overtime compensation due to the
inability to recoup the expense through the CFAA. Other management personnel in the
department have been compensated and reimbursed for their mutual aid related overtime,
however the agreement is not clear whether or not a governing body resolution is also needed for
these employees. Including all management personnel in the updated resolution will help ensure
potential reimbursement issues are avoided moving forward despite the lack of clarity in the
CFAA. In addition to the updated overtime language, two Fire Department positions were
recently reclassified, and staff is updating the resolution’s list of department employees for
accuracy, ensuring those positions remain eligible for reimbursement.
For every dollar that the department expends towards mutual aid response, reimbursing agencies
pay an additional administrative fee to help cover the costs associated with managing the
program. These fees are updated annually by Fire Department staff and for fiscal year 2021 the
rate is set at 27.826%. The City does not budget any cost recovery in its financial plan due to the
unpredictable nature of the fire season, mutual aid activation, or duration or personnel needed.
As part of the City’s Fiscal Health Response Plan, the Fire Department has been maximizing
deployment of personnel to assist in the operations and management of mutual aid incidents,
which helps increase the total revenue that is generated by collecting the administrative fees.
While the response of additional personnel alone will help increase mutual aid revenue,
expanding the eligible reimbursable compensation will result in additional revenue.
Item 9
Packet Page 16
An example can be illustrated during the 2020 fire season, during which the Fire Department’s
Deputy Fire Chief and Fire Chief responded to five mutual aid assignments. For each incident,
the employee was compensated straight time for the duration of their assignment. Were the
employees compensated overtime, the management employee would be paid at time and half,
and the City would have increased the net general fund revenue by an estimated $15,000 for
administrative fees after all department expenses were covered.
Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
On June 5, 2018 City Council approved the most recent amendment to the Mutual Aid
compensation resolution, which increased eligible mutual aid related reimbursement by adding
“portal to portal” compensation to non-sworn fire department employees.
Public Engagement
This item is on the agenda for the April 6, 2021 City Council meeting and will follow all
required postings and notifications. The public will have the opportunity to provide comment on
this item at or before the meeting.
CONCURRENCE
The Human Resources Department concurs with the report and proposed amendments to the
current resolution.
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: No Budget Year: Ongoing
Funding Identified: N/A
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing Cost
General Fund $N/A
State
Federal
Fees
Other:
Total $
Item 9
Packet Page 17
If adopted, the amended resolution would result in additional compensation reimbursement and
administrative fee revenue to the City for its role in processing non-local, reimbursement-eligible
disaster responses. If the recommended resolution were in place for fiscal year 2021 the total
mutual aid revenue would have increased by an estimated additional $15,000 for administrative
fees. Staff will continue to monitor the reimbursement revenue and update the budget projections
accordingly.
ALTERNATIVE
The Council could choose to continue the practice of only compensating Chief Officers
straight time. This is not recommended as the status quo would continue to leave eligible
reimbursement on the table and would be counter to the City’s Major City Goal of Economic
Stability.
Attachments:
a - Draft Resolution
b - COUNCIL READING FILE - California Fire Assistance Agreement 5.1.20 - 12.31.24
c - Resolution No. 10903 (2018 Series)
d - 2018-2021 Unrepresented Management Employees Management Resolution
Item 9
Packet Page 18
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2021 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, IDENTIFYING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE AWAY FROM THEIR OFFICIAL
DUTY STATION AND ASSIGNED TO AN EMERGENCY INCIDENT
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) is a public agency located in the County
of San Luis Obispo, State of California, and
WHEREAS, it is the City’s desire to provide fair and legal payment to all its employees
for the time worked; and
WHEREAS, the City and its Fire Department participates in mutual aid responses to
emergencies outside the City and County; and
WHEREAS, the City will compensate its employees overtime in accordance with
personnel rules and regulations, their current Memorandum of Agreement, and other applicable
state and federal laws, while in the course of their employment and away from their official duty
station or assignment and assigned to an emergency incident, in support of an emergency incident,
or pre-positioned for emergency response; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo will seek reimbursement for qualifying mutual
aid responses such that all City Costs, including but not limited to personnel, apparatus, equipment,
and administrative costs, such that responses to reimbursement-qualifying mutual aid responses
do not have a net negative impact on the City’s financial position.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. The San Luis Obispo Fire Department will maintain a current salary survey
or acknowledgement of acceptance of the “Base Rate” on file with the California Governor’s
Office of Emergency Services, Fire Rescue Division.
SECTION 2. City Fire Department response personnel will be compensated (portal to
portal) beginning at the time of dispatch to the return to jurisdictions when equipment and
personnel are in service and available for agency response.
SECTION 3. Fire Department response personnel include: Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief,
Battalion Chief, Fire Captain, Engineer, Firefighter, Senior Administrative Analyst,
Administrative Assistant, Fire Marshal Chief Building Official, Fire Inspector I, Fire Inspector I,
Fire Inspector II, Fire Inspector III, Hazardous Materials Coordinator, Fire Vehicle Mechanic and
Mechanic Helper.
Item 9
Packet Page 19
Resolution No. _____ (2021 Series) Page 2
R ______
SECTION 4. For purposes of out of jurisdiction emergency assignments, the following
Fire Department unrepresented management classifications are eligible for overtime at a rate of
one and one half the employee’s base rate of pay during an event lasting more than eight hours:
Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief, Fire Marshal Chief Building Official, Fire Marshal, Administrative
Analyst, and Senior Administrative Analyst.
SECTION 4. Resolution Number 10903 (2018 Series) is hereby repealed and replaced to
the extent inconsistent herewith.
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 _______________ 2021.
____________________________________
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 20
RESOLUTION NO. 10903 (2018 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, IDENTIFYING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE AWAY FROM THEIR OFFICIAL
DUTY STATION AND ASSIGNED TO AN EMERGENCY INCIDENT
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo ("City") is a public agency located in the County
of San Luis Obispo, State of California, and
WHEREAS, it is the City's desire to provide fair and legal payment to all its employees
for time worked; and
WHEREAS, the City and its Fire Department participates in mutual aid responses to
emergencies outside the City and County; and
WHEREAS, the City will compensate its employees overtime in accordance with
personnel rules and regulations, their current Memorandum of Agreement, and other applicable
state and federal laws, while in the course of their employment and away from their official duty
station or assignment and assigned to an emergency incident, in support of an emergency incident,
or pre -positioned for emergency response; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo will seek reimbursement for qualifying mutual
aid responses such that all City costs, including but not limited to personnel, apparatus, equipment,
and administrative costs, such that responses to reimbursement -qualifying mutual aid responses
do not have a net negative impact on the City's financial position.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. The San Luis Obispo Fire Department will maintain a current salary survey
or acknowledgement of acceptance of the "Base Rate" on file with the California Governor's Office
of Emergency Services, Fire Rescue Division.
SECTION 2. City Fire Department response personnel will be compensated (portal to
portal) beginning at the time of dispatch to the return to jurisdiction when equipment and personnel
are in service and available for agency response.
SECTION 3. Fire Department response personnel include: Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief,
Battalion Chief, Fire Captain, Engineer, Firefighter, Administrative Analyst, Administrative
Assistant, Fire Marshall, Fire Inspector I, Fire Inspector II, Fire Inspector III, Hazardous Materials
Coordinator, Fire Vehicle Mechanic and Mechanic Helper.
R 10903
Item 9
Packet Page 21
Resolution No. 10903 (2018 Series) Page 2
SECTION 4. Resolution 10624 (Series 2015) is hereby superseded to the extent
inconsistent herewith.
Upon motion of Council Member Rivoire, seconded by Vice Mayor Christianson, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members Gomez, Pease and Rivoire,
Vice Mayor Christianson and Mayor Harmon
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 5th day of June, 2018.
ATTEST:
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
J. ristine Dietrick
Vty Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this 1L"` day of zL.-ie , 2 l'%
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
R 10903
Item 9
Packet Page 22
Department Name: Public Works
Cost Center: 5001
For Agenda of: April 6, 2020
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: NA
FROM: Matt Horn, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Brian Nelson, Acting Deputy Public Works Director and City Engineer
SUBJECT: CONFIRM THE 2021-22 LIST OF PROJECTS FUNDED BY THE ROAD
REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT (SB-1)
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) defining a list of projects funded by the Road Repair and
Accountability Act of 2017, Senate Bill 1, for Fiscal Year 2021-22.
DISCUSSION
Background
On April 28, 2017, the Governor signed Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) (Beall, Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017),
which is known as the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (RMRA). RMRA addresses
basic road maintenance, rehabilitation, and critical safety needs on both the state highway and
local roadway systems. RMRA provides funding by charging:
1. An additional 12 cents per gallon increase on the gasoline excise tax effective November
1, 2017.
2. An additional 20 cents per gallon increase on the diesel fuel excise tax effective
November 2, 2017.
3. An additional vehicle registration tax called the “Transportation Improvement Fee” with
rates based on the value of the motor vehicle effective January 1, 2018.
4. An additional $100 vehicle registration tax on zero emissions vehicles model year 2020
or later effective July 1, 2020.
The City is estimated to receive approximately $835,228 of RMRA funding over the 2021-22
Fiscal Year. RMRA funds are programmed and prioritized with each two-year financial plan
along with other Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects. The California Transportation
Commission (CTC) has published guidelines for programming and reporting on the use of
RMRA funds. Each May 1st, the City must submit a project list to the CTC and each October 1st,
the City must submit a project expenditure report. This report and City Council Resolution
completes the City’s obligation for RMRA fund programming for Fiscal Year 2021-22.
Item 10
Packet Page 23
Recommended Project for RMRA Funding
2021 Downtown Pavement Improvements
The Downtown Pavement Improvements project, planned for Summer 2021, is part of the City’s
ongoing pavement management plan, which alternates between maintenance of neighborhood
streets in even years, and maintenance and repair of arterial streets in odd years. This approach is
intended to promote equity between residential and commercial areas and spread the benefits to
the entire community. The Summer 2021 project will improve the pavement conditions of
Higuera and Marsh Streets outside of the downtown core, as well as Nipomo Street, Johnson
Avenue, Phillips Lane, and Pepper Street. A map of the planned area for paving is included as
Attachment B. Additionally, this project will upgrade curb ramps as well as the implementation
of Active Transportation Plan Tier 1 Improvements identified for Marsh Street and Higuera
Street.
Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
There is no previous Council or advisory body action specific to the recommendations of this
report.
Policy Context
There are no City policies that require this action, but this action and associated resolution is
required by the CTC for the use of RMRA funds. This activity is consistent with the Council’s
adopted 2019-21 Financial Plan and Major City Goals.
Public Engagement
Public engagement is ongoing for the summer paving project proposed to be funded by SB1
funds. In additional, the public has an opportunity to comment on this item at or before the
Council meeting.
CONCURRENCE
There is concurrence from the Finance Department through its review and approval of this
report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to the recommended action in
this report, because the action does not constitute a “Project” under CEQA Guidelines Section
15378. There are no environmental impact resulting from approval of this item. Individual
projects funded under this revenue source will be required to satisfy environmental review, if
required, as part of project development and approval process.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: 2021-22
Funding Identified: Yes
Item 10
Packet Page 24
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding Sources Current FY Cost
Annualized
On-going Cost
Total Project
Cost
General Fund
State
Federal
Fees
Other: RMRA $835,228 - $835,228
Total $835,228 - $835,228
The recommendation of this report establishes a project list for the Fiscal Year 2021-22. The
establishment of this project list does not commit these RMRA funds. Council could, at any
point prior to expenditure, change funding priorities based upon changes in conditions and
immediate need. Any project list changes would be communicated to the CTC via the annual
expenditure report in October each year.
The below table indicates the total SB1 funding contribution for 2021 Downtown Pavement
Improvements Project. Council will receive a separate staff report requesting authorization to
advertise the project, which will include total costs and general fund contributions to the work.
RMRA SB 1 Project List for FY 2021-22
Project 2021-22 Funding
2021 Downtown Pavement Improvements $835,228
Total $835,228
Estimated SB 1 2021-22 Revenue $835,228
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council could deny adoption of the resolution to fund these Capital Improvement
Plan projects using RMRA funds. This is not recommended as the projects are eligible for
RMRA funding. These projects improve critical safety needs, maintain existing infrastructure,
and further the City’s transportation multi-modal and climate action goals.
Attachments:
a - Draft Resolution
b - Downtown Paving - Vicinity Map
Item 10
Packet Page 25
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _______ (2021 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING THE 2021-22 LIST OF
PROJECTS FUNDED BY SENATE BILL 1: THE ROAD REPAIR AND
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017
(Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) was passed by the California legislature and signed into law by the
Governor in April 2017 to address the significant multi-modal transportation funding shortfalls
statewide; and
WHEREAS, SB 1 includes accountability and transparency provisions that will ensure the
residents of the City are aware of the projects proposed for funding in our community and which
projects have been completed each fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the City must include a list of all projects proposed to receive funding from
the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by SB 1, in the City budget,
which must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule
for the projects’ completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement; and
WHEREAS, the City will receive an estimated $918,500 in RMRA funding in Fiscal Year
2021-22 from SB 1; and
WHEREAS, this is the fifth year in which the City is receiving SB 1 funding and will
enable the City/County to continue essential road maintenance and rehabilitation projects, safety
improvements, and increasing access and mobility options for the traveling public that would not
have otherwise been possible without SB 1; and
WHEREAS, the City has undergone a robust public process to ensure public input into
our community’s transportation priorities, and budgeting process that has been adopted by City
Council that includes a full listing of Capital Improvements Plan projects and funding sources
including SB-1; and
WHEREAS, the City used a Pavement Management System and other goals such as the
complete streets elements and bicycle and pedestrian safety to develop the SB 1 project list to
ensure revenues are being used on the most high-priority and cost-effective projects that also meet
the community’s priorities for transportation investment; and
WHEREAS, the funding from SB 1 will help the City maintain and rehabilitate
streets/roads, sidewalks, and add active transportation infrastructure throughout the City this year
and similar projects into the future; and
Item 10
Packet Page 26
Resolution No. ________ (2021 Series) Page 2
R ______
WHEREAS, the 2018 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment
found that the City’s streets and roads are in a “good” condition and this revenue will help us
increase the overall quality of our road system and over the next decade and make critical
improvements to transportation that will assist in greenhouse gas emission reductions and active
transportation safety; and
WHEREAS, the SB 1 project list and overall investment in the City’s streets and roads
infrastructure with a focus on basic maintenance and safety, investing in complete streets
infrastructure and active transportation projects, and using cutting-edge technology, materials and
practices, will have significant positive co-benefits statewide.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
that as follows:
SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.
SECTION 2. The following project will be funded in-part with Fiscal Year 2021-22
RMRA revenues:
Project Title: 2021 Downtown Pavement Improvements
Project Description: Pavement Maintenance and Rehabilitation work in the downtown area
Project Location: Marsh and Higuera West of Nipomo, Marsh and Higuera East of Santa
Rosa, Nipomo Street from Buchon to Leff, and Johnson, Philips, and Pepper Streets from
the Intersection of Johnson and Philips south the Mill Street.
Estimated Project Schedule: Start July 2021 – Completion December 2021
Estimated Project Useful Life: 20 years
Item 10
Packet Page 27
Resolution No. ________ (2021 Series) Page 3
R ______
SECTION 3. The following previously proposed and adopted projects may also utilize
Fiscal Year 2020-21 RMRA revenues in their delivery. With the relisting of these projects in the
adopted fiscal year resolution, the City is reaffirming to the public and the State our intent to fund
these projects with RMRA revenues:
Project Title: Anholm Greenway Phase 2
Project Description: Construct a Class I bike path between Foothill and Ramona, and a
Class IV two-way protected bikeway along Ramona from the Class I path to Broad Street.
Project Location: Foothill to Ramona and Ramona to Broad Street
Estimated Project Schedule: Start Fall 2021 – Completion Spring 2022
Estimated Project Useful Life: 20 years
Upon motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of ___________, 2021.
____________________________________
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 10
Packet Page 28
2021 DOWNTOWN PAVEMENT
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
VICINITY MAP 1 OF 1
AREA 'A'
AREA 'D'
Project
Locations
0
SCALE IN FEET
1000
AREA 'C'
AREA 'B'
Item 10
Packet Page 29
BLANK PAGE
This page is intended to be blank so that you can print double-sided.
Item 10
Packet Page 30
Department Name: Community Development
Cost Center: 4003
For Agenda of: April 6, 2021
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO REMOVE THE PROPERTY AT 1136 IRIS STREET FROM
THE CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES LIST OF THE CITY’S INVENTORY OF
HISTORIC RESOURCES
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC), adopt a Resolution
(Attachment A) removing the property at 1136 Iris Street from the Contributing Properties List
of the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources.
DISCUSSION
As described in the applicant’s statement (see Attachment B), the owners of the property at 1136
Iris Street have requested consideration of a request to remove the property from the City’s
Inventory of Historic Resources, as provided in Listing Procedures for Historic Resources, set
out in Section 14.01.060 (C) of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Site and Setting
The property is a residential dwelling
on the north side of Iris Street, between
Ruth and Henry Streets in the East
Railroad area. The neighborhood is
characterized by single-family
residences, many with historical
character. The property is adjacent to,
but not within, the Railroad Historic
District, and the Southern Pacific
Water Tower (a Master List Historic
Resource) is located behind the
property, to the north, on an adjacent
lot.
Figure 1: 1136 Iris Street
Item 11
Packet Page 31
The site is developed with a two-bedroom single-family residence in the front portion of the site
and was built in 1910. An addition to the house, and a small duplex building to the rear, were
constructed as part of a 2013 expansion. The style of the house is described in City records1 as
“Victorian Cottage.”
Historic Listing
Historic preservation policies are contained in the Conservation and Open Space Element
(COSE) of the City’s General Plan, and the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (SLOMC
Ch. 14.01) implements these policies.
Property may be designated as a Contributing List resource where a building on it maintains its
historic and architectural character, and contributes, by itself or in conjunction with other
structures, to the unique or historic character of a neighborhood, district, or to the City as a
whole.2 The subject property was designated as a “Contributing List Resource in 2007 following
a City-wide survey in the area known as the East Railroad neighborhood.
EVALUATION
Criteria for Historic Resource Listing
The applicant statement, prepared by Craig Smith, Architect, (Attachment B) summarizes the
applicant’s evaluation of the property’s eligibility for historic listing, as set forth in the
Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing (Historic Preservation Ordinance § 14.01.070).
The statement discusses the circumstances surrounding the request to remove the property from
the Historic Inventory, and concludes that the primary dwelling does not satisfy listing criteria to
a degree warranting designation as a Contributing List Resource:
The property should be removed from the list as it cannot satisfy the required and
appropriate evaluation criteria as a qualified, historic, and contributing property.
In order to be eligible for 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 the structure on it is
found to no longer meet eligibility criteria for listing (§ 14.01.060 (C)).
Architectural Criteria (§ 14.01.070 (A))
Style and Design. The primary residence on this property, although described as “Victorian
Cottage,” exhibits the “Neo-Classical Cottage” style described in the City’s Historical Context
Statement: simple house forms or cottages with fewer decorative features than other styles from
the period (see Attachment E).
Architect. There is no information to suggest the residence is associated with a famous architect
or builder of importance is associated with the structure. A search of permit records related to the
construction of the buildings on the site provides no indication of their architect or builder.
1 Architectural Worksheet from City historical property information file (see Attachment C)
2 See Historic Preservation Ordinance § 14.01.020 for definition of Contributing List Resource or Property
Item 11
Packet Page 32
Historic Criteria (§ 14.01.070 (B))
Person or Event. Similarly, there is no known association of the property with persons or events
significant to local history or evidence that the property was associated with any famous or
“first-of-its-kind” event.
Integrity
The front portion of the primary dwelling retains much of its original form and basic character. A
two-story addition was added to the back of the existing residence, providing a new master
bedroom and two-car garage. The addition was part of a 2013 project (Fig. 2), which included
construction of a duplex building at the rear of the lot. These additions have been identified by
the applicant as elements which have degraded the physical integrity of the structure.
Previous Advisory Body Action
On December 2, 2020, the Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed an Architectural Review
application (ARCH-0420-2021) for a proposal to construct of another addition, to the front of the
primary dwelling, involving relocation of its front façade closer to the street. In its discussions,
the Committee noted concerns with the existing conditions and alterations that have already
diminished the integrity of the building and found that the cumulative effects of the additions and
alterations already made on the property taken together with the new proposed alterations, would
further diminish the building’s integrity and the integrity of the setting, such that the property
would not retain its contributing status.
On February 22, 2021, the Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed this Historical Preservation
application (HIST-0020-2021) requesting removal of the property from the City’s Inventory of
Historic Resources. In considering this request, the Committee distinguished between the more
narrowly-focused question of a proposed addition’s compatibility with the property’s historical
character in terms of scale, massing, and architectural detailing (the subject of its prior review of
the development proposed under the Architectural Review application), and the larger question
of the eligibility of the property for historic listing that is the subject of this request, in light of
diminishment of the building’s integrity, which members of the committee previously discussed
in the December 2nd meeting, and as noted in the applicant’s statement.
Figure 2: Rendering of south and east building elevations (2013 additions)
Item 11
Packet Page 33
After discussion of the property’s continued eligibility for listing, the Committee recommended
that the City Council remove the property from the Contributing Properties List, finding that the
original dwelling has lost integrity due to previous additions and alterations to the property, to a
degree that its connection to its period of significance has been lost, such that it is no longer
eligible for listing as a Contributing List Resource since it could not convey architectural
significance (see Meeting Minutes, Attachment F).
Policy Context
The recommended action on this item is supported by historical preservation policies in 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 of The City’s Historic Preservation
Ordinance SLOMC Sections 14.01.060 & 14.01.070. Ordinance. The Historic Preservation
Ordinance states that in order to qualify as a resource, a high degree of integrity mush be
maintained and that at least one of the historic significance criteria is satisfied.
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 Ordinance.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: No Budget Year: 2020-21
Funding Identified: No
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing Cost
General Fund N/A
State
Federal
Fees
Other:
Total
Item 11
Packet Page 34
The removal of the property from the contributing properties’ list has 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 1136 Iris Street on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources, based on findings
that the property continues to satisfy the criteria for Historic Resource Listing of the City’s
Historic Preservation Ordinance.
2. Continue the item for additional information or discussion.
Attachments:
a - Draft Resolution
b - Applicant Summary
c - Architectural Worksheet
d - Evaluation Criteria
e - NeoClassical Cottage
f - CHC Minutes of 02-22-2021
Item 11
Packet Page 35
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2021 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, REMOVING THE PROPERTY AT 1136 IRIS
STREET FROM THE CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES LIST OF
HISTORIC RESOURCES (HIST-0020-2021)
WHEREAS, the applicants, Robert and Michelle Braunschweig, submitted on January 8,
2021 an application to remove the property located at 1136 Iris Street (“the Property”) from the
Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources (HIST-0020-2021); 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 February 22,
2021 to consider the application, and recommended that the City Council remove the Property
from the Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
via teleconference on April 6, 2021 for the purpose of considering removal of the Property from
the Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing and meeting were made at the time and in the
manner required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the record of
the 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 Integrity criteria set out in
§ 14.01.070 (C) of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. The primary dwelling
on the property no longer has the integrity to qualify as a Contributing Historic
Resource due to previous alteration.
b) 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 evaluated by an architectural historian.
As summarized in the applicant’s statement submitted with application HIST-0020-
2021, that evaluation concluded that the primary structure on the property no longer
has the integrity to qualify as a Contributing Historic Resource due to previous
alteration, and that the property is not a candidate for inclusion on the City’s Inventory.
Item 11
Packet Page 36
Resolution No. _____ (2021 Series) Page 2
R _____
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).
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:
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 __________ 2021.
____________________________________
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 11
Packet Page 37
crsa | architecture
January 07, 2021
Community Development
℅ Cultural Heritage Committee
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401
Subject: Historical Preservation Application ARCH-0470-2020 (1136 Iris ):
Request to De-List 1136 Iris Property from the Historic List
Dear Cultural Heritage Committee,
Please accept this letter requesting to “delist” the stated and existing property at 1136 Iris Street.
This request is based on the inability to establish any conforming findings set by the State of
California Interior Secretary’s historical preservation conditions and the City of San Luis Obispo
Historic Preservation Ordinance, per the given and established facts with no contributing
“historical” significant elements to maintain eligibility.
The base summary elements are that no important or significant person has occupied, owned or
used the property; no “famous” architect of importance has designed the structures; nor is there
an element of any historical use, event or justification that can be made, or determined, to
establish any historical significant for the property to remain on the list. Furthermore, the ability
to retain existing material integrity, with “original” materials (i.e.: wood shiplap siding), cannot be
assured or verified without detailed, investigated and substantiated inspection and verification.
This later issue has been found to be relevant in the first two phases of the project and are
contributory to this current and proposed phase of work.
Removal from the contributing properties list of historic resources, does not change the proposed
scope of work for the relocation and expansion of the existing front façade and entry porch. The
property should be removed from the list as it cannot satisfy the required and appropriate
evaluation criteria as a qualified, historic and contributing property.
Sincerely,
Craig R. Smith, AIA
Principal Architect
CRSA Architecture
CRSA Architecture – 860 Walnut Street, Suite B – San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401
805.544.3380 – crsa@craigrsmithaia.com
Item 11
Packet Page 38
Item 11
Packet Page 39
Item 11
Packet Page 40
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:
Wtem277
Packet Page 41
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).
Wtem277
Packet Page 42
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.
Wtem277
Packet Page 43
City of San Luis Obispo Architectural Character
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
138
NEO-CLASSICAL COTTAGE
The term “Neo-Classical Cottage” is used to describe simple house forms or cottages with fewer
decorative features than other styles from the period. While vernacular residences may display certain
characteristics of recognizable styles, decorative detailing is typically confined to the porch or cornice
line.
Character-defining features include:
Symmetrical façade
Simple square or rectangular form
Gabled or hipped roof with boxed or open eaves
Wood exterior cladding
Simple window and door surrounds
Details may include cornice line brackets
Porch support with turned spindles or square posts
1203 Pismo Street, c.1900. Source: Historic Resources
Group.
1211 Pismo Street, 1908.Source: Historic Resources
Group.
Item 11
Packet Page 44
Minutes – Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of February 22, 2021 Page 1
Minutes
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Wednesday, February 22, 2021
Regular Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee was called to order on
Wednesday, February 22, 2021 at 5:30 p.m. via teleconference, by Chair Shannon Larrabee.
ROLL CALL
Present: Committee Members Karen Edwards, Damon Haydu, Glen Matteson, Vice Chair Eva
Ulz, and Chair Shannon Larrabee
Absent: Committee Member Wendy McFarland
Staff: Senior Planner Brian Leveille, and City Clerk Teresa Purrington
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None
End of Public Comment--
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
1.Approve the minutes of the December 2, 2020 Cultural Heritage Committee meeting.
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER MATTESON, SECONDED BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER EDWARDS, CARRIED 5-0-1 (Member McFarland absent), to
approve the minutes of the December 2, 2020 Cultural Heritage Committee meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
2.1136 Iris Street. Review of a request to remove the property at 1136 Iris Street from the
Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources in the City’s Inventory of Historic
Resources (this action is not subject to environmental review); Project Address: 1136 Iris
Street; Case #: HIST-0020- 2021; Zone R-2; Robert and Michelle Braunschweig,
owner/applicant.
Senior Planner, Brian Leveille presented the staff report and responded to Committee inquiries.
Applicant representative, Craig Smith, responded to Committee inquiries.
Item 11
Packet Page 45
Minutes – Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of February 22, 2020 Page 2
Public Comment
None
End of Public Comment--
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER MATTESON, SECONDED BY
VICE CHAIR ULZ, CARRIED 5-0-1 (Member McFarland absent) to remove the property
from the Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources with the Finding that the building
no longer has the integrity to qualify as a Contributing Historic Resource due to previous
alterations.
PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION
3.Evaluation of the Mills Act Program
Planning Intern Chris Murphy provided a PowerPoint presentation and responded to
Committee inquiries.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
Senior Planner Leveille provided an agenda forecast.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:42 p.m. The next Regular Cultural Heritage Committee meeting
is scheduled for Monday, March 22, 2021 at 5:30 p.m., via teleconference.
APPROVED BY THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE: 03/22/2021
Item 11
Packet Page 46
Department Name: Public Works
Cost Center: 5101
For Agenda of: April 6, 2021
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Matt Horn, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Alexander Fuchs, Parking Services Supervisor
SUBJECT: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 1694 (2021 SERIES) AMENDING
SECTIONS 10.36.170, 10.36.220, AND 10.36.221 OF THE CITY’S
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT
DISTRICTS
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Ordinance No. 1694 (2021 Series) entitled, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, amending Municipal Code Title 10 Chapter 36 regarding
Stopping, Standing and Parking for certain purposes or in certain places.”
DISCUSSION
Background
On March 2, 2021, the City Council approved the introduction of Ordinance No. 1694 (2021
Series), amending Title 10 Chapter 36 of the Municipal Code to include the following:
Section 10.36.170 – Designation of residential parking permit areas – Adoption of resolution
•Added language that allows multi-family properties of five to eight units on Dana Street
to be eligible to receive permits that is set to self-expire upon completion of construction
of the Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure unless revised by Council action.
Section 10.36.220 – Residential parking permit – Issuance
•Added language that allows multi-family properties of five to eight units on Dana Street
to receive up to one permit per unit per parcel.
Section 10.36.221 – Lost, stolen, or defaced permit replacement
•Updated the replacement fees from $15 to $20 for the first replacement permit and from
$25 to $30 for any additional replacements after the first.
Policy Context
The current Municipal Code sections that govern residential parking permit districts does not
allow residential properties of more than four units to receive parking permits. Due to the unique
make-up of properties on Dana Street, the City Council directed staff to survey the multi-family
properties on Dana Street of five to eight units to see if a majority wished to be included in the
Dana Street Parking District.
Item 12
Packet Page 47
The results of the survey demonstrated sufficient support for inclusion in the parking district, so
staff drafted an ordinance modifying the applicable Municipal Code sections to allow for
inclusion of multi-family properties of five to eight units on Dana Street to receive parking
district permits.
Public Engagement
This Ordinance was brought before City Council on March 2, 2021 as a Public Hearing item for
review and approval. Postcard notices were mailed to all residents and property owners within
300 feet of the proposed Dana Street Parking District boundaries in advance of the Council
meeting. There was also public comment on the item, both in writing and in person, that the
Council members read and heard before taking action on the item.
CONCURRENCE
The City Attorney’s office has reviewed the ordinance and supports the modifications to allow
multi-family properties of five to eight units on Dana Street to receive residential parking
permits.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The recommended action is considered a “project” under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Guidelines; however, it is exempt from review per the general rule exemption
section 15061(B)(3).
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: On-going
Funding Identified: N/A
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding Sources Current FY Cost
Annualized
On-going Cost
Total Project
Cost
Parking Fund N/A N/A N/A
Total N/A N/A N/A
There are no direct costs associated with adoption of this ordinance. Costs associated with th e
expansion of the Dana Street Parking District, under these amendments, will be funded through
the Parking Fund’s annually appropriated Contract Services budget.
Item 12
Packet Page 48
ALTERNATIVES
Do not adopt the Ordinance at this time. Staff does not recommend this alternative because the
City Council has already approved the introduction of the Ordinance and has approved a
Resolution modifying the Dana Street Parking District to include multi-family properties of five
to eight units.
Attachments:
a - Ordinance No. 1694 (2021 Series)
Item 12
Packet Page 49
O 1694
ORDINANCE NO. 1694 (2021 SERIES)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 10
CHAPTER 36 REGARDING STOPPING, STANDING AND PARKING
FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES OR IN CERTAIN PLACES
WHEREAS, on December 8, 2020, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo directed
staff to survey multi-family properties of five to eight units along Dana Street to ensure a majority
of these properties wish to be included in the Dana Street Residential Parking District; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo authorized the issuance of one
parking permit per multi-family dwelling unit if the survey results demonstrate sufficient support
for the inclusion of multi-family properties of five to eight units in the Dana Street Residential
Parking District; and
WHEREAS, the results of the survey demonstrated sufficient support amongst multi-
family properties of five to eight units to be included in the Dana Street Residential Parking
District; and
WHEREAS, specific sections of Title 10 Chapter 36 of the Municipal Code must be
modified to allow for the multi-family properties of five to eight units to be included in the Dana
Street Residential Parking District and to be eligible to receive parking permits.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 10.36.170 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, entitled
Designation of residential parking permit areas—Adoption of resolution, is hereby amended to
read as follows:
10.36.170 Designation of residential parking permit areas—Adoption of resolution.
A.The council should, by resolution, designate an area of the city as a residential parking
permit area if the council finds that:
1.The area is predominantly residential;
2.The streets in the area are congested with vehicles parked by persons not residing
in the area and the designation is supported by a majority of the affected households
as indicated by a city survey of the affected households in which a sixty percent
majority of participating households is required; or
Item
Packet Page 50
Ordinance No. 1694 (2021 Series) Page 2
O 1694
3.Limiting the parking of vehicles along the streets in the area to vehicles registered
or controlled and exclusively used by persons residing in the area is necessary in
order to preserve the character of the existing neighborhood as defined in resident
petition and approved by a sixty percent majority of households in the area.
Households will be determined using the city’s address database (there may be
more than one household per parcel) and will be limited to non-multifamily units
of less than five dwelling units with the exception of the residential parking permit
district on Dana Street which allows for multi-family units of five to eight dwelling
units to be eligible to receive permits. This exception will be in effect until the
completion of construction of the Palm-Nipomo parking structure or until nullified
by City Council action.
B.In determining whether limiting the parking of vehicles along the streets in the area to
vehicles registered to or controlled and used exclusively by persons residing in the area
is necessary in order to preserve the character of the existing neighborhood for the
persons residing in the area, the council shall consider the negative effect of vehicles
parked by persons not residing in the area on:
1.Environmental characteristics such as ambient noise levels and air pollution levels;
2.Pedestrian and vehicular traffic safety in the area; and
3.The burden on persons residing in the area gaining access to their residences.
C.The council may, by resolution, designate an area of the city as a residential parking
permit area after holding a public hearing and making a finding that the establishment
of the district represents the desire of a majority of the households of the area. The
hearing on any such resolution should only be held after the council receives a request,
in a form acceptable to the council.
SECTION 2. Section 10.36.220 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, entitled
Residential parking permit – Issuance, is hereby amended to read as follows:
10.36.220 Residential parking permit—Issuance.
Annually, the director of public works shall issue two residential parking permits to the
registered property owner, or the registered property owner’s representative, as authorized
in writing, of each property shown with a unique number on the latest county of San Luis
Obispo assessment roll within each residential parking permit area established by
resolution as set forth in Section 10.36.180. Qualified households that have multiple,
separate dwelling units shall be eligible for additional permits, providing the total number
of permits issued to one parcel does not exceed twice the number of residential dwelling
units on the parcel with exception of multi-family units of five to eight units in the Dana
Street residential parking permit district which shall be eligible to receive permits equal to
one per dwelling unit per parcel. All parking permits may be picked up in person at the
office of the city parking manager or will be mailed to the address of the property on written
request of the property owner.
Item
Packet Page 51
Ordinance No. 1694 (2021 Series) Page 3
O 1694
Parking permits may be transferred by the residents to any vehicle that is to be parked on
the street and will be recognized by the city, providing they are displayed clearly. The
parking permits shall be issued annually. Fees for residential parking permits shall be
established by city council resolution. The permits shall be considered part of the
residential property and shall be transferred to the new property owner upon sale of the
residence.
SECTION 3. Section 10.36.221 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, entitled Lost,
stolen, or defaced permit replacement, is hereby amended to read as follows:
10.36.221 Lost, stolen, or defaced permit replacement.
Any permit lost, stolen, defaced or otherwise altered shall be deemed invalid and a
replacement permit shall be issued to the qualified property owner for a fee of twenty
dollars. If the replacement permit is again lost, stolen, or defaced, a replacement permit
will be issued for a fee of thirty dollars. No additional replacement permits shall be issued
within a twelve-month period. All permits shall be picked up by the property owner or a
representative authorized in writing by the registered property owner, with proof of
identification, at the office of the city parking manager. The property owner or a
representative authorized in writing by the owner shall certify that the original permit was
lost, stolen, or in the case of damaged permits shall submit the damaged permit, stating the
permit shall be used by qualified residents and their bona fide visitors.
Any resident and/or property owner found to misrepresent themselves for the purposes of
fraudulently obtaining residential parking permits shall lose their right to said permits and
no permits will be issued to the household until the beginning of the next permit year and
shall be guilty of an infraction.
SECTION 4. If any subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance
is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforcement of the remaining portions
of this ordinance, or any other provisions of the City’s rules and regulations. It is the City’s express
intent that each remaining portion would have been adopted irrespective of the fact that any one
or more subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid or
unenforceable.
SECTION 5. The amendments to the Municipal Code do not constitute a “Project” under
CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15378.
Item
Packet Page 52
Ordinance No. 1694 (2021 Series) Page 4
O 1694
SECTION 6. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members
voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in The
Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at
the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED on the 2nd day of March 2021, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the ____ day of _____, 2021, 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 12
Packet Page 53
BLANK PAGE
This page is intended to be blank so that you can print double-sided.
Item 12
Packet Page 54
Department Name: Administration and IT
Cost Center: 1101
For Agenda of: April 6, 2021
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Greg Hermann, Deputy City Manager
Prepared By: Miguel Guardado, IT Manager
SUBJECT: PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO INFRASTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT
RECOMMENDATION
1. Authorize the City Manager to award the contract for purchase and installation of the
replacement of the QS2 Public Safety Radio System to Commline Inc. (Attachment A); and
2. Authorize waiver of formal bids to cooperatively purchase radio equipment as allowed under
Section 3.24.060 E of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code using the NASPO
Contract #06913 (Attachment B).
DISCUSSION
The City’s current Public Safety Radio System was installed and began operating in 2010 to
serve the communications needs of the City’s first responders and other frontline personnel. The
system as designed and installed provides communication for the City’s Fire, Police, Public
Works, and Utilities Departments.
The City utilizes a Tait simulcast system to operate simultaneous transmit and receive sites at
South Hills, Fire Station 2, and Fire Station 3. The City also has a receive only site boosting
portable radio coverage downtown on top of the 919 Palm parking garage. Two backup sites that
address two failure modes are located at the Emergency Communications Center (ECC) and at
Tassajara Peak.
While manufacturer support for the Tait components of the system has been exemplary, now that
the system is approaching 11 years of age, IT has begun running into issues with sourcing
replacement parts for portions of the system as they fail. This was anticipated to occur around
this time in the project’s life cycle and a capital improvement project to replace the backend
infrastructure was budgeted in the 2017-19 Financial Plan.
The project has not yet been executed as two other communications projects took precedence.
The South Hills Radio Tower and Shelter Replacement, scheduled for FY 2017-2018, needed to
be completed prior to this replacement to address deficiencies in the existing shelter. Due to
construction delays around weather scheduling, changes in the scope from what was initially
thought to be sufficient, and delays in obtaining funding for the increased scope, that project was
not completed until 2020. In addition, the City has been working with Cal Poly to move the Fire
Station 2 transmit and receive site to KVEC Hill.
Item 13
Packet Page 55
That contract was approved by Council on March 2, 2021 and is moving forward. This will
reduce overall cost to the City due to not needing to install, then move and re-install the
replacement system at a new site. The City is now prepared to proceed with the recommended
actions for this item.
The update to the system will also allow the option to encrypt the City’s Police radio channels,
fulfilling new requirements imposed by the California Department of Justice to protect personal
identifiable information when communicated over the radio.
IT is working with Tait and their channel partners to ensure the replacement utilizes as much of
the existing infrastructure as possible for cost savings, while introducing new equipment that will
replace deteriorating components and ensure the system will continue to provide years of reliable
service.
Purchasing Policy – As stated in the City’s Purchasing Policy, staff may use established
cooperative agreements for purchases without a competitive bidding process, if those cooperative
agreements were competitively bid. This purchase is under the National Association of State
Procurement Officials (NASPO) which was competitively bid. Staff is pursuing a sole source
due to the complexity of both our legacy radio system and the incorporation of the new hardware
into the system. Tait, the radio hardware manufacturer selected Commline, Inc. for their
extensive knowledge of the City’s current radio system and their experience in performing these
types of complex upgrades. The selection of Commline, Inc. will further assist the City with
ongoing support and 4-hour response times. Attachment C is the approved Sole Source
Justification form.
Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
This project was identified in the 2017-19 Financial Plan that was approved by Council.
The South Hills Radio Site Upgrade Project Council Agenda Report was approved on March 5,
2019. The Contract for the Radio Shelter and Tower on KVEC Hill Council Agenda Report was
approved on March 2, 2021.
CONCURRENCE
The Police Department and Fire Department have reviewed this report and concur with the
recommendation.
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: 2018-19
Funding Identified: Yes
Item 13
Packet Page 56
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding Sources Current FY Cost
Annualized
On-going Cost*
Total Project
Cost
General Fund $650,000 $55,000 $705,000
Total $650,000 $55,000 $705,000
*The annualized cost is included in the IT operating budget
The funding was identified in the Capital Improvement Projects IT Replacement fund in the
amount of $650,000 and remains available. The current radio system is under a multi-year annual
support contract budgeted in the Network Services operating account. The ongoing annualized
cost of the project will replace the existing support contract budgeted in the Network Services
operating account. Attachment D details the quoted cost of the project.
ALTERNATIVES
Deny authorization. This is not recommended as the portions of the system slated for
replacement are approaching obsolescence or will soon be too unreliable operate as a critical life
safety communication system.
Attachments:
a - Agreement with Commline Inc.
b - COUNCIL READING FILE - NASPO/Tait North America Public Safety Radio Master
Agreement
c - Sole Source Justification for Commline Inc.
d - Quote - Replacement of Legacy QS2 System (031212v5)
Item 13
Packet Page 57
Agreement Page 1
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on ____________________,
by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as City, and
COMMLINE, INC., hereinafter referred to as Contractor or Consultant.
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, the City wants to replace the legacy QS2 radio system.
WHEREAS, the Contractor is qualified to perform this type of service and has submitted a quote to do so
which has been accepted by City.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants hereinafter
contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date this Agreement is made and entered,
as first written above, until December 31, 2021 and acceptance or completion of said services, unless extended by
mutual agreement of the parties
2. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE The Contractor’s fees and scope of work are
incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement attached as Exhibit A. The City’s terms and conditions are
hereby incorporated in an made a part of this Agreement as Exhibit B. The City’s insurance requirements and
contractors’ proof of insurance are hereby incorporated in and made part of this Agreement attached as Exhibit C.
To the extent that there are any conflicts between the Contractor’s fees and scope of work and the City’s terms and
conditions, the City’s terms and conditions shall prevail, unless specifically agreed otherwise in writing signed by
both parties.
3. CITY'S OBLIGATIONS. For providing services as specified in this Agreement, City will pay,
and Contractor shall receive therefor compensation in a total sum not to exceed $650,000 for services for the
equipment replacement and installation of the QS2 citywide radio system.
4. CONTRACTOR'S OBLIGATIONS. For and in consideration of the payments and Agreements
herein before mentioned to be made and performed by City, Contractor agrees with City to provide services as set
forth in Attachment A
Item 13
Packet Page 58
Agreement Page 2
5. AMENDMENTS. Any amendment, modification, or variation from the terms of this Agreement
shall be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the Department Head or City Manager of the City.
6. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings specifically
incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete Agreement between the parties hereto. No oral
Agreement, understanding, or representation not reduced to writing and specifically incorporated herein shall be of
any force or effect, nor shall any such oral Agreement, understanding, or representation be binding upon the parties
hereto.
7. NOTICE. All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail, postage
prepaid by registered or certified mail addressed as follows:
City Administration and IT
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Attn: Miguel Guardado, IT Manager
Commline, Inc. __________________
Name
13700 Cimarron Ave.
Gardena, CA 90249
8. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both City and Contractor do covenant that each
individual executing this Agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to execute
Agreements for such party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and year
first above written.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, A Municipal Corporation
By:_____________________________________
Derek Johnson, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONTRACTOR
________________________________ By: _____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
Item 13
Packet Page 59
City of San Luis Obispo Sole Source Justification Form
Commline, Inc.
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?
The purchase and installation of Tait radio equipment.
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, it is our main City radio system and we are upgrading and replacing components.
3. Is the product or service proprietary or is it available from various dealers? Have you verified this?
The product is being purchased off a piggyback cooperative. Service for implementation is available
from other dealers, however, Tait the manufacturer, recommends Commline, Inc because of the
complexity of the system, and Tait employees have knowledge of the City’s system, which would
obviate the need for training. The current system utilizes a combination of Tait proprietary quasi -
simulcast site controllers coupled with Intraplex IP stream audio multiplexers and JPS analog
voters. The system was designed by Tait engineers and while proving reliable, is complex to support
and out of the scope of many local providers.
4. Have other products/vendors been considered? If yes, which products/vendors have been
considered and how did they fail to meet the City’s requirements?
Yes, ATG was considered, but did not hold the same expertise and knowledge to complete this project.
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 the City’s main radio backend equipment
Item 13
Packet Page 60
City of San Luis Obispo Sole Source Justification Form
6. Is this a request for services by a contractor with necessary, unique and critical knowledge of
established City systems or programs? If so, will using the contractor’s services avoid other costs
(e.g.: significant staff time in compiling information, data transfers, etc.)?
Yes, the complexity of the City’s radio system (See Answer #3) warrants a vendor with special, critical
knowledge of both the legacy radio system and incorporating new hardware into the system.
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)?
$650,000 has been cooperatively bid and the City is piggybacking onto the cooperative NASPO
contract, which saves the City the added costs of conducting its own RFP process. The City is also
receiving a () discount.
Approved:
Requester: Lynn Wilwand
__Dan Clancy /s/_______________________ ____3/23/2021_________________
Dan Clancy Date
Purchasing Analyst
Item 13
Packet Page 61
DATE:SALES REP:
COMPANY:COMPANY:
ATTENTION:ATTENTION:
ADDRESS:ADDRESS:
CITY/ST/ZIP:CITY/ST/ZIP:
PHONE:PHONE:
EMAIL:EMAIL:
QTY NASPO COST EXT COST
1 $945.72 $945.72
2 $ 1,909.94 $3,819.88
2 $ 1,055.98 $2,111.96
1 $ 1,397.86 $1,397.86
1 $9.62 $ 9.62
2 $ 3,571.24 $7,142.48
2 $ 3,500.20 $7,000.40
4 $945.72 $3,782.88
8 $ 1,909.94 $15,279.52
8 $ 1,055.98 $8,447.84
4 $ 1,397.86 $5,591.44
4 $9.62 $38.48
8 $ 3,571.24 $28,569.92
8 $ 3,500.20 $28,001.60
3 $ 4,773.00 $14,319.00
3 $387.02 $1,161.06
3 $ 1,010.10 $3,030.30
1 $945.72 $945.72
2 $ 1,909.94 $3,819.88
2 $ 1,055.98 $2,111.96
1 $ 1,397.86 $1,397.86
1 $9.62 $ 9.62
2 $ 3,571.24 $7,142.48
2 $ 3,500.20 $7,000.40
3 $945.72 $2,837.16
6 $ 1,909.94 $11,459.64
6 $ 1,055.98 $6,335.88
3 $ 1,397.86 $4,193.58
3 $9.62 $28.86
6 $ 3,571.24 $21,427.44
6 $ 3,500.20 $21,001.20
3 $ 4,773.00 $14,319.00
3 $387.02 $1,161.06
3 $ 1,010.10 $3,030.30
1 $852.48 $852.48
2 $ 1,273.54 $2,547.08
1 $ 1,397.86 $1,397.86
1 $9.62 $ 9.62
TBAS065 SFE Key - P25 Linear Simulcast Modulation (LSM) Phase 1
TBAS065 SFE Key - P25 Linear Simulcast Modulation (LSM) Phase 1
TBA30A0-0100 TB8000/9000 Power Management Unit AC aux12
219-01561-00 CBL cord 2m USA IEC blk
RX‐only
TB9444-RX2T TB9444 Multi Receiverx2 Chassis Assy
T01-01104-LAAA TB94 RxOnly 440-480 MHz S2
TBAS060 SFE Key - Digital Fixed Station Interface (91/94)
TB9415D-050T TB9415 Dual 50W Chassis Assembly
TBAS061 SFE Key - Central Voter (91/94)
TBAS062 SFE Key - Simulcast Enable Phase I (91/94)
TBAS061 SFE Key - Central Voter (91/94)
TBAS062 SFE Key - Simulcast Enable Phase I (91/94)
TBAS050 SFE Key - P25 Common Air Interface (CAI) (91/94)
Fire Station 2
T01-01121-LAAA TB94 Linear PA 440-480M 50W
TBA30A0-0100 TB8000/9000 Power Management Unit AC aux12
219-01561-00 CBL cord 2m USA IEC blk
T01-01103-LAAA TB94 Rctr 440-480 MHz S2
T01-01121-DABA TB94 Linear PA 148-174M 50W
TBA30A0-0100 TB8000/9000 Power Management Unit AC aux12
219-01561-00 CBL cord 2m USA IEC blk
VHF Simulcast
TB9415D-050T TB9415 Dual 50W Chassis Assembly
T01-01103-DAAA TB94 Rctr 148-174 MHz S2
UHF Simulcast
TBAS060 SFE Key - Digital Fixed Station Interface (91/94)
UHF Simulcast
TB9415D-050T TB9415 Dual 50W Chassis Assembly
TBAS062 SFE Key - Simulcast Enable Phase I (91/94)
TBAS050 SFE Key - P25 Common Air Interface (CAI) (91/94)
219-01561-00 CBL cord 2m USA IEC blk
TBAS061
T01-01103-LAAA TB94 Rctr 440-480 MHz S2
T01-01121-LAAA TB94 Linear PA 440-480M 50W
TBA30A0-0100 TB8000/9000 Power Management Unit AC aux12
SFE Key - Central Voter (91/94)
TBAS061 SFE Key - Central Voter (91/94)
TBAS062 SFE Key - Simulcast Enable Phase I (91/94)
T01-01121-DABA TB94 Linear PA 148-174M 50W
TBA30A0-0100 TB8000/9000 Power Management Unit AC aux12
219-01561-00 CBL cord 2m USA IEC blk
VHF Simulcast
TB9415D-050T TB9415 Dual 50W Chassis Assembly
T01-01103-DAAA TB94 Rctr 148-174 MHz S2
South Hill
RE: Tait System Design
MODEL/PART # DESCRIPTION
NASPO Contract #06913
805-781-7530
norrben@slocity.org
City of San Luis Obispo Same
Nic Orrben
990 Palm St
13700 Cimarron Ave., Gardena, CA 90249
(Main) 310.390.8003 (Fax) 310.390.4393
www.CommlineInc.com
REQUEST FOR QUOTE
3/15/2021 Ryan Narimatsu
BILL TO:SHIP TO:
San Luis Obispo, CA
Page 1 of 4
Item 13
Packet Page 62
2 $563.14 $1,126.28
1 $945.72 $945.72
2 $ 1,909.94 $3,819.88
2 $ 1,055.98 $2,111.96
1 $ 1,397.86 $1,397.86
1 $9.62 $ 9.62
2 $563.14 $1,126.28
2 $ 3,500.20 $7,000.40
3 $945.72 $2,837.16
6 $ 1,909.94 $11,459.64
6 $ 1,055.98 $6,335.88
3 $ 1,397.86 $4,193.58
3 $9.62 $28.86
6 $563.14 $3,378.84
6 $ 3,500.20 $21,001.20
3 $ 4,773.00 $14,319.00
3 $ 1,010.10 $3,030.30
1 $852.48 $852.48
2 $ 1,273.54 $2,547.08
1 $ 1,397.86 $1,397.86
1 $9.62 $ 9.62
2 $563.14 $1,126.28
1 $852.48 $852.48
2 $ 1,273.54 $2,547.08
1 $ 1,397.86 $1,397.86
1 $9.62 $ 9.62
2 $563.14 $1,126.28
2 $852.48 $1,704.96
8 $ 1,273.54 $10,188.32
2 $ 1,397.86 $2,795.72
2 $9.62 $19.24
8 $563.14 $4,505.12
3 $ 4,773.00 $14,319.00
3 $ 1,010.10 $3,030.30
1 $945.72 $945.72
1 $ 1,909.94 $1,909.94
1 $ 1,055.98 $1,055.98
1 $ 1,397.86 $1,397.86
1 $9.62 $ 9.62
1 $ 1,909.94 $1,909.94
1 $ 1,055.98 $1,055.98
1 $368.52 $368.52
2 $52.54 $105.08
1 $945.72 $945.72
1 $ 1,909.94 $1,909.94
1 $ 1,055.98 $1,055.98
1 $ 1,397.86 $1,397.86
1 $9.62 $ 9.62
1 $ 1,909.94 $1,909.94
1 $ 1,055.98 $1,055.98
TBAS065 SFE Key - P25 Linear Simulcast Modulation (LSM) Phase 1
TBAS065 SFE Key - P25 Linear Simulcast Modulation (LSM) Phase 1
Utilities, FD TAC 2
TB9415D-050T TB9415 Dual 50W Chassis Assembly
T01-01121-DABA TB94 Linear PA 148-174M 50W
TBCA03-10 Relay coax assembly (TB94)
TBC101A TB73/93/94 E&M Isolation Adaptor
T01-01121-DABA TB94 Linear PA 148-174M 50W
T01-01103-LAAA TB94 Rctr 440-480 MHz S2
T01-01121-LAAA TB94 Linear PA 440-480M 50W
TBA30A0-0100 TB8000/9000 Power Management Unit AC aux12
219-01561-00 CBL cord 2m USA IEC blk
T01-01103-DAAA TB94 Rctr 148-174 MHz S2
TB94 Rctr 148-174 MHz S2
TB9415D-050T TB9415 Dual 50W Chassis Assembly
T01-01103-LAAA TB94 Rctr 440-480 MHz S2
T01-01121-LAAA TB94 Linear PA 440-480M 50W
Dispatch
Control Stations White, Common FD
TBA30A0-0100 TB8000/9000 Power Management Unit AC aux12
219-01561-00 CBL cord 2m USA IEC blk
T01-01103-DAAA
TBAS050 SFE Key - P25 Common Air Interface (CAI) (91/94)
TB9444 Multi Receiverx3 Chassis Assy
T01-01104-LAAA TB94 RxOnly 440-480 MHz S2
TBA30A0-0100 TB8000/9000 Power Management Unit AC aux12
219-01561-00 CBL cord 2m USA IEC blk
TBAS071 SFE Key - IP Networking Satellite
T01-01104-LAAA TB94 RxOnly 440-480 MHz S2
TBA30A0-0100 TB8000/9000 Power Management Unit AC aux12
219-01561-00 CBL cord 2m USA IEC blk
TBAS071 SFE Key - IP Networking Satellite
RX‐only
TB9444-RX2T TB9444 Multi Receiverx2 Chassis Assy
TBAS050 SFE Key - P25 Common Air Interface (CAI) (91/94)
UHF Simulcast
TB9415D-050T TB9415 Dual 50W Chassis Assembly
TBAS062 SFE Key - Simulcast Enable Phase I (91/94)
219-01561-00 CBL cord 2m USA IEC blk
TBAS071 SFE Key - IP Networking Satellite
TBA30A0-0100 TB8000/9000 Power Management Unit AC aux12
T01-01103-LAAA TB94 Rctr 440-480 MHz S2
T01-01121-LAAA TB94 Linear PA 440-480M 50W
TBAS062 SFE Key - Simulcast Enable Phase I (91/94)
Rx‐only UHF
TB9444-RX4T
TBA30A0-0100 TB8000/9000 Power Management Unit AC aux12
219-01561-00 CBL cord 2m USA IEC blk
TBAS071 SFE Key - IP Networking Satellite
919 Palm
TB9444-RX2T TB9444 Multi Receiverx2 Chassis Assy
T01-01104-DAAA TB94 RxOnly 148-174 MHz S2
Rx‐only VHF
TB9415D-050T TB9415 Dual 50W Chassis Assembly
T01-01103-DAAA TB94 Rctr 148-174 MHz S2
T01-01121-DABA TB94 Linear PA 148-174M 50W
TBAS071 SFE Key - IP Networking Satellite
Fire Station 3
VHF Simulcast
TBA30A0-0100 TB8000/9000 Power Management Unit AC aux12
219-01561-00 CBL cord 2m USA IEC blk
TBAS071 SFE Key - IP Networking Satellite
Page 2 of 4
Item 13
Packet Page 63
1 $368.52 $368.52
2 $52.54 $105.08
1 $945.72 $945.72
1 $ 1,909.94 $1,909.94
1 $ 1,055.98 $1,055.98
1 $ 1,397.86 $1,397.86
1 $9.62 $ 9.62
1 $ 1,909.94 $1,909.94
1 $ 1,055.98 $1,055.98
1 $368.52 $368.52
2 $52.54 $105.08
1 $945.72 $945.72
1 $ 1,909.94 $1,909.94
1 $ 1,055.98 $1,055.98
1 $ 1,397.86 $1,397.86
1 $9.62 $ 9.62
1 $ 4,773.00 $4,773.00
1 $387.02 $387.02
1 $945.72 $945.72
2 $ 1,909.94 $3,819.88
2 $ 1,055.98 $2,111.96
1 $ 1,397.86 $1,397.86
1 $9.62 $ 9.62
2 $52.54 $105.08
1 $ 4,773.00 $4,773.00
1 $387.02 $387.02
1 $945.72 $945.72
2 $ 1,909.94 $3,819.88
2 $ 1,055.98 $2,111.96
1 $ 1,397.86 $1,397.86
1 $9.62 $ 9.62
2 $52.54 $105.08
1 $ 4,773.00 $4,773.00
1 $387.02 $387.02
2 $ 1,035.26 $2,070.52
9 $ 3,335.92 $30,023.28
2 $ 1,397.86 $2,795.72
2 $9.62 $19.24
9 $193.88 $1,744.92
2 $945.72 $1,891.44
2 $ 1,909.94 $3,819.88
2 $ 1,508.86 $3,017.72
2 $ 1,397.86 $2,795.72
2 $9.62 $19.24
1 $368.52 $368.52
3 $945.72 $2,837.16
3 $ 1,909.94 $5,729.82
3 $ 1,273.54 $3,820.62
3 $ 1,397.86 $4,193.58
3 $9.62 $28.86
2 $ 4,773.00 $9,546.00 TBAS050 SFE Key - P25 Common Air Interface (CAI) (91/94)
219-01561-00 CBL cord 2m USA IEC blk
TBCA03-10 Relay coax assembly (TB94)
TB9435S-100T TB9435 Single 100Watts Chassis Assembly
TBAS050 SFE Key - P25 Common Air Interface (CAI) (91/94)
TBAS060 SFE Key - Digital Fixed Station Interface (91/94)
TBAS050 SFE Key - P25 Common Air Interface (CAI) (91/94)
TBAS060 SFE Key - Digital Fixed Station Interface (91/94)
219-01561-00 CBL cord 2m USA IEC blk
TBC101A TB73/93/94 E&M Isolation Adaptor
TB9100 P25 Console Gateway Reciter with DES
TBA30A0-0100 TB8000/9000 Power Management Unit AC aux12
219-01561-00 CBL cord 2m USA IEC blk
TBAS054 SFE Key - MDC1200 Signaling on Analog Line (91)
TB8000/9000 Power Management Unit AC aux12TBA30A0-0100
CBL cord 2m USA IEC blk
T01-01121-DABA TB94 Linear PA 148-174M 50W
TB94 Rctr 440-480 MHz S2
T01-01121-LAAA TB94 Linear PA 440-480M 50W
TB8000/9000 Power Management Unit AC aux12
219-01561-00 CBL cord 2m USA IEC blk
TBC101A TB73/93/94 E&M Isolation Adaptor
TBCA03-10 Relay coax assembly (TB94)
TBC101A TB73/93/94 E&M Isolation Adaptor
TBAS050 SFE Key - P25 Common Air Interface (CAI) (91/94)
TBAS060 SFE Key - Digital Fixed Station Interface (91/94)
TB94 Rctr 440-480 MHz S2
T01-01121-LAAA TB94 Linear PA 440-480M 50W
TBA30A0-0100 TB8000/9000 Power Management Unit AC aux12
219-01561-00 CBL cord 2m USA IEC blk
T01-01103-LAAA TB94 Rctr 440-480 MHz S2
T01-01104-LAAA TB94 RxOnly 440-480 MHz S2
TBA30A0-0100 TB8000/9000 Power Management Unit AC aux12
UHF 100W
TB9435S-100T TB9435 Single 100Watts Chassis Assembly
Tassajera Peak
VHF 100W
PD TAC 2
TB9415S-050T TB9415 Single 50W Chassis Assembly
T01-01103-LAAA
Yellow, PD TAC
TB9415D-050T TB9415 Dual 50W Chassis Assembly
T01-01103-LAAA TB94 Rctr 440-480 MHz S2
T01-01121-LAAA TB94 Linear PA 440-480M 50W
TBA30A0-0100
TBA30A0-0100 TB8000/9000 Power Management Unit AC aux12
Citywide Common PD, Red
TB9415D-050T TB9415 Dual 50W Chassis Assembly
T01-01103-LAAA
TN9100 Gateways
TBA2645
TBA30A0-0100 TB8000/9000 Power Management Unit AC aux12
219-01561-00 CBL cord 2m USA IEC blk
T01-01103-DAAA TB94 Rctr 148-174 MHz S2
Public Works 2, OES FD
TB9415D-050T TB9415 Dual 50W Chassis Assembly
T01-01103-LAAA TB94 Rctr 440-480 MHz S2
T01-01121-LAAA TB94 Linear PA 440-480M 50W
TBCA03-10 Relay coax assembly (TB94)
TBC101A TB73/93/94 E&M Isolation Adaptor
TB8100/9100 Subrack Multi Reciter Max 5 Channels
TBA50H2-PAC1
T01-01103-DAAA TB94 Rctr 148-174 MHz S2
T01-01121-DBBA TB94 Linear PA 148-174M 100W
219-01561-00
Page 3 of 4
Item 13
Packet Page 64
1 $852.48 $852.48
1 $ 1,273.54 $1,273.54
1 $ 1,397.86 $1,397.86
1 $9.62 $ 9.62
1 $563.14 $563.14
1 $ 2,500.00 $2,500.00
1 $ 2,161.25 $2,161.25
1 $190.00 $190.00
1 $95.00 $95.00
$ 523,851.27
1
$ 15,000.00 $15,000.00
$ 7,500.00 $7,500.00
$ 32,000.00 $32,000.00
$ 12,500.00 $12,500.00
$ 15,000.00 $15,000.00
$ 5,000.00 $5,000.00
$ 3,000.00 $3,000.00
$ 90,000.00
1 $ 5,988.00 $5,988.00
1 $ 5,988.00 $5,988.00
1 $ 5,988.00 $5,988.00
$ 17,964.00
1 $ (25,000.00) $ (25,000.00)
Special Notes:Sub‐Total 523,851.27$
Sales Tax (7.75%)40,598.47$
Freight 2,586.25$
Labor 90,000.00$
Services/Support 17,964.00$
Discount (25,000.00)$
GRAND TOTAL 649,999.99$
PO #Date
Labor
Networking/RFC 2544/GPS sync
I agree to the terms and conditions set forth in this proposal. A 20% cancellation charge will apply to canceled orders.
NASPO Contract #06913
Customer Approval Signature
CLI Discount Commline Discount
EPW-INF-TAM-1 Extended Warranty TAM Infrastructure Yr 5
Services and Support:
Extended Warranty (Begins after Year 2)
EPW-INF-TAM-1 Extended Warranty TAM Infrastructure Yr 3
EPW-INF-TAM-1 Extended Warranty TAM Infrastructure Yr 4
TB9444 Multi Receiverx2 Chassis Assy
T01-01104-DAAA TB94 RxOnly 148-174 MHz S2
Hardware Total:
Console Integration/Avtec
Labor Total
Misc: Jumpers/Connects/Cable mngmnt/CAT 6/Rack mount hardware
LABOR SD
Includes: System Design/Engineering/Staging/Setup
Antenna System VHF Antenna, cabling, polyphaser
TBA30A0-0100 TB8000/9000 Power Management Unit AC aux12
219-01561-00 CBL cord 2m USA IEC blk
TBAS071 SFE Key - IP Networking Satellite
Antenna System
Cal Poly SLO Receive Site
Rx‐only VHF
TB9444-RX2T
Install for Cal Poly Pomona
Avtec Outpost Plus
OUTPOSTPLUS-2R Outpost Plus Radio Gateway, Voip, 2 Port, POE
OUTPOSTPLUS-CFG Outpost Plus Configuration Tool. 1 Required Per Site.
OUTPOSTPLUS-PS-NA Outpost Plus Power Supply, North America
Project Management
Six Site- Installation/Integration
Page 4 of 4
Item 13
Packet Page 65
BLANK PAGE
This page is intended to be blank so that you can print double-sided.
Item 13
Packet Page 66
Department Name: Community Development
Cost Center: 4001
For Agenda of: April 6, 2021
Placement: Business
Estimated Time: 45 Minutes
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Graham Bultema, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE 2020 GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL
REPORT
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission, accept and file the 2020 General Plan Annual
Report.
DISCUSSION
Background
California Government Code Section 65400 requires that cities submit an annual report
(Attachment A) on the status of their General Plan and progress in its implementation to the
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and Department of Housing and Community
Development. Prior to submittal to the state, the annual report must be presented to the City
Council for review and acceptance. The General Plan Annual Report is strictly a reporting
document and does not create nor modify any City of San Luis Obispo goals or policies found
within the General Plan.
Policy Context
According to Land Use Element Policy 11.3 – Annual Report, the City shall prepare an annual
report on the status of the General Plan, which is to include the following items:
A. A summary of private development activity and a brief analysis of how it helped meet
General Plan goals;
B. A summary of major public projects and a brief analysis of how they contributed to
meeting General Plan goals;
C. An overview of programs, and recommendations on any new approaches that may be
necessary;
D. A status report for each General Plan program scheduled to be worked on during that
year, including discussion of whether that program's realization is progressing on
schedule, and recommendations for how it could better be kept on schedule if it is
lagging;
E. A status report on how the City is progressing with implementing its open space
preservation policies and programs;
F. Updated population or other information deemed important for the plan.
Item 14
Packet Page 67
The General Plan Annual Report is an opportunity to reflect how well the City is meeting
General Plan policies with current goals and objectives. It is also an opportunity to review how
well the programs identified in the General Plan are being implemented, and to determine if
those programs are still relevant or if priorities should be reassigned.
In addition, assessment of the implementation of the General Plan informs the City Council
about the availability of resources and about programs and projects that might be initiated as the
City develops a new financial plan. During the budgeting process, the City Council reviews the
progress being made to implement the General Plan and decides whether to move forward with
additional work program items over the next two years.
Report Organization
The General Plan contains an array of policies and implementing programs covering most types
of City actions. General Plan implementation supports the quality-of-life objectives for the
community that serve as the foundation for the General Plan. Activities undertaken by the City
through its Capital Improvement Program projects, project plans and studies, facility
maintenance and management, and inter-agency coordination each play a part in the General
Plan Implementation. The General Plan Annual Report touches on the major programs that saw
activity in 2020. The report is organized around the following key implementation areas:
1. General Plan Element Updates
2. Community Development Department
3. Planning & Building Activity
4. Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Progress
5. Residential Growth
6. Non-Residential Growth
7. Specific Plan Implementation & Development
8. Municipal Code Updates
9. Climate Action Plan
10. Economic Development
11. Policy Initiatives
12. Water Supply
13. Circulation
14. Safety
15. Neighborhood Wellness
16. Conservation & Open Space Protection
17. Parks & Recreation
Report Highlights
In 2020, the City continued to make progress implementing General Plan Programs. The City
continued to work on updating the Housing Element for the 6th Cycle (2020-2028) which was
adopted by the City Council in November 2020. The City also continued working on the Safety
Element update and in Spring 2020, a comprehensive assessment was initiated of the
community’s vulnerability to climate change impacts, called “Resilient SLO.” This assessment,
in conjunction with the 2019 Hazard Mitigation Plan update, will form the technical foundation
of the Safety Element update as work on this project continues in 2021.
Item 14
Packet Page 68
Parks and Recreation staff also continued work and public outreach on the Parks and Recreation
Element and Plan update, also termed “Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041”.
This update will be considered for adoption by Council in Summer 2021.
The Major City Goals for Fiscal Year 2019-2021 of Housing, Climate Action, Sustainable
Transportation, Fiscal Sustainability, and Downtown Vitality resulted in a significant amount of
activity in the General Plan program areas discussed above, and many more. Although these five
Major City Goals were the City’s top priority at the beginning of Fiscal Year 2020, the City’s
goals and efforts shifted in response to the global COVID-19 pandemic. In response to the
pandemic, these Major City Goals were reorganized for Fiscal Year 2021 into one Meta Goal of
Economic Stability, Recovery, and Resiliency. This Meta Goal has continued to be the City’s top
priority throughout the duration of the ongoing pandemic.
The City took significant actions and exercised flexibility in response locally to the pandemic in
2020. In March 2020, the City’s Emergency Operations Plan was implemented and convened as
both the City Council Disaster Council to receive updates and take action as appropriate. As part
of this plan, the City’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC) was activated, and the City
Manager serves as the Emergency Services Director and oversees central command of roles to
carry out disaster management functions. Throughout the 2020 calendar year, the City adopted
several resolutions in response to the pandemic. The 2020 General Plan Annual Report provides
details about specific actions that each City department enacted in response to the pandemic as
they relate to land uses and building activities.
Development activity in the City continued in 2020 but was reduced compared to previous years.
632 building permits were issued in 2020, a decrease of 78 compared to 2019. Permit reviews for
plan check submittals and resubmittals were also reduced in 2020 with 1,438 applications
submitted, a decrease of 445 compared to 2019.
The Land Use Element policy related to residential growth (LUE 1.11.2) states that the City’s
housing supply shall grow no faster than one percent per year, on average. Based on the
Community Development Department’s residential construction permit data, the City finaled
construction for 261 total residential units subject to growth management regulations in 2020 and
the annual growth rate for 2020 was 1.21 percent (affordable dwellings, new dwellings in the C-
D zone, and legally established accessory dwelling units (ADU) are exempt from these
regulations). A significant portion of these new units (210 units) are located within specific plan
areas. The LUE Policy 1.11.2 (Residential Growth Rate) states that the approved specific plan
areas may develop in accordance with the phasing schedule adopted by each specific plan,
provided that thresholds established by LUE Table 3 are not exceeded.
The net total number of units subject to residential growth rate limitation in the City as of 2020 is
21,501 units, which is below the 2020 threshold of 22,190 units specified in LUE Table 3, with
689 units available for future allocation. The City has maintained a six-year average annual
growth rate of 0.60 percent per year from 2015 to 2020, in compliance with LUE Table 3 and the
average annual growth rate.
Item 14
Packet Page 69
Based on the Community Development Department’s running total of “finaled” permits for non-
residential construction permits, 34,352 square feet of floor area was added to the City in 2020,
yielding a five-year net non-residential growth rate of 2.23 percent (as shown in Figure 3 on page
26). Land Use Element Policy 1.11.4 states that the Council shall consider establishing limits for
the rate of non-residential development if the increase in non-residential floor area for any five-
year period exceeds five percent. Thus, the City is significantly below the threshold to establish
any non-residential growth limit at this time.
Previous Advisory Body Action - 2021
The Planning Commission reviewed the 2020 General Plan Annual Report in March 2021. Staff
clarified information and answered questions before the report was unanimously recommended
to be forwarded to the City Council.
Public Engagement
As the General Plan Annual Report is strictly a reporting document and does not create nor
modify any goals or policies found within the General Plan, there is no requirement for public
engagement. However, once accepted by the Council, the Report will be available on the City’s
website for public review.
CONCURRENCE
The Community Development Department prepares the General Plan Annual Report with
significant input from other City departments. Administration (including Natural Resources,
Economic Development, and Office of Sustainability divisions), Utilities, Public Works, Police,
Fire, and Parks and Recreation Departments collaborated with the Community Development
Department on this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply because the General Plan
Annual Report does not constitute a “Project” under CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15378.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: No 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 N/A
Item 14
Packet Page 70
When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which
found that overall, the General Plan was fiscally balanced. The Annual Report does not change
the General Plan and, therefore, has no fiscal impact.
ALTERNATIVES
Continue the item and direct staff to make revisions or include additional information.
Attachments:
a - COUNCIL READING FILE - 2020 General Plan Annual Report
Item 14
Packet Page 71
BLANK PAGE
This page is intended to be blank so that you can print double-sided.
Item 14
Packet Page 72
Department Name: City Attorney/Administration
Cost Center: 1500/1021
For Agenda of: April 6, 2021
Placement: Business
Estimated Time: 30 minutes
FROM: Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
Prepared By: Teresa Purrington, City Clerk
SUBJECT: APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO COUNCIL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
REGARDING ORDER OF BUSINESS AND ADDING A POLICY
REGARDING SOCIAL MEDIA
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) amending Council Policies and Procedures regarding the
Order of Business, adding City Manager’s Report, and moving appointments under consent; and
adding new section 4.5 regarding parameters for City Council members related to public, private
and campaign related digital and social media communications and records in compliance with
the California Public Records Act and Brown Act.
DISCUSSION
Order of Business Amendments
During the pandemic, adding a City Manager/Emergency Services Director Report to the City
Council agenda was an effective way of keeping Council and the public up to date on the rapidly
changing conditions associated with the pandemic and changes to City programs and projects.
Staff recommends that City Manager Reports be formally added at the beginning of the meeting
before the Presentations section on the City Council agenda to continue to provide another
opportunity to keep the City Council and public informed of projects and programs happening in
the City. The City Manager’s Report is generally 10-15 minutes long.
An additional modification made to the City Council agenda during the pandemic was to move
Appointments to the Consent Agenda. Appointments to the City’s Advisory Bodies are very
important, but are rarely controversial and meet the definition of items on Consent as indicated
below:
The Consent Agenda is generally first on the Council agenda and is provided to
expedite the meeting. Therefore, only items that are routine, relate to
implementation of approved budget items or to City operations, are second readings
of ordinances, or are items to be later set for public hearing are to be placed on the
Consent Agenda.
As with other Consent items, Council or the public can request that the appointment be removed
from the Consent Agenda to provide comment, ask clarifying questions or for full discussion.
Item 15
Packet Page 73
The draft resolution (Attachment A) amends Section 1.2.7 ORDER OF BUSINESS of the
Council Policies and Procedures as follows:
1.2.7.1 Call to Order
1.2.7.2 Roll Call
1.2.7.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.2.7.4 Closed Session Report (if any)
1.2.7.4 City Manager Reports
1.2.7.5 Presentations
1.2.7.6 Public Comment
1.2.7.7 Consent Agenda
1.2.7.8 Public Hearings and Business Items
1.2.7.9 Liaison Reports and Communications
Council Social Media Policy Amendments
The City supports a variety of social media accounts through which the City conveys a great deal
of information to the public regarding City sponsored activities, information, updates, and
actions. Those City maintained accounts are managed by City staff and the contents of those
accounts are retained and made accessible to the public pursuant to City’s social media policies
and records retention policies, first amendment requirements, and in accordance with the
California Public Records Act (CPRA).
The City does not create, provide content for, or support social media accounts for individual
Councilmembers, staff, or advisory body members, nor does the City monitor or have access to
private or campaign accounts maintained by those individuals. City staff has consistently advised
elected officials against “mixing” City and private content and discussion of City business (i.e.,
reposting City social media posts or discussing topics that are within the subject matter and
jurisdiction of the City) on privately held accounts because doing so risks transforming those
accounts into public forums and portions of their content into public records. However, the City
Council Policies and Procedures do not currently include express provisions governing the online
activities of Councilmembers on their privately held accounts.
The City has recently experienced an increase in CPRA requests for records from privately held
social media accounts on which Councilmembers have posted and/or received comments on
matters of City business. Addressing those requests has proven challenging and time consuming
because of mixed public and private content included on the accounts and the fact that the
records of such accounts are not held by or independently and comprehensively accessible to
staff and access to such accounts once deactivated are governed by the policies of the private
social media account holder and the platform host.
The law surrounding social media and its interplay with public transparency and public records
retention and production laws governing public officials and public agencies, as well as the
intersection with First Amendment rights is a complex, emerging and continually evolving area
of law. The issue of social media has received the most legal attention nationally in the context
of the first amendment rights of members of the public to access and interact with public
officials’ “private” social media accounts.
Item 15
Packet Page 74
The overwhelming majority of cases decided across the country, from the district court to the
federal circuit court levels, and now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, have held, or at
least suggested, that the posting and discussion of public information and issues by high level
public officials on privately held social media accounts creates a public forum for first
amendment purposes. As a result, several courts have found constitutional violations where
members of the public have been blocked from interacting with such accounts or public
comments posted to such accounts have been blocked or deleted.1
In addition to First Amendment considerations, the conduct of public business via private social
media accounts has public records implications. The California Supreme Court in the City of San
José v. Superior Court held in 2017 that the communications regarding public business
conducted on private networks, accounts and devices may be considered public records for
purposes of the CPRA. Although the San Jose case did not deal specifically with social media
account communications, it clearly established that records of public business conducted by
public officials, no matter the digital platform or program used or location, may be public
records subject to disclosure under public records with few exceptions. There is little reason to
believe conclude that the reasoning of the case as to other electronic records would not extend to
records of public business conducted via social media accounts.
While the first amendment parameters around the internet as the “new public square” are
becoming clearer, what is less clear is what precisely constitutes a public record in a social media
environment. For instance, the current case law, the League of California Cities (now CalCities)
interpretation of the decision, and the policies of various cities on social media use, are still not
entirely clear whether blocked, restricted, or muted individuals would qualify for disclosure
under the CPRA. Similarly, no case to date has directly addressed the question of whether the
records of social media statements or opinions of a single elected official who has no
independent authority to act on behalf of the City, or social media statements of an incumbent
candidate/officeholder regarding public business, can or should be viewed as records of official
business subject to applicable records laws2. The cautious approach consistent with the analysis
in the first amendment context, is to assume that any record of discussion by any public official
of an issue that is within the subject matter or jurisdiction may be determined to constitute a
public record, whether conducted, created, or maintained on public or private accounts, networks
or devices. This is the approach that City staff and officials consistently have been advised to
follow both before and after the San Jose case.
1 It is important to note there are likely exceptions for harassing, threatening, or violent posts, although that has not
yet been affirmatively ruled upon by any court of precedent thus far, and also that not all content on a privately held
account will necessarily be deemed to be public information by virtue of the use of an account for discussion of
public business.
2 California law prohibits the use of public resources for campaign purposes, which would seem to compel the
conclusion that social media campaign commentary by a candidate or the public on matters relevant to the office
sought could not be official City business.
Item 15
Packet Page 75
In the San Jose decision, the court outlined factors that a local agency should consider when
deciding whether a record is public or private. These factors include content, context, audience,
and scope. We must consider: (1) whether the content of messages relate in some substantive
way to the conduct of the public, (2) what reasons an official uses a private account, (3) who is
the intended audience of her account, and (4) does she use the account in the capacity of her
official duties, or as a private individual [or political candidate].
There is no California law that requires public officials or employees to use only their
government accounts to conduct public business. The court in San José was very clear that public
officials have the right to use their personal accounts to exchange information that relates to their
official roles and public business but doing so complicates compliance with public records laws
and risks turning one’s private accounts into public forums. For this reason, many public
agencies have enacted policies to provide guidance in this arena. A common requirement is that
officials should forward or copy messages and posts from private accounts to official accounts.
Other agencies try to separate public and personal by advising that employees cannot or should
not use personal accounts for public business or that by doing so they may subject their private
accounts to CPRA requests.
Many local agencies and federal laws require that employees copy their government accounts for
all communications that could relate to public business. For instance, United States Code §2911
(a) prohibits the use of personal electronic accounts for official business unless messages are
copied or forwarded to an official account. The City of Morro Bay also states that “if a council
member receives or posts an electronic message regarding city business, they should copy that
information to their official city account for transparency and ease of access to public records
requests.” Finally, the City of San José has a similar policy stating that city employees should
forward information from personal accounts to work accounts to comply with CPRA requests.
Additionally, consistent with the holding in the City’s case, the city specifies that
communications are personal if they make no more than incidental mention of agency business.
On the other hand, the City of Santa Barbara has a social media policy that expressly “instructs
employees to disclose that they do not represent the City when stating a personal opinion about
City activities [and] restricts the use of City email accounts and the City seal for personal social
media activity.” Similar to Santa Barbara, the County of Ventura also advises that employees
use county electronic messaging systems to conduct county business instead of personal
messaging accounts. Ventura states that officials who use their personal accounts are required to
search through their messages in response to CPRA requests. Finally, the City of Oakland has a
very robust social media presence and outlines, in detail, the procedure for official social media
usage and personal usage. In Oakland, city officials are to recognize that there is no expectation
of privacy on social media. Employees of the city should not imply affiliations with the city,
should avoid handles that make such implications, and need approval before using an employee
title on social media.
Item 15
Packet Page 76
The policy proposed in the draft resolution incorporates the most common elements of the
several policies reviewed and also addresses new provisions of the Brown Act that prohibit
online social media interactions between any Councilmembers on matters within City
jurisdiction to preclude concurrence on matters within the subject matter or jurisdiction of the
City.
Policy Context
The City Council has adopted “Council Policies and Procedure” to define and ensure the proper
conduct of the City’s business by the City Council and in compliance with State law and the
City’s Charter and Ordinances. The Council periodically revises its Council Policies and
Procedures Manual to ensure clarity and to reflect changes in the law or practice.
Public Engagement
At the April 6, 2021 City Council meeting, the public had the opportunity to provide comment as
part of the item regarding changes to the Order of Business and the addition of the social media
policies. The public will also have an opportunity to submit letters or speak during Public
Comment for this agenda item.
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: N/A Budget Year: 2020-21
Funding Identified: N/A
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing Cost
General Fund N/A
State
Federal
Fees
Other:
Total
There are no direct fiscal impacts associated with these changes to the Council Policies and
Procedures, but there are unquantified and potentially significant fiscal impacts related to staff
time to gather, review and retain records relating to public business from privately held social
media accounts.
Item 15
Packet Page 77
ALTERNATIVES
Council may decide to not adopt the Resolution amending the Council Policies and Procedure or
direct staff to make additional changes.
Attachments:
a - Draft Resolution
Item 15
Packet Page 78
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2021 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ITS COUNCIL POLICIES AND
PROCEDURE MANUAL
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a certain manual entitled “Council Policies and
Procedures” to define and ensure the proper conduct of the City’s business by the City Council
and in compliance with State law and the City’s Charter and Ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the Council periodically revises its Council Policies and Procedures Manual
to ensure clarity, consistency with State law, and conformity with the City Charter and Ordinances.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 1.2.7 of Council Policies and Procedures Manual ORDER OF
BUSINESS shall be amended as follows:
1.2.7.1 Call to Order
1.2.7.2 Roll Call
1.2.7.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.2.7.4 Closed Session Report (if any)
1.2.7.4 City Manager’s Report
1.2.7.5 Presentations
1.2.7.6 Public Comment
1.2.7.7 Consent Agenda
1.2.7.8 Public Hearings and Business Items
1.2.7.9 Liaison Reports and Communications
SECTION 2. Section 4.5 Council Policies and Procedures Manual (ELECTRONIC MAIL
(EMAIL), THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT AND THE BROWN ACT) is amended to read as
follows:
4.5 ELECTRONIC MAIL (EMAIL), SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY AND THE PUBLIC
RECORDS ACT AND THE BROWN ACT
4.5.1 City Email.
City email is no less a part of “official city business” than any other written correspondence,
and there is no expectation of privacy for City email messages. Good judgment and
common sense should therefore prevail at all times regarding its appropriate use. For
further detail, please see the City’s “Electronic Mail Policy” and Chapter 5 of this manual.
Item 15
Packet Page 79
Resolution No. _____ (2021 Series) Page 2
R ______
City email is subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act and is subject to the
requirements of the Brown Act. While the Brown Act does not prohibit the use of email to
make individual contacts between members of the Council, or the public or staff, great care
should be taken to avoid the use of email to contact a majority of the Council, either
individually or serially, “in a connected plan to engage in collective deliberation on public
business.”
4.5.2 Private Social Media and Digital Communications.
The City does not provide or support individual social media accounts for
Councilmembers. Councilmembers that maintain personal social and other digital media
accounts should be aware that, similar to City email or any other written or recorded
communication related to the official conduct of city business, digital communications,
social media posts and messages by public officials regarding matters that are before the
City for action or within City jurisdiction can be “official city business” subject to laws
and policies regarding freedom of speech, records retention and production, and public
transparency. Those laws and policies include, but are not necessarily limited to, the
California and United States Constitution, the California Public Records Act, the Ralph M.
Brown Act, and the City’s records retention regulations.
It is the intent of this policy to ensure that Councilmembers are aware that digital and social
media communications regarding public business that are conducted using private
networks, accounts or devices may be subject to the same laws as other records of public
business and that mishandling of such communications in violation of applicable laws may
subject to councilmembers and the city to liability under applicable laws and may result in
censure of a violating councilmember. This policy is intended to establish parameters for
the management of public, private and political digital and social media accounts in
compliance with applicable laws and in a manner that avoids the potential for public
confusion regarding public, private and campaign related digital and social media activities
of councilmembers.
A Council member or Mayor participating in digital or social media communications shall
maintain and clearly delineate between separate accounts for official, and personal or
campaign statements, taking precaution not to convey personal or campaign
communications in a manner that suggests such communications represent the position of
the City or the City Council as a whole. To avoid ambiguity, all statements, headings,
profile pictures, or biographies on personal or campaign accounts shall not be made in the
name of the position to which the Council Member or Mayor was elected, shall clearly
reflect that content on such accounts does not represent the official positions of the City or
the City Council, and shall not display the City logo or any other official City mark or title.
There is no California law requiring public officials to use only government accounts to
conduct public business, but there should be no expectation of privacy if personal accounts
are used to conduct public business.
Item 15
Packet Page 80
Resolution No. _____ (2021 Series) Page 3
R ______
Statements on official sites and accounts shall contain only official City positions, policies,
or announcements, and all contents and messages communicated on such accounts are
subject to the California Public Records Act. If a council member receives an electronic
communication regarding city business on a personal account, they should copy that
information to their official city account for transparency and ease of access for public
records requests.
Digital records relating to public business are required to be in a manner capable of
maintaining the record for the applicable retention period, including through the use of
highlights, bins, or archives for temporary and disappearing stories, reels, posts, or
otherwise. Likewise, public officials should avoid deleting comments or blocking
individuals on official pages or sites they maintain. Social media content should be treated
the same as any written document and retained in accordance with the City retention
schedules or the minimum two-year period required under California Government Code.
4.5.3 Social Media and Brown Act Compliance.
To avoid any violations of the Brown Act, consistent with the update provided by AB 992,
Council Members are permitted to use a social media platform to engage in conversations
or communications on matters within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board: (a) to
answer questions; (b) to provide information to the public, and (c) to solicit information
from the public. However, a majority of Council members may not use social media to
“discuss among themselves” official business. AB 992 broadly defines the meaning of
“discuss among themselves” to include any “communications made, posted, or shared on
an internet-based social media platform between members of a legislative body, including
comments or use of digital icons that express reactions to communications made by other
members of the legislative body.” AB 992 prohibits a Board member from communicating
directly with the social media of any other member on a subject within the jurisdiction of
the board.
Item 15
Packet Page 81
Resolution No. _____ (2021 Series) Page 4
R ______
This social media guidance applies to all internet based social media platforms that are
“open and accessible to the public,” including, but not limited to, blogs, podcasts, Snapchat,
Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, Nextdoor, and Reddit.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2021.
____________________________________
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 15
Packet Page 82