HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-22-14City of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Planning Commission
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on
this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Community Development, 919 Palm
Street, during normal business hours.
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
Council Chamber
City Hall - 990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
October 22, 2014 Wednesday 6:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL:Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Draze, John Fowler,
Ronald Malak, William Riggs, Vice-Chairperson Michael Multari, and
Chairperson John Larson
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA:Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items.
MINUTES: Minutes of October 8, 2014. Approve or amend.
PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Commission about items
not on the agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their
name and address. Comments are limited to five minutes per person. Items raised at
this time are generally referred to staff and, if action by the Commission is necessary,
may be scheduled for a future meeting.
PRESENTATION:Water Supply Update (Wade Horton – Utilities)
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
NOTE: Any court challenge to the action taken on public hearing items on this agenda
may be limited to considering only those issues raised at the public hearing or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of San Luis Obispo at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
Any decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council
within 10 days of the action (Recommendations to the City Council cannot be appealed
since they are not a final action.). Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission
may file an appeal with the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available in the Community
Development Department, City Clerk’s office, or on the City’s website (www.slocity.org).
The fee for filing an appeal is $273 and must accompany the appeal documentation.
If you wish to speak, please give your name and address for the record. Please limit
your comments to three minutes; consultant and project presentations limited to six
minutes.
Planning Commission Agenda
Page 2
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs, and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance.
1.43 Prado Road.U 87-14: Review of a Safe Parking Program at the Prado Day
Center with a categorical exemption from environmental review; PF zone;
Community Action Partnership SLO, applicant. (Rachel Cohen)
2.783 Alphonso Street.GENP-0136-2014 (GPC): General Plan conformity report
for the acquisition of portions of 783 Alphonso Street and 780 Woodbridge Street
properties for use as a right-of-way by the City of San Luis Obispo with a
categorical exemption from environmental review; M zone; City of San Luis
Obispo, applicant. (Rachel Cohen)
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3.Staff
a. Agenda Forecast
b. Advisory Body Goals
4.Commission
ADJOURNMENT
Presenting Planner: Rachel Cohen
Meeting Date: October 22, 2014
Item Number: 12
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of a Safe Parking Program at Prado Day Center with a categorical exemption
from environmental review.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 43 Prado Road BY:Rachel Cohen, Contract Planner
Phone Number: 781-7574
e-mail:rcohen@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: U 87-14 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION:Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) which approves the project,
based on findings, and subject to conditions.
SITE DATA
Applicant Community Action Partnership
SLO
Representative Elizabeth “Biz” Steinberg
Zoning Public Facility (PF)
General Plan Public (Government Facilities)
Site Area ~ 29,750 square feet (0.68 acres)
of 48 acres
Environmental
Status
Categorically Exempt from
environmental review under
Section 15301, Class 1 Existing
Facilities of the CEQA Guidelines.
SUMMARY
The applicant proposes to formalize the establishment of a long-term safe parking program at the
Prado Day Center, located at 43 Prado Road. The proposed program will not change from the existing
pilot program, with the exception of a request to add two more vehicles to the program, thus creating a
total of 7 safe parking spaces at the subject location.
Staff has provided an analysis of the proposed project (section 4.0 below) and recommends approval
with the incorporation of conditions of approval which address potential impacts and ensure the project
is compatible with the neighboring uses and the Safe Parking Ordinance.
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The Planning Commission’s purview is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the
General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and applicable City standards.
2222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
PC1 - 1
DD
U 87-14 (43 Prado Road)
Page 2
2.0 BACKGROUND
On March 20, 2012, the City Council authorized Community Action Partnership of San Luis Obispo
County, Inc. (CAPSLO) to operate a safe parking pilot program for five vehicles as a part of the Prado
Day Center Facility located at 43 Prado Road. This action was implemented by suspending
enforcement at this location of the City’s generally applicable prohibition on the use of vehicles as
living or sleeping quarters. On June 22, 2012, CAPSLO initiated the pilot program. On October 2,
2012, Council extended the pilot program and directed staff to develop amendments to the Municipal
Code to allow safe parking facilities at additional compatible locations. On September 3, 2013, City
Council adopted amendments to Title 17 of the Municipal Code to allow for a safe parking facilities in
the City of San Luis Obispo with the approval of a Planning Commission Use Permit (Attachment 3,
Zoning Regulations, Section 17.08.115: Safe Parking).
Since the implementation of the pilot program, the Safe Parking Program at the Prado Day Center has
been successful in transitioning homeless from their vehicles to permanent housing. The safe parking
program has provided a total of five vehicle spaces and served 18 adults (10 males, 8 females), 8
singles, 5 2-person families, 10 seniors (5 disabled, 5 non-disabled) and 3 disabled adults. The program
has served a total of 13 “households.” As of June 2014, the five households in the program were
working and saving money towards housing, were in the process of applying for benefits, or were
looking for work. Of the 8 "households" that are no longer in the program, 50% have transitioned into
housing. The average length of stay for those who obtained housing has been 7 months. The Safe
Parking Program has enabled those sleeping in their vehicles to have a safe and stable place to live
while they have engaged in case management services to transition into housing while providing an
alternative to living in a vehicle on City streets.
3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
3.1 Site Information/Setting
The subject property is located off Prado Road (Attachment 2, Vicinity Map) in the Public Facility
(P-F) zone. The Prado Day Center occupies approximately 29,750 square feet (0.68 acres) of the 48
acre city-owned parcel. The Center site contains two buildings totaling 4,080 square feet (2,640
square feet and 1,440 square foot), an 18 space parking lot and is located adjacent to the San Luis
Obispo Water Resource Recovery Facility and the City of San Luis Obispo Corporation Yard. The
site is located approximately 450 feet from a residence located at 50 Prado Street and 0.22 miles
(1,200 feet) west of the nearest residences on South Higuera. Further site specific details are noted
below:
Site Size 48 acres
Present Use &
Development
Prado Day Center (29,750 s.f. (0.68 acres)), City of San Luis Obispo Corporation
Yard, and the San Luis Obispo Water Resource Recovery Facility
Topography Flat
Access Prado Road
Surrounding
Use/Zoning
North: O-PD & C-S-S (Commercial uses: U-Haul, auto supplies, glass shop and a
vacant lot )
South: R-2-S & C/OS-20 (Residential: Silver City housing community and Open
Space along San Luis Creek
East: Hwy 101
West: C-S-S (Commercial Uses: Dewar and a commercial center)
PC1 - 2
U 87-14 (43 Prado Road)
Page 3
3.2 Project Description
As mentioned above, on June 22, 2012, CAPSLO initiated a pilot program to establish a Safe
Parking at the Prado Day Center. CAPSLO is requesting to continue the program as allowed with
the adoption of the Safe Parking Ordinance.The proposed program includes the following
significant elements (see also Attachment 4, Project Description and Attachment 5, Site Plan):
1. The proposed program will have a maximum of 7 vehicles;
2. Participants will be required to enroll in case management services with an ultimate goal of
obtaining permanent housing;
3. Hours of operation will be 4:45 p.m. to 8:30 a.m.;
4. Trash and recycling facilities will be provided;
5. Water and restroom facilities will be provided;
6. The site is removed from residential areas (the nearest residential neighborhood is located
approximately 1,200 feet from the site);
7. Located in close proximity to public transportation (approximately 420 feet from the Prado
Road Bus Stop);
8. Monitoring and oversight of the program will be provided by CAPSLO;
9. Preference shall be given to residents of San Luis Obispo County who have been living in
the county for a minimum period of six months within the last two years;
10. Participants will be required to submit to a criminal background check;
11. Only those vehicles registered in the Safe Parking Program will be allowed to use
designated spaces;
12. Parking permits will be issued to eligible and enrolled participants; and
13. All participants will be required to sign a written agreement to follow all terms and
conditions of the program (Attachment 7, Program Rules).
4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
4.1 Performance Standards
Section 17.08.115 of the Zoning Regulations establishes standards required for any Safe Parking
Facility within the City of San Luis Obispo. As noted above and within the project description,
the applicant provides programming that meets each of these standards.
4.2 Use Permit Considerations
Several factors of the proposed projected have been considered and analyzed as part of the use
permit review as stipulated in Section 17.08.115 of the Zoning Regulations. These factors are
identified and discussed below:
1.Number of Vehicles Allowed:The applicant is proposing a maximum number of 7
vehicles be allowed at the Prado Day Center site. Currently the site hosts 5 vehicles and
the Prado Day Center staff has assessed they have the capacity for an additional 2 more
vehicles which will allow the program to serve more people. The City of San Luis Obispo
Police Department has communicated to staff that over the last year the site has only
received two calls directly related to the Center or the safe parking program and are
certain that an additional 2 vehicles will have insignificant impacts. Staff is supportive of
the increase.
2.Hours of operation:The facility will operate from 4:45 p.m. to 8:30 a.m. Staff finds that
PC1 - 3
U 87-14 (43 Prado Road)
Page 4
the proposed hours are appropriate per information from the City of San Luis Obispo
Police Department and past program practice.
3.Separation between Facilities:Currently there are no other safe parking facilities in
operation within the City of San Luis Obispo.
4.Neighborhood Relations Plan:The City of San Luis Obispo established the Good
Neighbor Policy in order to maintain clear expectations between the community and
homeless services. As such the applicant has provided a Neighborhood Relations Plan
based on the mitigation tools outlined within the Good Neighbor Policy (Attachment 8,
Neighborhood Relations Plan). Additionally, CAPSLO executed the same Neighborhood
Relations Plan as part of the pilot program. Staff is supportive of employing the same Plan
for the proposed Safe Parking Program.
5.Monitoring and Oversight:The proposed safe parking program will provide live,
overnight monitoring of the Safe Parking Area with the use of on-site security cameras
(see Attachment 5, Site Plan for placement of all security cameras). Video will be viewed
regularly throughout the night hours by CAPSLO staff located at the Maxine Lewis
Memorial Shelter. The applicant is proposing to upgrade the current security cameras and
add another 5 security cameras to the site (noted on Attachment 5, Site Plan). A similar
monitoring system was used for the pilot program and staff is supportive of continuing the
established monitoring system. In addition, the applicant will provide a hotline that can be
reached via phone or e-mail by which concerned community members may contact the
organization with any issues or concerns related to the program.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is categorically exempt from environmental review (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301,
Class 1, Existing Facilities) because the proposed use will be located within an existing parking area of
an existing facility and involves negligible expansion of the existing use.
6.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Other departments have reviewed the proposed project. Any comments or recommendations have been
incorporated into the staff report.
7.0 CONCLUSION
The proposed project seeks to provide expanded services and programs for those that want to transition
into permanent housing by continuing to provide homeless individuals and families with vehicles a
safe place to temporarily park overnight. As conditioned, the Safe Parking Program is consistent with
the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and applicable City standards. The program incorporates
performance standards in order to ensure that the safe parking facility will be compatible with
surrounding uses and effective at facilitating participants’ transition to permanent housing.
8.0 ALTERNATIVES
8.1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
8.2. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations
and applicable City policy.
PC1 - 4
U 87-14 (43 Prado Road)
Page 5
9.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity map
3. Zoning Regulations, Section 17.08.115: Safe Parking
4. Project Description
5. Site Plan
6. Program Screening Form
7. Program Rules
8.Neighborhood Relations Plan
PC1 - 5
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A SAFE PARKING FACILITY WITHIN
THE PUBLIC FACILITY ZONE WITH CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND
ATTACHMENTS DATED OCTOBER 22, 2014
(43 PRADO ROAD, U 87-14)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
October 22, 2014, for the purpose of considering application #U 87-14; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,
presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1.Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following
findings:
1. As conditioned, the use will not harm the general health, safety, and welfare of people
living or working in the vicinity because the proposed use is compatible with the project
site and with existing and potential uses in the vicinity which include public facilities and
service commercial uses. Conditions of approval have been included to ensure
compatibility with surrounding uses and the facilitation of participants’ transition to
permanent housing.
2. The proposed project is consistent with General Plan Housing Element policies to support
local solutions to meet the needs of the homeless (HE 1.7 and 8.11).
3. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s 10-Year Plan and furthers the City’s
2013-15 Financial Plan Major City Goal: “Implement Comprehensive Strategies to
Address Homelessness.”
4. As proposed, the use is in conformance with the City’s Safe Parking Ordinance (M.C.
Section 17.08.115, Safe Parking).
PC1 - 6
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-XXXX-14
U 87-14 (43 Prado Road)
Page 2
Section 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt from environmental
review (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities) because the proposed use
will be located within an existing parking area of an existing facility and involves negligible
expansion of the existing use.
Section 3.Action. The Planning Commission does hereby approve Use Permit #U 87-14
subject to the following conditions:
Planning Division
1. The maximum number of vehicles allowed as part of the Safe Parking Program at the
subject location shall not exceed 7.
2. The hours of operation for the Safe Parking Program at the subject location shall be 4:45
p.m. to 8:30 a.m., daily.
3. The applicant shall implement the proposed Neighborhood Relations Plan for the Safe
Parking Program (Exhibit A). Any changes to the Neighborhood Relations Plan shall be to
the approval of the Community Development Director.
4. The applicant shall provide live, overnight monitoring and oversight of the Safe Parking
Area with the use of on-site security cameras. Video shall be viewed regularly throughout
the night hours by CAPSLO staff located at the Maxine Lewis Memorial Shelter.
5. The applicant shall provide water, restroom and trash facilities for participant use from
4:45 p.m. to 8:30 a.m. Trash and restroom maintenance shall be provided on a weekly
basis.
6. This Use Permit shall be reviewed at a Planning Commission hearing if the City receives
substantiated written complaints from any citizen, Code Enforcement Officer, or Police
Department employee, which includes information and/or evidence supporting a
conclusion that a violation of this Use Permit, or of City ordinances or regulations
applicable to the property or the operation of the business, has occurred. At the time of the
Use Permit review, to insure on-going compatibility of the uses on the project site,
conditions of approval may be added, deleted, modified, or the Use Permit may be revoked.
7. This use permit shall be valid only for the operation of a safe parking facility at the subject
location. Any expansion or modification of the use shall require a modification to the Use
Permit.
8. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers
and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents,
officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this
project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review
(“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified
PC1 - 7
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-XXXX-14
U 87-14 (43 Prado Road)
Page 3
Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and City shall fully cooperate in
the defense against an Indemnified Claim."
On motion by , seconded by , and on the following
roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 22nd day of October, 2014.
_____________________________
Doug Davidson, Secretary
Planning Commission
PC1 - 8
PF
R-2-S
C-S
O-PD
O-PD
C-S-S
PF-S
C-S-S
M-SP
C/OS-20
C-S-SP
C-S-SP
M-SP
C-S-S
C/OS-10
M-SP
C-S
C-S
C/OS-20
C-S
C-S-SP-PD
R-2
C-R-PD
C-S-SP
PR
A
D
O
HIND
ZA
C
A
EL
M HIGUERA SELKSMA
P
L
ECENTER PIN
E
MEISSNER
GRANADA
BEECHRE
D
W
O
O
DCEDAR
LONGMA
G
N
O
L
I
A
BIR
C
H
CREEKSIDEMUIRFIELDAC
A
C
I
A
SHEFIELDHOLLEYMA
P
L
E
EL
M
PIN
E
VICINITY MAP File No. 87-14
43 PRADO RD ¯
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1 - 9
City of San Luis Obispo
Zoning Regulations August 2014
Page 18
17.08.115 Safe Parking.
A. Purpose and Intent. Safe parking provides homeless individuals and families with
vehicles a safe place to temporarily park overnight in order to facilitate the transition to
permanent housing. The provisions set forth in this Section enable safe parking in
certain zoning districts in the city subject to specific performance standards and permit
requirements. These standards and requirements are intended to ensure that safe
parking facilities will be compatible with surrounding uses and effective at facilitating
participants’ transition to permanent housing.
B. Definitions.
1. Safe Parking. A parking program, operated on property located outside of the
public right-of-way and managed by a social service provider that provides
individuals and families with vehicles a safe place to park overnight while working
towards a transition to permanent housing.
2. Social Service Provider. An agency or organization licensed or supervised by any
federal, state or local health/welfare agency that participates in the federal
Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) and has demonstrated
experience with the homeless population by assisting individuals and families
achieve economic self-sufficiency and self-determination through a comprehensive
array of programs and actions.
3. Case Management. A system for arranging and coordinating care and services
whereby a case manager assesses the needs of the client and client’s family and
arranges, coordinates, monitors, and advocates for services to meet the client’s
needs.
4. Self-Sufficiency Program. A program designed to assist individuals and families
in meeting their basic needs and address any substance dependency and mental
health issues so that they do not need to rely on emergency public or private
assistance.
5. Background Check. A criminal records check from a variety of public sources that
would provide information regarding an individual’s possible criminal history.
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 10
City of San Luis Obispo
August 2014 Zoning Regulations
Page 19
C. Permit Required.
1. Planning Commission Use Permit Required. The establishment of a safe parking
use shall require Planning Commission Use Permit approval where allowed,
consistent with Table 9.
D. Application Requirements. Whenever a social service provider (or, if the social
service provider is not the property owner, a property owner who is affiliated with or can
qualify as a social services provider) submits a Planning Commission Use Permit
application for consideration, as a part of said application, sufficient information shall be
submitted to the Community Development Department to determine whether the
proposed safe parking facility complies with the provisions of this Section. In addition to
the required Planning Commission application checklist items, the application shall
include the following:
1. Site plan indicating the location of trash and recycling facilities, water, restroom
facilities, exterior light fixtures, location and distances to residential properties,
public transportation, and location of designated overnight parking spaces.
2. Hours of operation.
3. Monitoring and oversight program.
4. Neighborhood relations plan.
5. Sufficient information to determine that the applicant is a social service provider that
is qualified to operate a safe parking program or is affiliated with a social service
provider that demonstrates the experience and qualifications to manage the site and
meet the performance standards set forth in this Chapter.
6. Any other information the Community Development Director may determine is
necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Section.
E. Performance Standards.
1. Social Service Provider. Safe parking facilities shall be managed by a qualified
social service provider, subject to the approval of the Community Development
Director.
2. Case Management. Participants must be paired with a case manager and enrolled
in a self-sufficiency program to facilitate the transition to permanent housing.
3. Background Check. Prospective participants shall submit to a criminal history
background check. Participant exclusion shall be determined by the social service
provider on a case-by-case basis.
4. Restroom, Water and Trash Facilities. Restroom, water and trash facilities shall
be provided, maintained and accessible to participants during safe parking facility
hours.
5. Residency Preference. Social service provider shall give preference to those with
proof of residency in San Luis Obispo County for a minimum period of six months
within the last two years. Evidence of residency may include, but not limited to,
items such as rental agreements, mortgage, utility, hotel and medical facility bills,
paystubs and intake from homeless service programs.
6. Buffer from Residential Use. Participant vehicles shall maintain a minimum buffer
of 50 feet from any property that contains a residential use. Buffers less than 50 feet
may be permitted through the use permit review process on a case-by-case basis
when determined to be compatible with the neighborhood. Buffers greater than 50
feet may be necessary for neighborhood compatibility, which will be determined on
a case-by-case basis as part of the Use Permit review process.
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 11
City of San Luis Obispo
Zoning Regulations August 2014
Page 20
7. Authorized Vehicles Only. Social service provider shall ensure that only vehicles
registered in the program are parked overnight during program hours. A parking
permit shall be provided to all participants to be displayed in vehicle windows in a
form to be approved by the Public Works Director.
8. Participant Information. At all times, the social service provider shall maintain a
roster of the names and vehicle license numbers of each participant who is
authorized to park overnight.
9. Written Agreement with Participants. Only participants who have entered into a
written agreement with a social service provider shall be allowed to use parking
spaces overnight. The written agreement between the social service provider and
participant must include, but not limited to, the following terms and conditions:
a. Only one vehicle is allowed per participant.
b. At least one participant per vehicle shall possess a current driver’s license,
vehicle registration, and insurance for the vehicle that will be parked overnight.
Social service provider shall keep a copy of all three on record.
c. Vehicles may only be occupied by participants and approved registered
household members. Guests shall not be allowed.
d. Participants shall not use or possess any illegal drugs or alcohol either on their
person or in their vehicle.
e. Participants shall not use or possess any weapons or firearms of any kind in
program vehicles.
f. No fires of any kind shall be permitted.
g. No music may be played that is audible outside participants’ vehicles.
h. No cooking or food preparation shall be performed outside of the participants’
vehicles. Cooking inside vehicles is prohibited unless the vehicle was
manufactured with cooking appliances.
i. Camping tarps or equipment beyond the participant’s vehicle are prohibited.
j. Participants shall maintain control of animals. Animals shall be kept on a leash
at all times and animal waste shall be picked up immediately and disposed of
properly.
k. Participants shall not dump sewage or other waste fluids or solids, deposit
excreta outside a vehicle, or park vehicles that leak excessive fluids (i.e.
gasoline, transmission or radiator fluid, or engine oil).
F. Use Permit Considerations. Items to be determined by the Planning Commission as
part of the Use Permit review process on a case-by-case basis shall include, but are
not limited to, the following:
1. Number of Vehicles Allowed. The total number of vehicles allowed at each safe
parking facility location.
2. Hours of Operation. The days and hours of safe parking facility operation.
3. Separation between Facilities. Sufficient distance between existing and proposed
safe parking facilities.
4. Neighborhood Relations Plan. A neighborhood relations plan shall be provided for
each safe parking facility location to address any complaints in a timely manner,
including consistency with any adopted Good Neighbor Policy.
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 12
City of San Luis Obispo
August 2014 Zoning Regulations
Page 21
5. Monitoring and Oversight. Monitoring and oversight shall be provided during safe
parking facility hours.
6. Restroom, Water and Trash Facility Plan. A restroom, water and trash facility plan
shall be provided and include the location, hours of availability and maintenance
program for site facilities.
G. Revocation of a Permit. The Use Permit can be referred to the Planning Commission
if determined by the Community Development Director upon receipt of substantiated
written complaints from any citizen, Code Enforcement Officer, or Police Department
Officer, which includes information and/or evidence supporting a conclusion that a
violation of the Use Permit, or of City ordinances or regulations applicable to the
property or operation of the facility, has occurred. At the time of Use Permit review, to
ensure compliance with applicable laws and conditions of Use Permit, conditions of
approval may be added, deleted, modified, or the Use Permit may be revoked.
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 13
ATTACHMENT 4
PC1 - 14
ATTACHMENT 4
PC1 - 15
ATTACHMENT 4
PC1 - 16
ATTACHMENT 4
PC1 - 17
4:45 PM to 8:30 AM
ATTACHMENT 4
PC1 - 18
ATTACHMENT 4
PC1 - 19
ATTACHMENT 4
PC1 - 20
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1 - 21
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 22
ATTACHMENT 7
PC1 - 23
ATTACHMENT 7
PC1 - 24
COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
NEIGHBORHOOD RELATIONS PLAN
In order to mitigate potential impacts of the Safe Parking Program on the community,
Community Action Partnership of San Luis Obispo County (CAPSLO) will implement the
following processes/procedures:
A. CAPSLO will provide various methods in which the community may contact the
organization. During business hours (Monday through Friday, 8am-5pm) concerned
community members can contact the CAPSLO administrative office to communicate any
concerns they may have. After business hours, CAPSLO maintains a confidential hotline
that can accessed via telephone (805.549.6899) or email (hotline@capslo.org). These
contacts are posted on the CAPSLO website (under Contact Us). All concerns are given
to, and reviewed by, the Deputy Director, COO or CEO, and are promptly (within 24
business hours) addressed.
B. All concerns or complaints will be documented, with copies given to the Deputy
Director, COO and/or CEO, who review, contact the complainant and address the issue
within 24 business hours.
C. CAPSLO will not establish a block watch program as the Safe Parking Program location
is in a non-residential area, with businesses such as the City Maintenance yard, Dewars,
etc. that are not open during evening hours.
D. All participants within the Prado Day Center’s Safe Parking Program must initial and
sign the Program Rules which advises participants, in writing, of their obligation to
comply with applicable laws and established protocols which address and prevent
repeated violation of laws, which have adverse neighborhood or community impacts.
E. CAPSLO staff are provided with information pertaining to emergency contact procedures
during initial training. Police and/or Fire are always contacted in an emergency.
F. All CAPSLO facilities undergo yearly in-depth inspections by the Facilities and
Maintenance Division to identify any large-scale needs. On a quarterly basis, Facilities
inspects the facility to develop a “punch list” of needs that are to be addressed in the next
90 days. The Deputy Director also conducts a monthly walk-through of facility needs.
Staff are also trained to conduct daily walk-throughs for immediate issues and complete
ATTACHMENT 8
PC1 - 25
work orders that are submitted to the Facilities Division with timeframes for completion.
Emergency issues are dealt with immediately.
G. The Prado Day Center site provides security cameras and outdoor lighting to the Safe
Parking Program location.
H. Participants of the Safe Parking Program who are denied or suspended from the program
are provided with the San Luis Obispo County Community Services tri-fold resource list
as well as a list of Food Distribution Sites for SLO County.
I. CAPSLO will mail all businesses within a ¼ mile radius their contact information should
business owners have concerns regarding the Safe Parking Program. In the case any
changes occur to the Safe Parking Program, neighboring businesses within the ¼ mile
radius will be notified.
J. CAPSLO will meet whenever needed and requested by the City and/or other community
groups to review reports, issues and policies.
ATTACHMENT 8
PC1 - 26
Meeting Date: October 22, 2014
Item Number: 22sz
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: General Plan conformity report for the acquisition of portions of 783 Alphonso Street and
780 Woodbridge Street properties for use as a right-of-way by the City of San Luis Obispo with a
categorical exemption from environmental review.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 783 Alphonso Street and BY:Rachel Cohen, Contract Planner
780 Woodbridge Street Phone Number: 781-7574
e-mail: rcohen@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: GENP-0136-2014 (GPC) FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION:Adopt the attached Planning Commission resolution (Attachment 3), which
determines and reports to the City Council, that the proposed acquisition conforms to the General Plan.
SITE DATA
Applicant City of San Luis Obispo
Zoning Manufacturing (M)
General Plan Services and Manufacturing
Site Area 5,544 square feet (0.33 acres)
Environmental
Status
Exempt from CEQA under Section
15061(b)(3) because the activity is
covered by the general rule that
CEQA applies only to projects
which have the potential for
causing a significant effect on the
environment.
SUMMARY
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
Section 65402 of the California Government Code requires the local agency to make a finding of General
Plan conformance whenever a governmental entity proposes to acquire or dispose of property. The
Planning Commission reviews the project for a determination of conformity with the General Plan and
reports its findings to the City Council.
2.0 BACKGROUND
In 2006, City advisory bodies reviewed and approved plans for a mixed use project and Mitigated
222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222sszsssszsssszzzzzzzzzszssssszszzzzzssssszszzzzsszzzzzzzssszzzszzzzzszzzsszzz
PC2 - 1
DD
GENP-0136-2014 (GPC) (783 Alphonso Street & 780 Woodbridge Street)
Page 2
Negative Declaration (MND) at the corner of Santa Barbara and Broad Streets, called the Village of
Maymont. In 2008, a revised version of the project,called the Village at Broad, and an Addendum to
the MND were reviewed and approved by the ARC. Both the MND and the Addendum proposed
traffic mitigation with a right-of-way connection between Alphonso and Woodbridge Streets stating the
“City's goal [is] to ultimately provide a vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle connection from the subject
property to Victoria and Woodbridge Streets as providing this connection will improve the project's
circulation.” This goal is reiterated in the Draft South Broad Street Area Plan which also plans for the
extension of Victoria Avenue from Alphonso Street to Woodbridge in order to reduce traffic
congestion, increase safety for biking and walking, and maintain and foster neighborhood identity.1
3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
3.1 Site Information/Setting
The subject properties are located between Alphonso Street and Victoria Avenue (Attachment 1,
Vicinity Map) in the Manufacturing (M) zone. The proposed acquisition consists of portions of 783
Alphonso and 780 Woodbridge (POR. APN 004-846-010 and POR. APN 004-846-025) properties,
totaling approximately 5,544 square feet (0.33 acres). The properties currently contain one building, an
unimproved parking area and undeveloped land. The sites are located adjacent to property owned by
Union Pacific Railroad and approximately 300 feet east of Broad Street. The site was previously used
by the San Luis Garbage Company as their base of operations. Further site specific details are noted
below in Table 1.
Table 1: Site Summary
Site Size ~14,626 square feet (0.33 acres)
Present Use & Development An abandoned industrial building and unimproved yards and
parking areas.
Topography Flat
Surrounding Use/Zoning North: C-N-H-MU (Retail, Commercial, Mixed uses: Fresh and Easy,
Rabobank, multi-family residential units)
South & East: M (Residential and Industrial: single family houses,
vacant Industrial buildings and grounds)
West: C-S (Retail and Commercial: Car Audio Center, pet grooming,
Bead store)
3.2 Project Description
The City of San Luis Obispo is proposing to acquire portions of privately-owned property located at
783 Alphonso and 780 Woodbridge for a vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle right-of-way connection
between the intersection of Alphonso and Emily Streets and the intersection of Woodbridge Street and
Victoria Avenue. Development of the right-of-way will occur in the future, however a conceptual
layout is provided in Attachment 2.
1 Draft Land Use Element, Appendix C: Draft South Broad Street Area Plan, Plan Objectives, Section 1.4
PC2 - 2
GENP-0136-2014 (GPC) (783 Alphonso Street & 780 Woodbridge Street)
Page 3
4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
The following excerpts are from applicable policies from the General Plan Land Use Element (LUE),
and Circulation Element (CE). Staff response to each policy as it relates to the proposed project may
be found below the policy language.
Circulation Element, Policy 8.0.3: Street Networks
The City should manage the street network so that the standards presented in Policy 6.2 are not
exceeded. This will require new development to mitigate the traffic impacts it causes or the City to
limit development which affects streets where congestion levels may be exceeded. The standards may
be met by strengthening alternative modes to the single occupant motor vehicle.
Staff response: Acquisition of the property for right-of-way access complies with the CE direction to
reduce traffic impacts by providing an alternate path of travel along a collector street, reducing
congestion levels on the main arterial of Broad Street. The proposed future right-of-way will allow
traffic to move from the intersection of Alphonso and Emily Streets along Victoria Avenue to other
connector streets.
Land Use Element, Policy 2.1.4: Neighborhood Connections
All areas should have a street and sidewalk pattern that promotes neighborhood and community
cohesiveness. There should be continuous sidewalks or paths of adequate width, connecting
neighborhoods with each other and with public and commercial services to provide continuous
pedestrian paths throughout the City.
Staff response: The proposed right-of-way will provide neighborhood cohesiveness between the
commercial services available at the Village at Broad and the South Broad neighborhood. The
acquisition of land for the new road will provide a continuous path along Victoria Avenue for
pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles.
Land Use Element, Policy 2.1.5: Neighborhood Open Links
The City should treat streets, sidewalks, and front setbacks as a continuous open link between all areas
of the City and all land uses. These features should be designed as amenities for light, air, social
contact, and community identity.
Staff response: The acquisition for a right-of-way will provide a direct link between the Village at
Broad and the South Broad Street Area. The full extension of Victoria Avenue will enhance
opportunities of social contact and strengthen community identity as proposed in the South Broad Area
Plan. The proposed South Broad Area Plan states that Victoria Avenue will serve “as the activity hub
for the neighborhood” and will be designed to emphasize “the pedestrian experience.”2
2 Draft Land Use Element, Appendix C Draft South Broad Street Area Plan, Section 2.4.
PC2 - 3
GENP-0136-2014 (GPC) (783 Alphonso Street & 780 Woodbridge Street)
Page 4
Summary
Staff finds the acquisition of the right-of-way by the City of San Luis Obispo is in conformance with
the General Plan. The proposed right-of-way will fulfill the City’s Land Use and Circulation Element
goals of enhancing neighborhood identity, connections and cohesiveness and improve traffic
circulation by utilizing the network of collector streets that intersect with Victoria Avenue.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Section 15061(b)(3) states a project is exempt from CEQA if the activity is covered by the general rule
that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the
environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question
may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. The
determination of general plan conformity for the acquisition of land for right-of-way by the City of San
Luis Obispo is not subject to CEQA because the project will not have a significant effect on the
environment since it is a policy review of whether acquiring land is consistent with the General Plan.
Any future development related to the proposed right-of-way will be subject to environmental review
as required under CEQA.
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6.1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
6.2. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Right-of-way Conceptual Layout
3. Draft Resolution
PC2 - 4
M
M
C-S-S-H
C-N-H-MU
C-S
C-S-S-H-MU
R-1
R-1
R-2
R-2
C-S-H-MU
R-2
C-S
PF-H
R-1
MBROADE
M
I
L
Y
WOO
D
B
RI
D
G
E
VICTOR
IA
ALPH
O
N
S
O
VICINITY MAP File No.
GENP-0136-2014 (GPC)
783 Alphonso St & 780 Woodbridge St ¯
ATTACHMENT 1
PC2 - 5
Right-of-way Conceptual Layout Proposed right-of-way land acquisition Property boundary lines N ATTACHMENT 2
PC2 - 6
ATTACHMENT 3
RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
DETERMINING GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE FOR
THE ACQUISITION OF PORTIONS OF 783 ALPHONSO STREET AND 780
WOODBRIDGE STREET PROPERTIES FOR USE OF A RIGHT-OF-WAY BY THE
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND
ATTACHMENTS DATED OCTOBER 22, 2014
(783 ALPHONSO STREET & 780 WOODBRIDGE STREET, GENP-0136-2014 (GPC))
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
October 22, 2014, for the purpose of considering application # GENP-0136-2014 (GPC); and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,
presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1.Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following
findings:
1. The acquisition of land for right-of-way will not harm the general health, safety, and
welfare of people living or working in the vicinity because the proposed right-of-way is
consistent with the General Plan and the existing neighborhood pattern.
2. The proposed project is consistent with General Plan Circulation Element policy 8.0.3
and Land Use Element policies 2.1.4 and 2.1.5, which encourages the enhancement of
neighborhood identity, connections and cohesiveness and improvement of traffic
circulation by utilizing collector streets.
Section 2. Environmental Review. Section 15061(b)(3) states a project is exempt from
CEQA if the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which
have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with
certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on
the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. The determination of general plan
conformity for the acquisition of land for right-of-way by the City of San Luis Obispo is not
subject to CEQA because the project will not have a significant effect on the environment since
PC2 - 7
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-XXXX-14
GENP-0136-2014 (GPC) (783 Alphonso Street & 780 Woodbridge Street)
Page 2
it is a policy review of whether acquiring land is consistent with the General Plan. Any future
development related to the proposed right-of-way will be subject to environmental review as
required under CEQA.
Section 3.Action. The Planning Commission does hereby determine General Plan
conformity of # GENP-0136-2014 (GPC).
On motion by , seconded by , and on the following
roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 22nd day of October, 2014.
_____________________________
Doug Davidson, Secretary
Planning Commission
PC2 - 8
2
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: 2015-2017 Planning Commission Goal-Setting and the Financial Plan / Budget
Process.
Review and evaluate status of 2013-2015 Planning Commission goals, take public testimony, and
identify Commission goals and work program items for the 2015-2017 Financial Plan.
FROM:Kim Murry, Deputy Community Development Director
Doug Davidson, Deputy Community Development Director
BACKGROUND
Situation
Every two years the City adopts a budget and financial plan. To prepare for the budget process,
all City departments and advisory bodies are asked to identify their goals and major work
programs for the next two years. The City Council then uses this information, along with public
comment and other input, to set community priorities and allocate resources to accomplish the
most important City goals.
Why involve advisory bodies in the goal-setting process? Advisory body members provide
important input because they are recognized as representatives of the community, committed to
the long-term best interests of the City. And they are close to the “pulse” of the community in
terms of their specific area of interest. Other key points as we embark on this goal-setting
process are:
1. The Council is seeking advisory body input focused on the purview area of the advisory body
and is also interested in input on other issues important to the community.
2. Advisory body input is highly valued by the Council and the staff.
3. Goals can include completing projects from a previous work program.
4. Identifying priorities implies recommending fewer rather than more goals to the Council.
The Planning Commission should recommend only those activities that can reasonably be
accomplished in the two-year budget period.
2222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
Meeting Date:October 22, 2014
Item Number: #3b
PC3b - 1
Outcome
This is a public process and citizen comments are welcome. The results of this process are
twofold: 1) a list of Planning Commission goals and implementation programs or projects; and
2) a letter from the Planning Commission Chair to the City Council outlining recommended
goals and programs, and if necessary, requesting resources for specific activities (staff will
prepare the letter for the Chair’s signature).
Background
The City last revised its goals and work program in October 2012 in connection with the 2013-
2015 financial plan and budget. Staff, advisory bodies and Council members are now “gearing
up” for the next financial planning cycle, 2015-2017. It is again time for the Planning
Commission to review the status of past goals, update these as needed, and to identify new goals
and programs.
The Process
Tonight, staff will present a brief slide show introducing the budget process and advisory bodies’
role in it. The Commission should then review its 2013-2015 goals and the status of each
activity, followed by consideration of goals and program recommendations for the 2015-2017
Financial Plan. During past goal-setting sessions, the Planning Commission has generally
followed the steps below.
Goal-setting steps:
1. Review and understand goal-setting and City Financial Plan/Budget Process;
2. Evaluate previous goals and work programs. Determine which goals and programs were
accomplished and can be deleted, or which ones are no longer needed;
3. Determine which goals and/or programs have not been completed and should be carried
forward;
4. Identify new goals or programs for possible inclusion in the work program;
5. Prioritize the goals and programs, based on the Planning Commission’s adopted goals and
General Plan goals, community needs and input, opportunities, or special or urgent
conditions; and
6. Identify activities which may require additional resources to accomplish. This may include
references to possible community partnerships or outside funding sources.
The Commission will establish goals for the next two years and identify three to five key tasks or
programs it intends to complete in the period. The Commission should discuss how these goals
PC3b - 2
and activities relate to important Council goals and at the same time, consider the fiscal context
for the goal-setting process, including resources needed to accomplish the task.
On November 28, 2012, the Commission adopted the five following goals for the 2013-15
Financial Plan:
2013-2015 Budget Goals
x Planning Commission Goal – Increase support for non-auto related transportation
alternatives in plan and project approvals as well as program implementation through
budgeting priorities.
Status:
Bike Paths
Octagon Barn Connection – Planning for this segment is substantially complete and has been
reviewed by City BAC and PC along with the County’s P&R Commission, Bicycle Advisory
Committee and County Trail Committee. However, adjacent property owners have requested
additional environmental review at this time (prior to Council consideration) and staff is
reviewing how best to address this concern prior to final public hearing on route alternatives.
Taft to Pepper – Staff has continued discussions with Union Pacific Railroad for a potential trail
with the Railroad right-of-way, but no agreement has been finalized. An improved on-street two-
way path is being designed using existing grant funds. The on-street project will be followed by
a bridge at Phillips Lane to assist cyclists to the southern portion of the Railroad trail.
x Planning Commission Goal – Implement the Economic Development Strategic Plan,
including a focused attention to retail uses in the downtown
x Status:
1. Permit Processing Improvements: The recommendations from the Community
Development Departments (CDD) Organizational Assessment have been used to develop a
project plan to execute the permit streamlining process. A Development Review Team (DRT) is
in place to ensure a consistent and expedient approach across all involved departments. Changes
to the DRT process are being implemented to provide a mechanism to track overdue plan checks
and track work flow commitments. A Continuous Improvement Group (CIG) has been formed to
ensure that there is cross department and cross functional input, action and alignment with the
improvement process.
2. Infrastructure and Fees: The first phase of the project with the Consultant (EPS) covering
information gathering and plan development has been completed. EPS has also led the first of the
three planned sessions to lay the foundation for the future direction of infrastructure financing in
PC3b - 3
the City. We have started identifying opportunities for investment in infrastructure but the
majority of this work is dependent on the outcome of the LUCE update. This is because the
LUCE update will identify new infrastructure that is required to support new development
opportunities and thus a comprehensive look at the City’s infrastructure and fee programs cannot
be completed until the LUCE is adopted.
3. Retail Uses in the Downtown: The Downtown continues to see increased development,
particularly mixed-use projects containing both commercial and residential uses:
x Marsh Street Commons (constructed)
x Pacific Courtyards (approved by the ARC, appealed to City Council)
x Foster Freeze Site Development – (Conceptual Review, being revised)
x 591 Marsh St., Mission Community Bank site (in ARC process)
x 667 Marsh St., Wells Fargo site corner (in ARC process)
x 1101 Monterey St., Shell station site (in ARC process)
x Monterey Place (approved entitlements, preparing for building permits)
x Brownstones on Marsh (approved use permit and design)
x Garden Street Terrace (entitlements granted)
x Chinatown (entitlements granted)
Planning Commission Goal – Maintain a sustainable City Budget and level of
services by focusing on infrastructure maintenance, new revenue sources, and renewal of
Measure Y
Status:
Renewal of Measure Y
On July 1, 2014, the City Council acted to place the extension of the Essential Services Measure
on the November general election ballot. The decision was followed by direction from a majority
of Council members to discontinue outreach and education efforts other than updating the
website with information requested by members of the public.
The process leading up to the Council’s decision to place the extension before the voters
included substantial public outreach, facilitated by the work of the Local Revenue Measure
Advisory Committee (LRMAC). The LRMAC’s work concluded when the Council accepted its
final report. The mission and responsibilities of the LRMAC included:
1. Analyze the City’s stewardship of Measure Y resources
2. Seek community input regarding their preferences and local revenue measure spending
priorities
3. Develop recommendations specific to the November 2014 General Election regarding
alternatives for reauthorization of Measure Y, or the creation of a new revenue measure
4. Assist the City in performing community outreach and education.
PC3b - 4
Page 5 2015-2017 Budget Goal Setting – Planning Commission
Prior to November 1, the LRMAC held three meetings. The first meeting covered Measure Y
Fundamentals, Services and Outcomes; the second meeting covered rules and regulations relating
to revenue measures and an overview of all of the different revenue measures considered across
the State in 2012; the third meeting focused on community priorities and included a presentation
from the City’s public opinion research consultant. In January 2014 the LRMAC selected a sub-
committee to begin to write their final report and recommendations to the City Council. The full
committee held two additional meetings in January to discuss its recommendations and review a
draft version of the report.
In addition, the LRMAC held a Measure Y Open House on November 21. The purpose of the
Open House was to give the public an opportunity to speak directly with Committee members.
The Open House was attended by over 70 members of the community and was very helpful for
Committee members.
Contingency Planning
The City has completed its contingency planning efforts in the event that the extension of the
Essential Services Measure is not approved by the voters in November. The City Council has
taken two important steps to prepare for this possible outcome. First, the Council set aside $1.7
million to bridge the gap between April 1, 2015, when the revenues from the half-cent sales tax
would stop being collected, and June 30, 2015, which is the end of the fiscal year. The
contingency plan relies on the 2015-17 Financial Plan process, with modifications, to develop a
balanced budget going forward should the revenue measure, which represents 12% of the City’s
general fund, not be continued.
The City has included in the Five Year Fiscal Forecast, a self-assessment cost equal to 1% of
salary starting in 2014-15 and growing to 2% of salary starting in 2015-16 to reduce the impact
of future PERS rate increases.
x Planning Commission Goal – Emphasize affordable housing programs and homeless
services and Housing Element implementation
Status:
Homeless Services
On October 1st, Council approved amendments to Title 17 (Zoning Regulations) of the
Municipal Code to permit and provide standards for the operation of safe parking facilities on
private properties within the City. The Ordinance provides a limited exception to allow safe
parking facilities on property located outside of the public right-of-way in certain zoning districts
subject to permit requirements; performance standards and use permit considerations to ensure
PC3b - 5
Page 6 2015-2017 Budget Goal Setting – Planning Commission
that safe parking facilities will be compatible with surrounding uses and effective at facilitating
participants’ transition to permanent housing. This Ordinance is effective October 31st.
The City has a Homeless Issues Working Group to support and implement the 10-Year Plan and
to identify, evaluate, and implement strategies to reduce the impacts of homelessness on the City.
The Working Group meets bi-monthly and is made up of executive team members that have
programmatic responsibility in areas that serve the homeless population, or serve community
members that are impacted by homelessness.
Staff provides leadership in implementing the 10-Year Plan by working with CAPSLO and other
housing and service providers including considering ways to encourage transitional housing and
“housing first” options. Staff implements the General Plan Housing Element, which contains
policies and programs that support housing and service agencies whose mission it is to develop
programs for the City’s homeless population. Staff promotes collaborative efforts and
opportunities to address the needs of the homeless population and acts as the City liaison to
HSOC and Friends of Prado Day Center.
Staff was actively involved with the 2013 Homeless Enumeration Report. Every two years, all
jurisdictions receiving federal funding to provide housing and services for the homeless are
required by HUD to conduct a point-in-time count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons
at a single time during the last ten days of January. The data collected through these counts help
the federal government and local jurisdictions better understand the nature and extent of
homelessness and plan for needed programs and services. Additionally, local jurisdictions use the
findings of their point-in-time count to apply for federal funding for homeless programs. In 2013,
the San Luis Obispo County Continuum of Care is expected to receive approximately $1 million
in federal funds for homeless services.
Staff developed a new Homeless Solutions webpage. This page is dedicated to keeping the public
updated with all the latest homeless program initiatives. It includes a donations link to the United
Way website and information on local homeless programs, services and documents.
Affordable Housing
The City facilitates the provision of affordable housing and provides leadership in implementing
the 10-Year Plan by partnering with a variety of social service providers and the Countywide
Homeless Services Oversight Council (HSOC). Providing affordable housing is one of the key
objectives in transitioning homeless persons. This effort includes administration of the City’s
CDBG program, Housing Element implementation, awards of the City’s Affordable Housing
Fund to support transitional and low income housing, administration of the City’s Inclusionary
Housing Program, and participation in the planning and execution of a variety of special projects
including the warming station at the Prado Day Center, the safe parking program, and the
proposed Homeless Services Center project.
PC3b - 6
Page 7 2015-2017 Budget Goal Setting – Planning Commission
On August 20th, Council adopted changes to Chapter 17.90 (Affordable Housing Incentives) of
the Zoning Regulations to be consistent with State density bonus law. The City’s Affordable
Housing Incentives were last updated in 1995 and State law related to affordable housing
production has substantially changed. Some highlights of the adopted changes include additional
definitions, greater percentage of density bonus allowed for providing affordable housing and
additional options for alternative incentives and concessions. This amendment was particularly
timely since the City is updating the Housing Element and jurisdictions must have updated
density bonus ordinances.
Work continued on updating the City’s General Plan Housing Element. State law establishes a
schedule for cities and counties to periodically update their housing elements. Under this
schedule, the City is required to adopt an updated housing element on or before June 30, 2014.
The update process is a tool to modify housing policies and programs to reflect the changing
needs, resources, and conditions in the community, and to respond to changes in housing law.
Staff is collecting background data and updating Housing Element appendices. Staff attended a
State sponsored housing element workshop in October and facilitated a public workshop at the
City/County Library in November.
On November 19th, Council approved an Affordable Housing Fund award for the Housing Trust
Fund (HTF) in the amount of $30,000 to support the HTF’s operating expenses for 2014. The
HTF provides three key services that benefit affordable housing in the City of San Luis Obispo:
1) financing, 2) technical assistance and 3) advocacy. The HTF provides funding for affordable
housing projects, including property acquisition, construction and refinancing. HTF staff also
serves as a resource to City staff working with developers on affordable housing projects.
On September 27th, Habitat for Humanity of San Luis Obispo County (HFH), City officials and a
number of community partners attended a home dedication ceremony for the families of HFH’s
affordable housing development located at 3212 Rockview Place. The site is approximately
12,000 square feet in area and the project included the development of three single-family homes.
These homes are deed restricted for purchase by very-low income families under the City’s long-
term affordability program. Each home occupies its own lot and includes approximately 1,000
square feet of living area with three-bedrooms and 1½ baths. The Habitat families that purchased
the homes have performed over 500 hours of sweat equity on their home. They purchased the
homes with a no-interest loan and their monthly mortgage payments will be used to support
Habitat’s work throughout the County. The City contributed a Community Development Block
Grant of $241,217 and an Affordable Housing Fund grant of $38,783 for property acquisition and
site clearance and remediation.
On October 15th, Transistions Mental Health Association of San Luis Obispo County (TMHA),
City officials and a number of community partners attended an open house and guided tour of
“Hope House”, TMHA’s recently constructed permanent supportive housing development
PC3b - 7
Page 8 2015-2017 Budget Goal Setting – Planning Commission
located at 1306 Nipomo Street. The project included the renovation of an existing 2,333 square
foot home into two studio units and a wellness center and construction of a new two-story
building with six studio units and vehicle parking. All eight units are fully furnished and
residential support services for the tenants are provided on-site in the wellness center. These
units are deed-restricted for rent by very-low income individuals under the City’s long-term
affordability program. The City contributed development review and citywide impact fee waivers
to the project.
The Moylan Terrace housing development located at 851 Humbert Street has completed and sold
Phase 1 of the development. The project includes 80 residential townhomes and a building with a
community room and one rental apartment. Of the 81 units, 49 are deed-restricted under the
City’s long-term affordability program with the remainder to be sold as “workforce housing”
(between 120% and 160% of the County median income). The project includes a mix of
affordability for the 49 deed-restricted units, including 2 very-low, 14 low and 33 at the moderate
income levels. The City contributed an Affordable Housing Fund grant of $709,900 for property
acquisition and development review and citywide impact fee waivers for the affordable units.
Staff continued to work closely with HASLO, ROEM Development Corporation, HTF and the
County on a proposal to assist the 313 South Street Family Apartment project be successful in
receiving state tax credits in March 2014. This project has received multi-year CDBG and
HOME funding allocations as well as a City Affordable Housing Fund award to support the
acquisition and development of a 43-unit apartment project for low and very-low income
households.
On December 10th, Council held two TEFRA public hearings for the reissuance of tax exempt
bonds and loans by HASLO for the Del Rio Terrace Apartments located at 2005 Johnson Avenue
and the Carmel Street Apartments located at 433 Pacific Street. These projects include 59
affordable housing rental apartments for seniors. This action financially assisted the projects by
allowing HASLO to reduce the interest rates on the bonds and loans that financed construction.
To increase homeownership opportunities available and affordable to very-low, low and
moderate-income households the City partnered with HASLO and Goldfard and Lipman to
prepare documents that implement the City’s Equity Share purchase program as provided for in
Chapter 17.91.150 of the Zoning Regulations. This program allows buyers of affordable units to
enter into an agreement with the City that upon resale of the property, the City’s equity share in
the property is returned to the City for use in other affordable housing developments. In
discussions with HASLO, the City anticipates this program being utilized in future phases of the
Moylan Terrace project.
In 2013, the County’s Homeless Services Oversight Council (HSOC) voted to make Housing
First its top priority for 2014, and voted to join the 100,000 Homes Campaign. This program uses
the Housing First approach to assist the most vulnerable, chronically homeless persons who are
PC3b - 8
Page 9 2015-2017 Budget Goal Setting – Planning Commission
at risk of dying on the streets. In response to HSOC’s action, HASLO offered to make available
50 Housing Choice Vouchers to house the most vulnerable homeless persons. On November 5,
2013, the County Board of Supervisors authorized funding for case management services to
implement the program. The City submitted a letter and provided testimony in support of this
action. County staff is currently working on developing an RFP for qualified homeless service
providers to assist 50 of the County’s most vulnerable homeless receive and retain permanent
housing. County staff expects the program to begin this summer.
x Planning Commission Goal – Stress early implementation of the updated Land Use and
Circulation Element high-priority programs
The work on the Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) update has comprised a community
work effort over the last Financial Plan. Primarily funded through an $880,000 Strategic Growth
Council Grant the City’s update effort included a resident Task Force that worked diligently to
develop a draft plan of policies, programs, and areas of physical change for Planning
Commission and Council review. The draft LUCE was developed through six community
workshops, traveling open houses, an on-line town hall forum to brainstorm development sites, a
community survey distributed to all city addresses, and numerous hearings. With Planning
Commission endorsement and Council review of the draft LUCE products, the Council will
consider the final adoption on October 21, 2014. This will allow transition from the planning
effort to the implementation process. High priority items for implementation include an update
to the Zoning Code and a comprehensive infrastructure fee study to address infrastructure
identified as part of the LUCE, with a focus on multi-modal efforts.
What’s Next?
The Commission should take public testimony, and identify Commission goals and work
program items for the 2015-2017 Financial Plan. Advisory body goals are due by November 18,
2014. All advisory bodies will receive a consolidated listing of all recommended advisory body
goals by November 21, 2014. This provides an opportunity to review what other advisory bodies
see as high community priorities. It is also an opportunity to revise goals accordingly if the
Commission so chooses. Final changes are due by December 15, 2014. The Council will receive
the final report with all advisory body recommendations before they begin the goal-setting
process in January 2015.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Advisory Body Role in Budget Process
Attachment 2: Budget Process Brief
Attachment 3: Planning Commission Minutes, October 24, 2012
PC3b - 9
ADVISORY BODIES, GOAL-SETTING & THE BUDGET PROCESS
PURPOSE OF THE CITY’S BUDGET
The City has adopted a number of long term goals
and plans –General Plan, Water and Sewer Master
Plans, Source Reduction, Recycling & Hazardous
Materials Plans, Pavement Management Plan, Short
Range Transit Plan, Downtown Access and Parking
Plan, Waterways Management Plan, Neighborhood
Traffic Management Program, Bicycle Plan, Public
Art Policy, Conceptual Physical Plan for the City’s
Center and Facilities Master Plan.
The Financial Plan is the key tool for
programming implementation of these goals, plans
and policies by allocating the resources necessary
to do so.
This requires a budget process that:
Clearly sets major City goals and other
important objectives.
Establishes reasonable timeframes and
organizational responsibility for achieving them.
Allocates resources for programs and projects.
FINANCIAL PLAN FEATURES
Goal-Driven
Policy-Based
Multi-Year
Automated, Rigorous, Technically Sound
COUNCIL GOAL-SETTING
First Step in the Budget Process. Linking goals
with resources requires a budget process that
identifies key objectives at the very beginning of the
process. Setting goals and priorities should drive
the budget process, not follow it.
PROCESS FOR 2015-17
Setting the Stage: November 13, 2014. Council
Workshop to Review the status of the General Plan
programs, current Major City Goals, long-term
Capital Improvement Plan, current CIP projects, and
the City’s general fiscal condition and outlook.
Budget Foundation: December 16, 2014. Finalize
plans for the goal-setting process and the
Community Forum, review fiscal policies, review
financial results for 2013-14 and general fiscal
outlook, including General Fund Five-Year Fiscal
Forecast.
Community Forum: January 13, 2015 Consider
candidate goals from Council advisory bodies,
community groups and interested individuals.
Council Goal-Setting Workshop: January 24,
2015. Discuss candidate goals presented at January
13 workshop; discuss Council member goals; and
prioritize and set major City goals for 2015-17.
Major City Goal Work Programs: April 14,
2015. Conceptually approve detailed work
programs for major City goals and set strategic
budget direction for 2015-17.
ADVISORY BODY ROLE
By providing the Council with their goal
recommendations, advisory bodies play a very
important part in this process. For example,
virtually all of the advisory body recommendations
received as part of this process two years ago were
included in some way in the 2013-15 Financial Plan.
Council goals, by their nature, tend to be broader in
scope than those developed by advisory bodies. In
your recommendations to the Council, please
consider what you believe would be appropriate
City goals, both from the perspective of your
advisory body’s purpose, as well as any perceived
community-wide concerns and needs.
Council advisory body goals are due on November
18, 2014. Advisory bodies will receive a
consolidated listing of all recommended advisory
body goals on November 21, 2014. This provides
advisory bodies with an opportunity to review what
other advisory bodies see as high community
priorities; and while not required, it is also an
opportunity to revise goals in light of these if they
want to do so. Changes in goals, if any, are due on
December 15, 2014. The Council will receive the
final report with all advisory body recommendations
before they begin the goal-setting process in January
2009.
Attachment 1
PC3b - 10
BUDGET-IN-BRIEF
If you have any questions about the City’s budget or would like a copy of the Financial Plan, please call us at 781-7125 or
visit our web site at www.slocity.org.
The purpose of this “budget-in-brief” is to
summarize the second year of the City’s 2013-15
Financial Plan by highlighting the City’s budget
progress, key budget features, and “budget facts.”
Purpose of the City’s Two Year Financial Plan
The fundamental purpose of the City’s Financial
Plan is to link what the City wants to accomplish for
the community with the resources necessary to do
so. The City’s Financial Plan process does this by:
clearly setting major city goals and other important
objectives; establishing reasonable time frames
and organizational responsibility for achieving
them; and allocating resources for programs and
projects.
General Fiscal Environment
The theme of the 2013-15 Supplement is “Steady
Progress.” Revenues have rebounded and, based
on the continued development review activity, it
appears there is renewed optimism about – and
opportunity to invest in – our community. Moreover,
the City has made progress in its work to contain
operating costs which in turn helps to improve
overall fiscal health.
Even with these positive fiscal signs, there are
uncertainties and challenges looming. This is
particularly true in relation to the on-going cost of
retirement programs as well as insurance costs.
These uncertainties are being monitored and will be
addressed as more information is obtained and
specific actions can be identified to mitigate
negative impacts. More specifically, as part of the
Fiscal Health Major City Goal, staff intends to
prepare a strategy outlining the manner in which
the City may pay down its unfunded retirement
liabilities. This work plan will be undertaken once
there is clarity from CalPERS regarding future rates
and substantial changes affecting the retirement
funding model that the CalPERS board is currently
considering.
Major City Goals (2013-15 Financial Plan Sec. C)
For 2013-15, the City Council established an
ambitious Major City Goal work program based on
citizen input and involvement. Within this program,
the City will:
x Implement comprehensive strategies to
reduce homelessness
x Continue and enhance Neighborhood
Wellness initiatives
x Sustain essential services, infrastructure
and fiscal health
x Expand bicycle and pedestrian paths to
improve connectivity and safety
x Implement the adopted Economic
Development Strategic Plan
x Assess and renew the Downtown
x Complete construction of a new Skate Park
Financial Highlights and Operating Budgets
Pursuant to the City Council’s goals and the
emphasis on delivering essential services and
reinvestment in the City’s infrastructure, the 2014-
15 budget makes the following appropriations for a
total of $134.2 million among all City funds:
Governmental
Funds
Enterprise
Funds Total
Operating Programs 55,625,869 29,042,508 84,668,377
CIP 31,553,721 7,843,430 39,397,151
Debt Service 5,576,862 4,569,700 10,146,562
Total 92,756,452 41,455,638 134,212,090
Appropriations for operating programs (day-to-day
delivery of services) total $84.7 million for 2014-15
summarized as follows:
General Sales
Tax
26%
Measure Y
Sales Tax
12%
Property Tax
15%
TOT
11%
Other Taxes
9%
Utility Users
Tax
9%
Prop tax in
lieu of VLF
6%
Service
Charges
11%
All Other
Revenues
1%
2014-15 General Fund Revenues: $59.1 Million
2013-15 Financial Plan Supplement
Attachment 2
PC3b - 11
BUDGET-IN-BRIEF
If you have any questions about the City’s budget or would like a copy of the Financial Plan, please call us at 781-7125 or
visit our web site at www.slocity.org.
Governmental
Funds
Enterprise
Funds Total
Public Safety 24,430,510 24,430,510
Public Utilities 20,599,500 20,599,500
Transportation 3,321,300 4,984,300 8,305,600
Leisure, Cultural &
Social Services 7,486,400 7,486,400
Community
Development 9,048,344 9,048,344
General Gov't 11,346,815 3,451,208 14,798,023
Total 55,633,369 29,035,008 84,668,377
The day-to-day services are delivered by 362 City
employees in the following functions:
Authorized Regular Staffing by Function 2014-15
Public Safety 138.5
Public Utilities 61.9
Transportation 31.8
Community Development 44.0
Leisure, Cultural & Social Services 34.0
General Gov't 52.0
Total 362.2
Operating Budget Changes
In keeping with the City’s two year budget process,
the 2014-15 Budget is primarily intended to “stay
the course” set in the 2013-15 Financial Plan while
responding to changed circumstances since its
adoption. The City is adding the following resources
to better serve the community by building internal
capacity within the organization to improve
efficiency and effectiveness and/or meet legal or
contractual requirements.
x Additional resources to allow the
Community Development Department to
meet the workload demands created by the
high volume of development applications
and calls for inspection services
x Temporary staffing for one year in the
Finance Department’s Revenue Division to
provide the resources needed to make
operational changes that will make the
department more efficient in its revenue
collections
x Additional contract services and temporary
staffing for a one-year period to allow the IT
division to complete 23 new projects and
change the deployment of technology to
increase system reliability, reduce overtime
and institute a new project delivery model
x Funding to cover increases in the cost of
liability and worker’s compensation
insurance
x A new agreement with the county transit
system to sell their bus passes in exchange
for up to $25,000 in annual revenue for a
one year trial period
x Funding to develop a comprehensive
employee development and leadership
training program to improve workforce
reliability and readiness to serve the
community
x Funding to provide for the on-going
maintenance of the Santa Rosa Skate Park
once it is completed
Use of Measure Y Revenue
The City’s ½ percent sales tax measure (Measure
Y) continues to play a vital role in the delivery of
essential services and infrastructure improvements
to the City’s residents. In 2014-15, Measure Y is
expected to generate approximately $6.8 million in
revenues.
As reflected in the following table, 63% of Measure
Y revenues will be devoted to maintaining the
Public Safety
46%
Transportatio
n
6%
Leisure,
Cultural &
Social
Services
14%
Community
Development
13%
General
Government
21%
2014-15 General Fund Operating:
$53.3 Million
Attachment 2
PC3b - 12
BUDGET-IN-BRIEF
If you have any questions about the City’s budget or would like a copy of the Financial Plan, please call us at 781-7125 or
visit our web site at www.slocity.org.
City’s infrastructure, street paving, and flood
protection.
Approximately 29% of the Measure Y revenues will
be used for Public Safety services including
additional patrol officers for the Downtown district.
An additional 8% is allocated for Open Space
acquisition and to support Neighborhood
Wellness.
Measure Y –A Closer Look
The City began collecting revenues from the
Measure Y, ½ percent sales tax in 2007 following
its approval by over 64% of the vote. Since that
time, Measure Y has been allocated by the City
Council to the City’s highest priority essential
services.
Through June 30, 2013, the City has spent $31.0
million to protect and maintain essential services.
The decision about how to spend Measure Y is
made by the City Council every year as part of the
budget process. Expenditures are also audited
on an annual basis, so the public can see exactly
what its tax dollars are spent on.
Measure Y Expenditures
Measure Y is used for both operating expenditures
and capital improvement plan projects. Operating
expenditures include the staff who provide essential
municipal services, such as police officers, a Fire
Marshall, maintenance workers, engineers,
Neighborhood Services Specialists, and other key
staff.
Capital improvement plan projects include
expenditures such as neighborhood street paving,
replacement of storm drains, replacement of fire
engines and police patrol sedans, open space
acquisitions, bicycle facility improvements, and
traffic congestion relief projects among other
project types.
Total Expenditures = $31,019,200
Through June 30, 2013
Project in Focus – Santa Rosa Skate Park
Building a concrete skate park in San Luis Obispo
is a Major City Goal and has been a goal for
community members and user groups over many
years. Construction of the new Santa Rosa Skate
Park is scheduled to be completed in December
2014. Measure Y funding plays a major role in
supporting this project.
Streets,
Storm Drains
30%
Public Safety
29%
Neighborhoo
d Wellness
4%
Open Space
Preservation
4%
Infrastructure
Maintenance
33%
Measure Y Uses
For Example:
•Patrol Officers
•Neighborhood
Services
Specialists
•Traffic Engineer
For Example:
•Bob Jones
Trail
•Fire Engine
Replacement
•Storm Drain
Replacement
Attachment 2
PC3b - 13
BUDGET-IN-BRIEF
If you have any questions about the City’s budget or would like a copy of the Financial Plan, please call us at 781-7125 or
visit our web site at www.slocity.org.
MEASURE Y FUNDING SUMMARY - REVISED FOR SUPPLEMENT
The uses of Measure Y revenues for 2013-15 in funding operating programs and capital improvement plan (CIP)
projects are aligned with top Council goals and objectives, and closely match projected revenues.
Operating Programs CIP Two-Year
2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15
Budget
Total
Preservation of Essential Services
Public Safety
1,269,239
1,374,494
569,920
638,903
3,852,556
Maintenance Services
894,506
823,969
936,400
1,030,000
3,684,875
Neighborhood Wellness
305,703
318,715
-
-
624,418
Traffic Congestion Relief
92,520
100,351
175,000
185,000
552,871
Open Space Preservation
64,300
62,028
200,000
200,000
526,328
Infrastructure and Maintenance Improvements
-
-
4,538,023
2,301,800
6,839,823
SUB-TOTALS 2,626,269 2,679,557 6,419,343 4,355,703 16,080,872
Prior Year Encumbered/Assigned Amounts
Transportation (Mobility and Safety)
-
-
57,211
-
57,211
Open Space Preservation
-
-
10,934
-
10,934
Infrastructure Maintenance and Improvements
-
-
682,638
-
682,638
Street Reconstruction & Resurfacing
-
-
101,168
-
101,168
SUB-TOTAL PRIOR YEAR AMOUNTS
-
-851,951
-851,951
Total Operations / CIP Spending 2,626,269 2,679,557 7,271,294 4,355,703 16,932,823
Contingency Reserve
1,700,000
Total Proposed Spending
18,632,823
Projected Measure Y Resources
2013-14 Revenues
6,684,000
2014-15 Revenues
6,775,000
Prior Year Encumbered/Assigned Value
851,951
Prior Year Revenue Available for Appropriations (See 2012-13 CAFR)
4,366,900
Total 18,677,851
* For a complete listing of the Measure Y Operating and Capital expenditures, see page A-17 of the 2013-15
Financial Plan Supplement, available at www.slocity.org.
Attachment 2
PC3b - 14
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 24, 2012
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL:Commissioners John Fowler, John Larson, Michael Multari, Airlin
Singewald, Charles Stevenson, Vice-Chairperson Eric Meyer, and
Chairperson Michael Draze
Absent: Commissioner Airlin Singewald
Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson and
Recording Secretary Dawn Rudder
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES:
Minutes of October 10, 2012, were approved as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
There are no public hearing items on the agenda.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
1.Staff
a. Doug Davidson provided the agenda forecast to the Commission for the
November 14, 2012, meeting.
b. Budget Workshop – Goal Setting
Doug Davidson, Deputy Community Development Director, provided a presentation to
review and evaluate status of 2011-2013 Planning Commission goals, take public
testimony, and identify Commission goals and work program items for the 2013-2015
Financial Plan.
Commr. Multari proposed the consideration of the following goals: long-term fiscal
sustainability focusing on scope and level of services and Measure Y renewal. He also
suggested a tax or fee on alcoholic beverages and that the Economic Strategic Plan
(EDSP) include attention to retail in the downtown. He also supported affordable
housing, homeless shelter, and a new transit center as major goals. He pointed out the
Attachment 3
PC3b - 15
importance of the completion of the Land Use and Circulation Element LUCE) and
traffic congestion.
Vice-Chair Meyer supported connectivity around town for bikes and/or pedestrians,
particularly with the City’s Open Space. He also pointed out that the proposed Skate
Park is still not built. He is also in favor of lowering Impact Fees associated with smaller
houses.
Commr. Fowler still supported the goals from the last two years and also would support
affordable housing and homeless service programs. He concurred with Vice-Chair
Meyer on the proposed bike paths and skate park. He also proposed for consideration
a climate action plan, creation of head-of-household jobs, and viable downtown retail.
Commr. Stevenson also concurred that goals from last year should be retained. He
would also be in support of the promotion of recreational activities around the City.
Chairperson Draze commented that the Land Use Circulation Element should be
included in the goals for this year. He would be in support of the emphasis to be on
non-automobile-related improvements. He stated that the Housing Element is a State
mandate and doesn’t need to be a part of their goals.
There was a general discussion between Commissioners and staff what the top five
goals should include for the next two years of financial planning with the following being
agreed upon for 2013-2015:
1) Provide a high priority on non-automobile transportation improvements.
2) Implement Housing Element programs with an emphasis on affordable housing
and homeless services.
3) Implement the Economic Development Strategic Plan and include additional
attention to retail uses in the downtown area.
4) Implement high-priority goals from the Land Use Circulation Element as early as
possible.
5) Maintain a sustainable City budget and level of services by focusing on
infrastructure maintenance, new revenue sources, and renewal of Measure Y.
2.Commission
Chairperson Draze commented on the Mayor’s Luncheon and indicated they
discussed citizen participation at Advisory Body meetings.
Commr. Stevenson commented on “way-finding” presentation he witnessed at the
APA conference. He was impressed with the idea and indicated the City of San
Luis Obispo would benefit from its use.
Vice-Chair Meyer commented on a project done with the students at Cal Poly on
“Walkable Cities” and was impressed that every single table built “car-free” cities.
ADJOURMENT:The meeting was adjourned at 7:16 p.m.
Attachment 3
PC3b - 16
Respectfully submitted by,
Dawn Rudder
Recording Secretary
Approved by the Planning Commission on November 14, 2012.
Ryan Betz
Supervising Administrative Assistant
Attachment 3
PC3b - 17
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 8, 2014
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL:Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Draze, Ronald Malak,
William Riggs, Vice-Chairperson Michael Multari, and Chairperson
John Larson
Absent:Commissioner John Fowler
Staff:Community Development Deputy Directors Doug Davidson and Kim
Murry, Special Projects Manager Greg Hermann, Assistant City
Attorney Jon Ansolabehere and Recording Secretary Diane Clement
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES:
Minutes of September 17, 2014, were approved as amended.
Minutes of September 18, 2014, were approved as amended.
Minutes of September 24, 2014, were approved as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1.City-Wide.CODE-0058-2014: Review of proposed ordinance to allow and
regulate Owner-Occupied Homestays and proposed Negative Declaration of
Environmental Effect; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Greg Hermann)
Special Projects Manager Hermann presented the staff report, recommending that the
City Council approve a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and adopt the
proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Municipal Code.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Michelle Tasseff, SLO, stated that as a code enforcement officer for Santa Maria, she
sees problems with this proposed ordinance. She noted that despite the public
outreach effort, there are probably people who object but will not publicly say what they
think because they are intimidated. She added that the ordinance and fees will not limit
the enforcement that will be necessary. She expressed concern about the number of
days a month hosts will be allowed to rent to guests and about the host being allowed to
create the required parking space by moving their car out of the driveway. She also
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
October 8, 2014
Page 2
cautioned against listening to homeowners who claim they would lose their home if they
cannot host guests.
Linda White, SLO, stated she has attended many meetings about this issue and the
problem is always the difficulty of enforcement. She stated that this draft ordinance
suffers from vague language and that most opposition to it could be eliminated by
requiring that the owner be present which would make enforcement simple—if there is a
complaint, and the owner is found not to be present, the permit is pulled. She stated
she wants a strong, tight ordinance.
Jeff Eidelman, SLO, stated that he feels that, as a host, he is a mini-ambassador for
San Luis Obispo and he is always available to his guests, in person or by phone. He
supported treating homestays the same as all other rental situations with the same fees
and regulations. In response to a question from Commr. Multari, he stated that having a
designated responsible party is adequate in case the owner has to leave town.
Jim Culver, SLO, stated he supported the proposed ordinance. He noted that Airbnb
requires the two rooms he rents in his home to be listed as separate rentals on the
website and that using Airbnb has been a 100% positive experience for him. He added
three points: 1) the new ordinance should rely on existing ordinances where possible;
2) all control should be on par with long-term rentals; and 3) short-term stays have a
lower impact than long-term rentals and are consistent with land use policy.
Rosh Wright, SLO, noted that in England bed-and-breakfasts are common and loosely
regulated, and in Germany it is the norm to share a spare room in this way. She stated
that the need here is enormous and SLO Hosts are filling a housing need in a flexible
way. She supported applying the same rules and regulations to homestays and long-
term rentals, including the same fees and same maximum of five guests.
Todd Dolezal, SLO, stated that the only issue he has is the maximum of four adult
guests which he thinks is restrictive. He supported using the same maximum of five
that is required for long-term rentals.
Barbara Radovich, SLO, supported parity with long-term rentals.
Jacquoline Williams, SLO, stated she is happy to pay for the license and to collect the
Transient Occupancy Tax but the annual fee is a hardship as her net profit is quite slim.
She stated that she would be in complete support of the ordinance if that could be
eliminated and the same rules applied to short and long-term rentals.
Carolyn Smith, SLO, supported requiring the owner to be present during homestays.
She stated that a 29-day rental without the owner present is really a long-term rental
and accountability is lost.
Kurt Friedmann, SLO, noted the difficulty in drafting a simple ordinance like this one
which, if approved, will be the first of its kind in the nation. He stated that homestays are
a lesser use than long-term rentals and should not have any additional burden. He
noted that there have been very few complaints, only two for noise, and one of those
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
October 8, 2014
Page 3
was about a guest house which is not permitted under this proposed ordinance. He
stated that the best defense is the self-regulating SLO Host group. In response to a
question from Commr. Malak, he stated that it makes sense to have a responsible party
for times when it may not be physically possible for the owner to be present.
Pete Evans, SLO, noted that although the staff report said there are about 90 listings for
homestays in the city, there could be as few as 45, or even fewer, individual properties
because each bedroom requires a separate ad. He stated that homestay guests are
different than long-term renters and asked how many complaints there are for long-term
rentals per year in comparison to two complaints in a little less than a year for
homestays. He stated that the requirement the owner be no more than 15 minutes
away is not reasonable. He supported using the same regulations for homestays and
long-term rentals.
John Semon, SLO, stated that the owner will be careful about choosing guests because
this involves sharing a home, pets and other things the owner treasures. He added that
he has never had a problem in the year he has been doing homestays, even though he
is often not home, because he carefully screens his guests. He stated that this inherent
control is something the city controls cannot come close to matching and owner
presence should not be required.
Sky Bergman, SLO, stated that she has been gone during rentals and has never had a
problem or a complaint. She noted that at a hearing last November, her neighbors
spoke in support of her homestay guests. She supported approval of the ordinance.
Sandra Rowley, SLO, representing Residents for Quality Neighborhoods, stated that
operating a home-based business is a privilege, not a right, and a Home Occupation
Permit is required for all home businesses. Homestays are a business and the biggest
difference from other home businesses is that clients will be allowed to come and go at
any time so there is a need to establish standards to limit noise. She supported limiting
homestays to R-1 and R-2 zones, owner presence during evening hours and overnight,
and a limit on the number of homestays per year to give the neighborhood some
respite. She noted that only one-third of the homes in the city are now owner-occupied
because permanent residents have been leaving, and adding another use needs to be
carefully crafted to protect the residents’ enjoyment of their own homes.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Riggs stated that it will be interesting to keep track of what happens as a result
of this ordinance which he sees as an incremental step.
Commr. Draze stated that the goal is that the owner be home. He added that he has no
problem with the four-person maximum because, with the owner, it makes five in the
home. He noted that the reason for allowing secondary units was to increase the
amount of rental housing so he does not want secondary units to be used for
homestays. He added that, while the owner can move his car to the street during
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
October 8, 2014
Page 4
homestays, it is important to make sure during the initial investigation that the garage is
available for parking so the home has all three required spaces.
Commr. Larson stated he does not understand what potential problem this ordinance
solves. He noted that, while complaints were mentioned at several places in the reports
presented to the City Council and the Planning Commission, only two were specific, and
those appeared to be related to vacation rentals, not homestays, although the record
may not be clear on that. He added that there is a presumption that a transient stay
may have an impact different than that of a long-term stay but he did not see anything
that rose to the level of a significant impact. He noted that there are no regulations for
him as the owner of a rental in San Diego and this ordinance is an additional regulation
just for homestays, and, for all intents and purposes, there are no regulations that affect
long-term rentals—no permitting, just an annual business license.
In response to a question from Commr. Multari, Special Projects Manager Hermann
stated that the City Council did not give any direction for limiting homestays to R-1 and
R-2 but staff did consider different requirements for different zones such as an over-the-
counter permit for multifamily zones.
Commr. Multari stated that staff did a good job and respected direction from the City
Council. He stated there is a big difference between vacation rentals and homestays—
having a property where there is no resident present and people are coming and going
all the time does impact a neighborhood so this ordinance is the right approach. He
added that the first obligation is to preserve and protect the quality of life in
neighborhoods, and enforcement of rules helps with that as a vehicle for action by the
city and providing comfort to residents. He noted there is a difference in purpose
between the two types of rentals, and since it is the stated policy of the city to try to
provide long-term rentals, it is fair to have different fees and regulations. He stated he
is a little concerned about parking in multifamily zones. He asked if a legal non-
conforming structure would be allowed to host homestays.
Special Projects Manager Hermann responded that the intent is, if the homestay
requirements are met, they can host; but if there is a question, then it can be referred to
an administrative use permit process with a public hearing.
Commr. Multari stated he is puzzled by the issue of the number of guests and thinks the
number is what can impact a neighborhood. He added that four adults could have four
cars so some limitation on the number of people would be better, but he is inclined to
support the staff recommendation. He noted that, in his experience, if the owner is
present, the behavior of the guests is better. He stated he also sees the dilemma about
the need for owner presence and the owner wanting to go to a movie or spend a night
elsewhere. He noted that the 15-minute requirement is clever but might be impractical
and might not get the desired result.
Commr. Malak stated that the following are his concerns: 1) the lack of a proximity
distance requirement for homestays that might result in having multiple properties
hosting homestays on one block; 2) since not everyone is who they say they are, he
would like to see a proximity distance from schools and parks; 3) he would like to verify
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
October 8, 2014
Page 5
there is enough liability insurance in case of an incident so the homeowner is not
financially ruined; 4) he is not sure what he is agreeing to with the 15-minute
requirement; 5) he supports using the same limit of 14 days with a seven-day period
between stays that Arroyo Grande has in their performance standards and conditions;
and 6) he supports an annual inspection of fire and carbon dioxide alarm systems.
Special Projects Manager Hermann stated that the City Council will deal with the issue
of inspections in December.
Commr. Larson stated that the city may not have the legal ability to regulate proximity of
homestays and he is not sure how it would be implemented. He added that the city is
not in the business of determining whether property owners have enough liability
insurance.
Commr. Malak responded that the Arroyo Grande ordinance does not permit homestays
within 300 feet of each other on the same street.
Commr. Riggs stated he is ready to approve the draft resolution and he takes exception
to changing the language about four adults. He added that he does not support the
level of regulation mentioned by Commr. Malak and prefers to keep it simple and get it
done.
Commr. Draze stated that he does not have a problem with four adults plus their
children in a homestay. He agreed with Commr. Riggs about limiting location because it
creates a problem when a second neighbor wants to list a homestay. He added that he
does not want to deal with the liability insurance issue. He stated that he would like to
see the owner or responsible party present on the property during homestays and
suggests changing the definition in V on page PC 1-15 to remove “operator” so that it
reads “...without concurrently being occupied by the owner.”He added that he does not
think the proximity to schools is important.
Commr. Dandekar stated that she is supportive of the ordinance and that the definitive
thing is it is a homestay, palpably different than an entire unit for rent. She supported
tightening the requirements so it is not just a responsible person who is operating this,
but it is the property owner who is somehow directly connected to oversight. She added
that the distinction between long-term rental and homestay gets blurry if that is not
clarified. She stated that 29 days seems a lot for a home stay and she would not like
her neighbor to have a constant stream of guests because it would not feel neighborly.
She added that she supports some of what Sandra Rowley said and she is not sure the
limitations that are put on this really protect that neighborly quality.
Commr. Larson asked Commr. Dandekar if she is suggesting that the requirements
listed in Performance Standard 4 are not acceptable.
Commr. Dandekar responded that the intent is what prevents this being about a
property manager managing a thousand properties and that homestay means a
connection to an owner.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
October 8, 2014
Page 6
Commr. Malak supported Commr. Dandekar’s position as it relates to his point 4 about
the 15-minute requirement.
Commr. Multari stated he shares Commr. Dandekar's concern and added that the city
could require the owner to be on-site between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. and, if the owner
wants to be out of town, then he must get a responsible party to be there. He noted that
this does not sound particularly onerous. He stated he is not sure R-1 should be open
to having six people come into a neighborhood but he could be convinced to support
this, and he is more concerned about on-site oversight. He added that he wonders if
there is sentiment to require stays to be shorter than 29 days.
Commr. Riggs stated he does not agree because changing the language would be
onerous to families, which is an important demographic that we need more of here. He
added that he is concerned more about the discussion of paid agents, and noted that
the Airbnb market does not support paying of agents, so he does not see the logic.
Commr. Dandekar stated she has stayed in Airbnb rentals where no one is there, it is a
sterile environment, and she was handed a key by someone with no interest in the
rental. She expressed concern about what this does to a neighborhood.
Commr. Riggs stated that creating unique scenarios and speculating is dangerous when
developing policy.
Commr. Larson noted that there is an idea of what will happen and there is a record of
two complaints which were probably aimed at vacation rentals.
Commr. Dandekar stated that she is delighted there have been no concerns or
problems to date, but the policy is about what the Commission wants to enable in the
city and there is not much in the way of precedents for homestay rentals. She added
that this is about addressing what could happen in the future and what the Commission
wants to happen. She stated that it is legitimate to say we do not want people
occupying homes 29 days at a time throughout the year and, if someone wants to do
that, it is acceptable, but is that a homestay situation.
Deputy Director Davidson stated that the Commission could recommend a review in
one year if the Commission is in favor of putting that in the ordinance. He noted that the
city has used this effectively twice recently.
Commr. Draze stated that he appreciates the offer but thinks it is not a good idea. He
noted that permits can be revoked if abused and staff can bring any issues back to the
Commission in the future.
At this point, Commr. Draze made a motion, seconded by Commr. Multari, to
recommend the City Council approve a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact
and adopt the proposed amendments to Title 17 with some changes (see the motion
below). Discussion ensued.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
October 8, 2014
Page 7
Commr. Larson stated that he wanted to add a minor revision to the language of Finding
#1: change “require” to “requires” and replace “...ensure that impacts are addressed
and the character of existing neighborhoods is maintained,...” with “...maintain the
character of existing neighborhoods,...” This was accepted by Commrs. Draze and
Multari.
Commr. Dandekar stated that she wanted to add an amendment to put a limitation on
the number of days.
Commr. Larson responded that Commr. Dandekar's suggestion would be an additional
performance standard.
Commr. Dandekar stated that this would be open to discussion.
Commr. Riggs noted it might be more appropriate in the definition of a homestay.
Commr. Larson stated that maybe suggesting this as a performance standard is not in
conflict. Special Projects Manager Hermann agreed.
Commr. Draze stated he is not sure he agrees with limiting the number of days per
month until he sees it is becoming a problem so he would rather deal with that as a
separate motion. Commr. Larson agreed. Commr. Dandekar withdrew the amendment
and decided to make a separate motion (see below).
Commr. Malak stated that he remembers a Commission hearing where people thought
a 300-foot notification zone was not enough so there should be consideration of moving
notification out further to maybe three neighbors for homestays.
Commr. Draze stated that the 300-feet is about hearing notification and he is not
interested in expanding the notice for homestays.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Draze, seconded by Commr. Multari, recommending that the City
Council approve a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and adopt the
proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Municipal Code with the following changes:
1) Change Section 17.08.140 – Homestay Rentals, E. Performance Standards
#4 to:
a) require the owner or responsible party to be on-site between the hours of
11 p.m. and 6 a.m.
b) add “owner” to the last sentence so it reads “Contact information for the
owner and responsible party must be provided to adjacent property
owners.”
2) Delete “operator” from Chapter 17.22: Use Regulation, Section 17.22.010,
V. Definitions.
3) Correction in Section 1. Findings, #1, first sentence, first line, to add an “s” to
“require” so it reads “requires” to agree with the subject “popularity.”
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
October 8, 2014
Page 8
4) Revise Section 1. Findings, #1 to replace “...ensure that impacts are
addressed and the character of existing neighborhoods is maintained,...” with
“...maintain the character of existing neighborhoods,...”5) Revise Section 17.08.140
B. 2. and Section 17.22.010 H. Definitions to add “compensation for fewer than thirty
consecutive days”to read “an owner-occupied dwelling unit where bedrooms are
provided for compensation for fewer than thirty consecutive days with a maximum of
four adult overnight guests.”
AYES:Commrs. Dandekar, Draze, Larson, Malak, and Multari
NOES:Commr. Riggs
RECUSED:None
ABSENT:Commr. Fowler
The motion passed on a 5:1 vote.
At this point Commr. Dandekar made a motion limiting guest stays (see below) and
discussion ensued.
Commrs. Larson and Draze stated they were not supportive of the motion because they
did not see the problem.
Commr. Malak stated he thinks that the difference between homestays and long-term
rentals is a gray area and, theoretically, one could rent a house under homestay almost
like a long-term rental.
In response to Assistant Attorney Ansolabehere's statement that doing this would mean
the owner was in violation of the homeowner's exemption, Commr. Dandekar stated
that, if the owner is living there during these homestays, then it is a primary residence.
She added that the resolution as written would have transient, short-term people in a
neighborhood almost all year.
Commr. Malak stated he is also concerned with this and thinks it is a good idea to do
this now rather than in a year.
Commr. Riggs stated he does not share the concern and does not see the difference
between having non-paying guests every weekend and homestay guests.
There were no further comments made from the public.
On motion by Commr. Dandekar, seconded by Commr. Multari, to amend Chapter
17.08.140 – Homestay Rentals, E, by adding Performance Standard #8 limiting
individual guest stays to fourteen days with a seven-day period between stays, and a
maximum of 240 days of homestay rentals per calendar year.
AYES:Commrs. Dandekar, Malak, and Multari
NOES:Commrs. Larson, Draze, and Riggs
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
October 8, 2014
Page 9
RECUSED:None
ABSENT:Commr. Fowler
The motion resulted in no action on a 3:3 vote.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
2.Staff
a. Agenda Forecast by Deputy Director Davidson:
x October 22, 2014—safe parking pilot program for Prado Road, general plan
conformity report for a right of way in the South Broad Street area, a budget
goals review, and the water supply presentation.
x November 12, 2014—Housing Element Update, two use permits, appeal of
a Director’s decision in an enforcement case (tentative)
x Only one meeting in November and December.
x Deputy Director Murry gave a report on the progress of the LUCE Update
and noted that adjustments to the Airport Overlay Zone and Airport policies
were made at the Council level in response to Caltrans and ALUC
comments so the resulting sections will look slightly different than what was
presented to the Commission. Deputy Director Murry stated her
appreciation for Chair Larson’s attendance at the hearing and
representation of the Planning Commission’s recommendations.
3.Commission
a. Chair Larson stated that the City Council struggled with the same policies in the
Land Use Element with which the Commission had trouble. He added that the
Council was aware of Commission recommendations and several Council
Members spent time reading the Commission minutes and tracking
Commission voting and differences of opinion. He stated that it is clear to him
that they considered gave great deference to the Commission input and it will
probably be the same with the homestay issue. He thanked the
Commissioners for their time and effort.
ADJOURNMENT:The meeting was adjourned at 8:32 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Diane Clement
Recording Secretary