HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-15-2019 Agenda Packet
Tuesday, January 15, 2019
6:00 PM
REGULAR MEETING
Council Chamber
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo Page 1
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Heidi Harmon
ROLL CALL: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Erica A. Stewart,
Vice Mayor Andy Pease and Mayor Heidi Harmon
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Stewart
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA (not to exceed 15
minutes total)
The Council welcomes your input. You may address the Council by completing a speaker slip
and giving it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. At this time, you may address the Council
on items that are not on the agenda. Time limit is three minutes. State law does not allow the
Council to discuss or take action on issues not on the agenda, except that members of the
Council or staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons
exercising their public testimony rights (Gov. Code sec. 54954.2). Staff may be asked to
follow up on such items.
CONSENT AGENDA
Matters appearing on the Consent Calendar are expected to be non-controversial and will be
acted upon at one time. A member of the public may request the Council to pull an item for
discussion. Pulled items shall be heard at the close of the Consent Agenda unless a majority of
the Council chooses another time. The public may comment on any and all items on the
Consent Agenda within the three minute time limit.
1. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
(PURRINGTON)
Recommendation:
Waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda January 15, 2019 Page 2
2. REVIEW OF A MILLS ACT HISTORICAL PROPERTY CONTRACT FOR THE
NATHANIEL BREW HOME (A MASTER LIST RESOURCE)
(CODRON / OETZELL)
Recommendation:
Adopt a Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, approving a Historic Property Preservation Agreement between the City
and the owner of the Nathaniel Brew Home at 771 Buchon Street.”
3. APPROVAL OF THE FINAL MAP FOR TRACT 3044, 3725 ORCUTT (TR 137-11)
(CODRON / DOSTALEK)
Recommendation:
Adopt a Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, approving the final map for Tract 3044 (3725 Orcutt Road, TR 137-11).”
4. 2019 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING RESERVATION
LETTER (CODRON / VERESCHAGIN)
Recommendation:
Authorize the Community Development Director to execute the Reservation Letter
authorizing the City to reserve the total allocation of 2019 Community Development Block
Grant funds for Housing/Public Facilities/Economic Development projects, estimated in the
amount of $294,899, to the Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo and the San Luis
Nonprofit Housing Corporation for property acquisition of an existing home for housing
special needs households that are either homeless or at risk of becoming homeless.
5. 2018 WATER RESOURCES STATUS REPORT (FLOYD / METZ)
Recommendation:
Receive and file the 2018 Water Resources Status Report.
6. FY 2017-18 ANNUAL REPORT ON DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES UNDER
AB1600 (ELKE / PARDO)
Recommendation:
Adopt a Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, accepting the 2017-18 annual report on development impact fees
reaffirming the necessity of development impact fees and make findings of development
impact fees and make findings related to impact fee balances and in-lieu fees.”
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda January 15, 2019 Page 3
7. CONSIDER OPPOSING PLANS TO TRUCK OIL THROUGH SAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTY AND TO BUILD AN OIL PIPELINE NEAR AND THROUGH SAN LUIS
OBISPO COUNTY (HILL / READ)
Recommendation:
Adopt a Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, opposing a proposal to truck offshore oil along Santa Barbara, San Luis
Obispo, and Kern County highways and to oppose a proposal to build a coastal oil pipeline
servicing aging offshore drilling platforms.”
8. APPROVE A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE CITY OF
MORRO BAY FOR SHARING POLICY BOARD, OPERATIONS BOARD, AND
COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE SEATS ON MONTEREY BAY
COMMUNITY POWER (HILL / READ)
Recommendation:
1. Approve the draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the City of Morro Bay
for sharing Policy Board, Operations Board, and Community Advisory Committee seats
on Monterey Bay Community Power; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the MOU in a form subject to approval of the
City Attorney’s Office.
PUBLIC HEARING AND BUSINESS ITEMS
9. PUBLIC HEARING - REVIEW OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE A USE PERMIT FOR A NEW FOUR-
STORY MIXED-USE PROJECT LOCATED AT 790 FOOTHILL BLVD
(CODRON / COHEN)
Recommendation:
Adopt a Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, denying an appeal (filed by Foothill Blvd Civil Defense) approving a
density bonus and waivers of development standards, and the use permit approval for a new
four-story mixed-use project with 6,800 square feet of ground floor commercial/retail space,
78 residential units, and 155 parking spaces with a request for mechanical parking lifts and
expanded hours of operation for the commercial spaces with a categorical exemption from
environmental review, as represented in the City Council agenda report and attachments
dated January 15, 2019 (790 Foothill Blvd., APPL-1971-2018)”
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda January 15, 2019 Page 4
LIAISON REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
(Not to exceed 15 minutes) Council Members report on conferences or other City activities.
At this time, any Council Member or the City Manager may ask a question for clarification,
make an announcement, or report briefly on his or her activities. In addition, subject to
Council Policies and Procedures, they may provide a reference to staff or other resources for
factual information, request staff to report back to the Council at a subsequent meeting
concerning any matter, or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future
agenda. (Gov. Code Sec. 54954.2)
ADJOURNMENT
There are two Special City Council Meetings scheduled for Wednesday, January 23, 2019 at
6:00 p.m. and Monday, February 4, 2019 at 5 p.m., respectively, at the Veteran’s Hall, 801
Grand Ave., San Luis Obispo, California and in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California. The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, February
5, and will be held in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
LISTENING ASSISTIVE DEVICES are available for the hearing impaired--please see City Clerk.
The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the
public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to
persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or
accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City
Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7107.
City Council regular meetings are televised live on Charter Channel 20. Agenda related
writings or documents provided to the City Council are available for public inspection in the
City Clerk’s Office located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California during normal
business hours, and on the City’s website www.slocity.org. Persons with questions concerning
any agenda item may call the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100.
Department Name: Community Development
Cost Center: N/A
For Agenda of: January 15, 2019
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF A MILLS ACT HISTORICAL PROPERTY CONTRACT FOR
THE NATHANIEL BREW HOME (A MASTER LIST RESOURCE)
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee, adopt a resolution (Attachment A)
approving a Historic Property Preservation Agreement between the City and the owners of the
Nathaniel Brew Home at 771 Buchon Street, under the terms described in the draft agreement
(Attachment B).
DISCUSSION
The owners of the Nathaniel Brew Home at
771 Buchon Street submitted an application
to enter into a Mills Act historical property
contract with the City. The Nathaniel Brew
Home is described in City records1 as a
combination of Carpenter Gothic and Neo-
Colonial styles, estimated to have been built
in 1903. The original owner was Nathaniel
Charles Brew, who owned a furniture and
carpet business on Higuera Street. The
property appears to be in very good
condition. The property was designated as a
Master List Resource in 1983, on completion
of the City’s first historic resources survey.
1 Community Development Department historic property record (“yellow file”) for 771 Buchon
Figure 1: Nathaniel Brew Home
Packet Pg. 5
Item 2
Proposed Improvements
Several improvements and maintenance items are identified by the applicant for completion
under the proposed contract. These are included in Exhibit A of the proposed contract
(Attachment B), and are summarized below:
▪ Replace roof
▪ Repair dry rot decay on wood features
▪ Repainting of exterior surfaces
▪ Window repair, including repair of double-hung windows to restore operation
▪ Improvements to the building foundation
POLICY CONTEXT
The Mills Act Program
The Mills Act Program enables California cities to enter into contracts with owners of historical
property to provide them with tax relief in exchange for an agreement to actively participate in
the restoration and maintenance of historical resources. A Mills Act contract is effective for an
initial 10-year period, and then is automatically extended annually for an additional year. After
the initial term, either the City or the owner may, by written notice, decide not to renew the
contract. During the effective term of the contract, the property owner must improve o r
rehabilitate the property, maintain the property consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards, and provide visibility of the historical resource from the public right-of-way.
The Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) of the General Plan describes the City’s
goals and policies for the protection of cultural resources. It is the City’s policy that significant
historic resources be rehabilitated and preserved (COSE § 3.3). Participation in the Mills Act
Program is one of the means by which the City encourages the maintenance and restoration of
historic properties (COSE § 3.6.2). A property must be on the City’s Master List of Historic
Resources in order to be enrolled in the program. Currently there are 58 properties participating
in the program, with the last request approved by the Council in November 2018.
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
Notification regarding consideration of this item by the City Council was provided to owners and
occupants of property within 300 feet of the subject site.
CONCURRENCE
The Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed the application and the terms of the draft contract at
a public hearing on November 26, 2018. The Committee, by a vote of 7-0, recommended that the
Council approve the contract.
Packet Pg. 6
Item 2
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Entering into a “Mills Act Contract” with the owners of historical property is not subject to the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a project as
defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15378 (Definitions – Project). Implementation of the Mills Act is
a government fiscal activity which does not involve commitment to any specific project resulting
in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment (Guidelines § 15378 (b) (4)).
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: N/A Budget Year: 2018-19
Funding Identified: N/A
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding Sources Current FY Cost
Annualized
On-going Cost
Total Project
Cost
General Fund N/A N/A N/A
State
Federal
Fees
Other:
Total
After the contract is executed, the County Assessor values the property by an income
capitalization method, following guidelines provided by the State Board of Equalization.
Because of the timing and the method of valuing the restricted property, it is difficult to
accurately estimate the property owner’s tax savings and resulting fiscal impacts to the City
under a particular historical property contract. However, the Office of Historic Preservation
(California Department of Parks and Recreation) estimates that property owners participating in
the program may realize property tax savings of between 40% and 60% each year for newly
improved or purchased older properties.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue consideration of the request to a future date for additional analysis or research.
2. Do not enter into a Mills Act Historical Property Contract with the property owner. This
alternative is not recommended. The contract provides a tax relief incentive that is a tool for
achieving the City’s goals for historical preservation.
Attachments:
a - Council Resolution (Draft)
b - Historic Property Preservation Agreement (Draft)
Packet Pg. 7
Item 2
RESOLUTION NO. ____ (2019 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A HISTORIC PROPERTY
PRESERVATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE
OWNER OF THE NATHANIEL BREW HOME AT 771 BUCHON STREET
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo is authorized by California
Government Code § 50280 et seq. (known as “the Mills Act”) to enter into contracts with the
owners of qualified historical properties to provide for appropriate use, maintenance, and
rehabilitation such that these historic properties retain their historic characteristics; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Resolution No. 9136 (2000 Series), establishing
the Mills Act Historic Property Tax Incentive Program as an on-going historic preservation
program to promote the preservation, maintenance and rehabilitation of historic resources through
financial incentives; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has designated this property
as a historic resource of the City of San Luis Obispo pursuant to the policies in the City’s Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, Chris and Heidi Frago and Ann P. Howland are the owners of that certain
qualified real property, together with associated structures and improvement thereon, located on
Assessor’s Parcel Number 003-536-001, located at 771 Buchon Street, in the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, also described as the Nathaniel Brew Home; and
WHEREAS, the City and Owners, for their mutual benefit, now desire to enter into an
agreement to limit the use of the property to prevent inappropriate alterations and to ensure that
character-defining features are preserved and maintained in an exemplary manner, and repairs and
improvements are completed as necessary to carry out the purposes of California Government
Code, Chapter 1, Part 5 of Division 1 of Title 5, Article 12, Sec. 50280 et seq., and to qualify for
an assessment of valuation pursuant to Article 1.9, Sec. 439 et. seq. of the Revenue and Taxation
Code.
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted
a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on November 26, 2018 for the purpose of reviewing the proposed historic property
preservation agreement, and recommended that the City enter into the agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber at
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on January 15, 2019 for the purpose of considering
approval of the historic property preservation agreement, and has duly considered all evidence,
including the record of the Cultural Heritage Committee hearing and recommendation, testimony
of the applicant and interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendation by staff, present at
said hearing; and
Packet Pg. 8
Item 2
Resolution No. ____ (2019 Series)
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following
findings:
1. Conservation and Open Space Element Program 3.6.2 states that the City will
participate in financial assistance programs such as property tax reduction programs
that encourage maintenance and restoration of historic properties.
2. The Nathaniel Brew Home, located at 771 Buchon Street, has been recognized as a
historic asset in the community by its designation as a Master List Historic Property by
the City Council on August 16, 1993 (Resolution 5197). As such, maintaining the
structure will meet the City’s goals for historic preservation listed in policies 3.3.1
through 3.3.5 of the Conservation and Open Space Element.
SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The City Council has determined that the
above actions do not constitute a project, as defined in California Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines § 15378 and are not subject to environmental review.
SECTION 3. Historic Property Preservation Agreement Approved. The City Council
hereby approves the “Historic Property Preservation Agreement between the City of San Luis
Obispo and the Owner of the Historic Property Located at 771 Buchon Street,” to be entered into
by the City and the property owners, Chris and Heidi Frago and Ann P. Howland.
SECTION 4. Community Development Director Authorized to Sign Agreement for City.
The City Council hereby authorizes the Community Development Director to execute said
agreement on behalf of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo.
SECTION 5. Recordation of the Agreement. No later than twenty (20) days after the
parties enter into said agreement, the City Clerk shall cause the agreement to be recorded in the
Office of the County Recorder of the County of San Luis Obispo.
On motion of Council Member ___________, seconded by Council Member __________, and
on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
RECUSE:
ABSENT:
Packet Pg. 9
Item 2
Resolution No. ____ (2019 Series)
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 15th day of January 2019.
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, 2019.
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington,
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 10
Item 2
HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE OWNERS OF THE HISTORIC
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 771 BUCHON STREET, IN THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this ________ day of ________ , 2019, by and
between the City of San Luis Obispo, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the
“City”), and Christopher Frago, Heidi Frago, and Ann P. Howland (hereinafter referred to as
“Owners”), and collectively referred to as the “parties.”
WHEREAS, Owners are the owners of that certain real property commonly known as
771 Buchon Street (APN 003-536-001), and legally described as shown in the attached
“Exhibit B” (“Owners’ Property”); and
WHEREAS, Owners have agreed to enter into an Historical Property Contract with the
City for the preservation, maintenance, restoration, or rehabilitation of Owners’ Property, an
historic resource within the City;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and in further consideration
of the mutual benefits, promises, and agreements set out herein, the parties agree as follows:
Section 1. Description of Preservation Measures. The Owners, their heirs, or assigns hereby
agree to undertake and complete, at his expense, the preservation, maintenance, and improvements
measures described in “Exhibit A” attached hereto.
Section 2. Effective Date and Term of Agreement. This agreement shall be effective and
commence upon recordation and shall remain in effect for an initial term of ten (10) years
thereafter. Each year upon the anniversary of the agreement’s effective date, such initial term will
automatically be extended as provided in California Government Code Section 50280 through
50290 and in Section 3, below.
Section 3. Agreement Renewal and Non-renewal.
a. Each year on the anniversary of the effective date of this agreement (hereinafter
referred to as “annual renewal date”), a year shall automatically be added to the
initial term of this agreement unless written notice of non-renewal is served as
provided herein.
b. If the Owners or the City desire in any year not to renew the agreement, the Owners
or the City shall serve written notice of non-renewal of the agreement on the other
party. Unless such notice is served by the Owners to the City at least ninety (90)
days prior to the annual renewal date, or served by the City to the Owners at least
sixty (60) days prior to the annual renewal date, one (1) year shall automatically be
added to the term of the agreement as provided herein.
Packet Pg. 11
Item 2
Historic Property Preservation Agreement
771 Buchon Street
Page 2
c. The Owners may make a written protest of the notice. The City may, at any time
prior to the annual renewal date, withdraw its notice to the Owners of non-renewal.
d. If either the City or the Owners serve notice to the other party of non-renewal in
any year, the agreement shall remain in effect for the balance of the term then
remaining.
Section 4. Standards and Conditions. During the term of this agreement, the historic property
shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. Owners agree to preserve, maintain, and, where necessary, restore or rehabilitate
the building and its character-defining features, including: the building’s general
architectural form, style, materials, design, scale, proportions, organization of
windows, doors, and other openings; interior architectural elements that are integral
to the building’s historic character or significance; exterior materials, coatings,
textures, details, mass, roof line, porch, and other aspects of the appearance of the
building’s exterior, as described in Exhibit A, to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director or his designee.
b. All building changes shall comply with applicable City specific plans, City
regulations and guidelines, and conform to the rules and regulations of the Office
of Historic Preservation of the California Department of Parks and Recreation,
namely the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and
Standards and Guidelines for Historic Preservation Projects. Interior remodeling
shall retain original, character-defining architectural features such as oak and
mahogany details, pillars and arches, special tile work, or architectural
ornamentation to the greatest extent possible.
c. The Community Development Director shall be notified by the Owners of changes
to character-defining exterior features prior to their execution, such as major
landscaping projects and tree removals, exterior door or window replacement,
repainting, remodeling, or other exterior alterations requiring a building permit.
The Owners agree to secure all necessary City approvals and/or permits prior to
changing the building’s use or commencing construction work.
d. Owners agree that property tax savings resulting from this agreement shall be used
for property maintenance and improvements as described in Exhibit A.
e. The following are prohibited: demolition or partial demolition of the historic
building; exterior alterations or additions not in keeping with the standards listed
above; dilapidated, deteriorating, or unrepaired structures such as fences, roofs,
doors, walls, windows; outdoor storage of junk, trash, debris, appliances, or
furniture visible from a public way; or any device, decoration, structure, or
vegetation which is unsightly due to lack of maintenance or because such feature
adversely affects, or is visually incompatible with, the property’s recognized
Packet Pg. 12
Item 2
Historic Property Preservation Agreement
771 Buchon Street
Page 3
historic character, significance, and design as determined by the Community
Development Director.
f. Owners shall allow reasonable periodic examination, by prior appointment, of the
interior and exterior of the historic property by representatives of the County
Assessor, the State Department of Parks and Recreation, the State Board of
Equalization, and the City as may be necessary to determine the owners’
compliance with the terms and provisions of this agreement.
Section 5. Furnishing of Information. The Owners hereby agree to furnish any and all
information requested by the City which may be necessary or advisable to determine compliance
with the terms and provisions of this agreement.
Section 6. Cancellation.
a. The City, following a duly-noticed public hearing by the City Council as set forth
in Government Code Section 50285, may cancel this agreement if it determines that
the Owners have breached any of the conditions of this agreement or has allowed
the property to deteriorate to the point that it no longer meets the standards for a
qualified historic property; or if the City determines that the Owners have failed to
preserve, maintain, or rehabilitate the property in the manner specified in Section 4
of this agreement. If a contract is cancelled because of failure of the Owners to
preserve, maintain, and rehabilitate the historic property as specified above, the
Owners shall pay a cancellation fee to the State Controller as set forth in
Government Code Section 50286, which states that the fee shall be 12 ½% of the
full value of the property at the time of cancellation without regard to any restriction
imposed with this agreement.
b. If the historic building is acquired by eminent domain and the City Council
determines that the acquisition frustrates the purpose of the agreement, the
agreement shall be cancelled and no fee imposed, as specified in Government Code
Section 50288.
Section 7. Enforcement of Agreement.
a. In lieu of and/or in addition to any provisions to cancel the agreement as referenced
herein, the City may specifically enforce, or enjoin the breach of, the terms of the
agreement. In the event of a default, under the provisions to cancel the agreement
by the Owners, the City shall give written notice of violation to the Owners by
registered or certified mail addressed to the address stated in this agreement. If
such a violation is not corrected to the reasonable satisfaction of the Community
Development Director or designee within thirty (30) days thereafter; or if not
corrected within such a reasonable time as may be required to cure the breach or
default of said breach; or if the default cannot be cured within thirty (30) days
(provided that acts to cure the breach or default may be commenced within thirty
(30) days and shall thereafter be diligently pursued to completion by the Owners);
Packet Pg. 13
Item 2
Historic Property Preservation Agreement
771 Buchon Street
Page 4
then the City may, without further notice, declare a default under the terms of this
agreement and may bring any action necessary to specifically enforce the
obligations of the Owners growing out of the terms of this agreement, apply to any
court, state or federal, for injunctive relief against any violation by the Owners or
apply for such relief as may be appropriate.
b. The City does not waive any claim of default by the Owners if the City does not
enforce or cancel this agreement. All other remedies at law or in equity which are
not otherwise provided for in this agreement or in the City’s regulations governing
historic properties are available to the City to pursue in the event that there is a
breach or default under this agreement. No waiver by the City of any breach or
default under this agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver of any other subsequent
breach thereof or default herein under.
c. By mutual agreement, City and Owners may enter into mediation or binding
arbitration to resolve disputes or grievances growing out of this contract.
Section 8. Binding Effect of Agreement. The Owners hereby subject the historic building
located at 771 Buchon Street, San Luis Obispo, California, Assessor’s Parcel Number
003-536-001, to the covenants, reservations, and restrictions as set forth in this agreement. The
City and Owners hereby declare their specific intent that the covenants, reservations, and
restrictions as set forth herein shall be deemed covenants running with the land and shall pass to
and be binding upon the Owners’ successors and assigns in title or interest to the historic property.
Every contract, deed, or other instrument hereinafter executed, covering or conveying the historic
property or any portion thereof, shall conclusively be held to have been executed, delivered, and
accepted subject to the covenants, reservations, and restrictions expressed in this agreement
regardless of whether such covenants, restrictions, and reservations are set forth in such contract,
deed, or other instrument.
Section 9. Notice. Any notice required by the terms of this agreement shall be sent to the address
of the respective parties as specified below or at other addresses that may be later specified by the
parties hereto.
To City: Community Development Director
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
To Owners: Christopher Frago, Heidi Frago
and Ann P. Howland
771 Buchon Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
Packet Pg. 14
Item 2
Historic Property Preservation Agreement
771 Buchon Street
Page 5
Section 10. General Provisions.
a. None of the terms, provisions, or conditions of this agreement shall be deemed to
create a partnership between the parties hereto and any of their heirs, successors, or
assigns, nor shall such terms, provisions, or conditions cause them to be considered
joint ventures or members of any joint enterprise.
b. The Owners agree to hold the City and its elected and appointed officials, officers,
agents, and employees harmless from liability for damage or from claims for
damage for personal injuries, including death, and claims for property damage
which may arise from the direct or indirect use or activities of the Owners, or from
those of his contractor, subcontractor, agent, employee, or other person acting on
the Owners’ behalf which relates to the use, operation, maintenance, or
improvement of the historic property. The Owners hereby agree to and shall defend
the City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents, and employees with
respect to any and all claims or actions for damages caused by, or alleged to have
been caused by, reason of the Owners’ activities in connection with the historic
property, excepting however any such claims or actions which are the result of the
sole negligence or willful misconduct of City, its officers, agents, or employees.
c. This hold harmless provision applies to all damages and claims for damages
suffered, or alleged to have been suffered, and costs of defense incurred, by reason
of the operations referred to in this agreement regardless of whether or not the City
prepared, supplied, or approved the plans, specifications, or other documents for
the historic property.
d. All of the agreements, rights, covenants, reservations, and restrictions contained in
this agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties
herein, their heirs, successors, legal representatives, assigns, and all persons
acquiring any part or portion of the historic property, whether by operation of law
or in any manner whatsoever.
e. In the event legal proceedings are brought by any party or parties to enforce or
restrain a violation of any of the covenants, reservations, or restrictions contained
herein, or to determine the rights and duties of any party hereunder, the prevailing
party in such proceeding may recover all reasonable attorney’s fees to be fixed by
the court, in addition to court costs and other relief ordered by the court.
f. In the event that any of the provisions of this agreement are held to be unenforceable
or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, or by subsequent preemptive
legislation, the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions, or portions
thereof, shall not be affected thereby.
g. This agreement shall be construed and governed in accordance with the laws of the
State of California.
Packet Pg. 15
Item 2
Historic Property Preservation Agreement
771 Buchon Street
Page 6
Section 11. Amendments. This agreement may be amended, in whole or in part, only by a written
recorded instrument executed by the parties hereto.
Section 12. Recordation and Fees. No later than twenty (20) days after the parties enter into this
agreement, the City shall cause this agreement to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder
of the County of San Luis Obispo. Participation in the program shall be at no cost to the Owners;
however, the City may charge reasonable and necessary fees to recover direct costs of executing,
recording, and administering the historical property contracts.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Owners have executed this agreement on the day
and year written above.
OWNERS
____________________________________ ______________________________
Christopher Frago Date
____________________________________ ______________________________
Heidi Frago Date
____________________________________ ______________________________
Ann P. Howland Date
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
____________________________________ ______________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon Date
Pursuant to authority conferred by Resolution No. __________(2019 Series)
ATTEST:
______________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
ALL SIGNATURES MUST BE NOTARIZED
Packet Pg. 16
Item 2
Historic Property Preservation Agreement
771 Buchon Street
Page 7
EXHIBIT “A”
MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT MEASURES
FOR THE NATHANIEL BREW HOME LOCATED AT 771 BUCHON STREET,
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
Owners shall preserve, maintain, and repair the historic building, including its character-defining
architectural features in good condition, to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director or designee, pursuant to a Mills Act Preservation Contract with the City of San Luis
Obispo for property located at 771 Buchon Street. Character-defining features shall include, but
are not limited to: roof, eaves, dormers, trim, porches, walls and siding, architectural detailing,
doors and windows, window screens and shutters, balustrades and railings, foundations, and
surface treatments.
Owners agree to make the following improvements or repairs during the term of this contract but
in no case later than ten (10) years from the contract date. All changes or repairs shall be consistent
with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
the Treatment of Historic Properties:
▪ Replace roof
▪ Repair dry rot decay on wood features
▪ Repainting of exterior surfaces
▪ Window repair, including repair of double-hung windows to restore operation
▪ Improvements to the building foundation
Packet Pg. 17
Item 2
Historic Property Preservation Agreement
771 Buchon Street
Page 8
EXHIBIT “B”
Legal Description
For APN/Parcel ID(s): 003-536-001
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF SAN
LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND IS
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
ALL THAT PART OF LOTS 7, 8, 9, AND 10 OF BLOCK 117 OF MURRAY AND
CHURCH’S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF BUCHON AND GARDEN
STREETS IN SAID CITY AND RUNNING THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE
SOUTHERLY LINE OF BUCHON STREET 50 FEET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES
SOUTHEASTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF GARDEN
STREET, 150 FEET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES SOUTHWESTERLY AND
PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF BUCHON STREET 50 FEET TO THE
EASTERLY LINE OF GARDEN STREET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID
EASTERLY LINE OF GARDEN STREET 150 FEET TO THE POINT OF THE
BEGINNING.
Packet Pg. 18
Item 2
Historic Property Preservation Agreement
771 Buchon Street
Page 9
State of California }
County of San Luis Obispo }
On________________, before me __________________________________________,
Date Name and Title of the Officer
personally appeared, _____________________________________________________,
Name of Signer(s)
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in
his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the
person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature __________________________________
Signature of Notary Public Place Notary Seal Above
State of California }
County of San Luis Obispo }
On________________, before me __________________________________________,
Date Name and Title of the Officer
personally appeared, _____________________________________________________,
Name of Signer(s)
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in
his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the
person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature __________________________________
Signature of Notary Public Place Notary Seal Above
A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the
document to which this certificate is attached and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the
document to which this certificate is attached and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
Packet Pg. 19
Item 2
Historic Property Preservation Agreement
771 Buchon Street
Page 10
State of California }
County of San Luis Obispo }
On________________, before me __________________________________________,
Date Name and Title of the Officer
personally appeared, _____________________________________________________,
Name of Signer(s)
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in
his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the
person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature __________________________________
Signature of Notary Public Place Notary Seal Above
State of California }
County of San Luis Obispo }
On________________, before me __________________________________________,
Date Name and Title of the Officer
personally appeared, _____________________________________________________,
Name of Signer(s)
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in
his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the
person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature __________________________________
Signature of Notary Public Place Notary Seal Above
A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the
document to which this certificate is attached and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the
document to which this certificate is attached and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
Packet Pg. 20
Item 2
Department Name: Community Development
Cost Center: 4003
For Agenda of: January 15, 2019
Placement: Consent Item
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Diane Dostalek, Senior Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF THE FINAL MAP FOR TRACT 3044, 3725 ORCUTT
(TR 137-11)
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution (Attachment G) approving the Final Map for Tract 3044, 3725 Orcutt Road, and
authorizing the Mayor to execute a Subdivision Agreement.
DISCUSSION
Background/Previous Council Action
Tract 3044 (TR 137-11) is located at 3725 Orcutt Road (Attachment A, Vicinity Map). A vesting
tentative map for Tract 3044 was approved by the City Council on October 1, 2013, by
Resolution No. 10462 (2013 Series) (Attachment B - Reading File). The tentative map
(Attachment C - Reading File) consisted of 80 lots with the intent to build a total of 142
residential units including 45 single-family homes, 33 single-family attached terrace homes, 12
loft-style apartments and 52 senior flats to be created in up to eight phases. A combined
park-drainage basin lot was also proposed. The subdivider was granted a 33% density bonus and
code exceptions including width, depth and total size of lots to achieve the proposed number of
units. Furthermore, some of the streets were proposed to be public and some private, depending
on the proposed width of the street.
The approved tentative map also showed a proposed Parcelization Map with three parcels. This
particular parcelization proposal has since been abandoned by the subdivider. However, a new
parcel map to complete build-out of the subdivision has been proposed and is discussed later in
this report.
Tentative Map Consistency
When the original subdivider began to seek out homebuilders to purchase the entitled
subdivision, it became apparent that the density of the lots would not provide for a marketable
product. City Municipal Code Section 16.10.160 grants the Community Development Director
the authority to approve minor corrections to an approved tentative map or conditions of
approval if all the following are true:
Packet Pg. 21
Item 3
1. No lots, units or building sites are added or deleted; and
2. The proposed changes are consistent with the intent and spirit of the original tentative map
approval; and
3. The proposed changes are consistent with the zoning regulations and the building code, the
General Plan, and the Subdivision Map Act.
The original subdivider (Nicholas Muick) entered into a purchase agreement with a potential
buyer (Andy Mangano) to buy the subdivision. Before closing on the purchase, Mangano
approached the City with proposed revisions to the tentative map to ensure he would be able to
proceed with a marketable product. At Mangano’s request and under the authority listed above,
the Community Development Director approved the following minor modifications to the
tentative map for Tract 3044:
1. Revise the phasing line. The phasing line was revised to approximately follow the R-2 zone,
which would result in 48 lots being allowed to be created in Phase 1 (Attachment D). A
subdivider is not required to show the number and configuration of proposed phasing on their
tentative map. City Municipal Code Section 16.14.110 and California Government Code
Section 66456.1 only require that they declare that the map will be phased. Therefore, the
subdivider is not bound to the phasing shown on the tentative map. If the proposed phasing
changes, the City may impose additional reasonable conditions to accommodate the revised
phasing.
2. Revise the streets. The streets were reconfigured to align with the alleys being created with
West Creek Tract 3083 north of Tract 3044 to provide for better flow between the two
subdivisions. The streets were also widened to meet City standards, so they could all be
public streets instead of private streets.
3. Orcutt Road frontage improvements. As allowed under Government Code Section 66456.1
and to ensure orderly development, Mangano agreed to an additional condition to
accommodate the revised phasing plan. The condition is to complete the frontage
improvements on Orcutt Road along the Taylor-Muick homestead property and the Fiala
property to complete the gap between the Tract 3044 frontage and the Orcutt improvements
being constructed by Jones Tract 3066.
4. Elimination of the park. Since the Parks & Recreation Commission did not recommend that
the proposed park be accepted as a public facility, the builders would, at best, be eligible for
fee credits at just 50% of the cost of park improvements. Rather than require a private park
be constructed on Tract 3044, the builders will pay the Orcutt Area Park fees instead. Overall
this benefits the City and the public because it allows those funds to be put towards
development of the OASP neighborhood park on the land that was dedicated to the City with
the Righetti Tract 3063-1 subdivision.
Packet Pg. 22
Item 3
Final Map Specifics
The “first phase” of Tract 3044 is creating 47 single-family lots (Lots 1 to 47) and one lot (Lot
48) for future subdivision. All of the required offers of dedication for public and private
easements are being created with this map to accommodate build-out of the subdivision.
Condition #43 of Council Resolution No. 10462 (2013 Series) requiring secondary access for
more than 30 units has been satisfied through submittal of bonds and approved public
improvement plans by the neighboring West Creek Tract 3044, Righetti Tract 3063, and Jones
Tract 3066 subdivisions for connections to Orcutt Road and Tank Farm Road via Ranch House
Road, Righetti Ranch Road and Tiburon Way.
Condition #44 requiring an emergency vehicle access at the end of the cul-de-sac to Orcutt Road
is no longer needed because the cul-de-sac has been redesigned with a mountable curb to allow
for fire truck turnaround.
As shown on the approved tentative map, the subdivider will be offering an easement across
Lot 23 (Lot 18 of the tentative map) to provide access to the existing Taylor -Muick homestead
lot. A private water and sewer easement is also included to accommodate future connection to
the City’s water and sewer system. The homestead lot is currently served by a private water well
and septic system.
Parcel Map Interface
To complete the buildout of Tract 3044, the subdivider was faced with three options:
1. Record the next phase of Tract 3044 and try to squeeze in all the remaining tentative map lots
into that phase.
2. Apply for an amendment to the tentative map at a public hearing with the Planning
Commission.
3. File a new tentative map over the remaining portion of Tract 3044, which is designated as
Lot 48 on the Tract 3044 final map.
The subdivider elected to file a new tentative map over the remaining portion of Tract 3044.
Because the land before division (Lot 48 of Tract 3044) contains less than five acres (it’s 2.8
acres), each parcel created by the division abuts a maintained public street, and no dedication or
improvements are required (they’re being done with Tract 3044), this tentative map met the
requirements for a parcel map substitution. Typically, subdivisions creating five or more lots
must go through the tract map process, but because this subdivision meets the above exception as
outlined in Section 16.08.050 of the Municipal Code, the subdivider may proceed with a
tentative and final parcel map to complete build-out of the subdivision. Parcel Map SLO 17-0115
is creating six more single-family lots and one lot for multi-family, which includes the drainage
basin serving all of Tract 3044. A parcel map does not require Council approval. It can be
approved by the Community Development Director.
Packet Pg. 23
Item 3
Affordable Housing
An affordable housing agreement will record prior to or concurrent with the map recordation to
satisfy the affordable housing requirements included in Section 4 of Council Resolution No.
10462 (2013 Series). Per Condition #53, the affordable housing agreement will specify the
timing of construction of affordable units and contain provisions for failure to complete any or
all of the affordable housing units such as collecting affordable housing in-lieu fees, establishing
a threshold for number of units that can be constructed before some affordable housing units are
provided, and providing a letter of credit, bond or other financial guarantee to assure compliance.
The condition stated that the goal of the agreement is to have the affordable housing constructed
as early as possible.
Approving the Final Map
The tentative map has an initial two-year life per Municipal Code Section 16.10.150. There have
been two City-granted extensions of two years each, so this vesting tentative map now has an
expiration date of October 1, 2019. The map must record prior to expiration of the tentative map.
Two more years of City-granted time extensions are allowed, if requested by the subdivider prior
to tentative map expiration.
The final map for Tract 3044 (Attachment E) is ready to be approved. There are a few minor
revisions still required for technical accuracy and condition compliance, but those changes will
be completed before the map records. Pursuant to Section 16.14.080 of the Municipal Code, the
Public Works Director has determined that the final map is in substantial compliance with the
tentative map and approved modifications thereof. California Government Code Section 66474.1
states that “a Legislative body shall not deny approval of a final or parcel map if it has previously
approved a tentative map for the proposed subdivision and if it finds that the final or parcel map
is in substantial compliance with the previously approved tentative map.” The approval of a final
map is considered a ministerial action.
Appropriate securities will be submitted prior to map recordation to guarantee completion of the
required subdivision improvements as shown in the Subdivision Agreement (Attachment F). The
resolution approving the final map (Attachment G) also authorizes the Mayor to sign the
Subdivision Agreement requiring the Subdivider to complete the subdivision improvements.
Policy Context
The proposed action approving the final map is consistent with the policies set forth in the
previously referenced Municipal Code and California Government Code sections.
Public Engagement
Public notification for the tentative map and environmental document occurred with the Planning
Commission hearing on March 26, 2014. Approval of the final map is considered a ministerial
action, so a public hearing to approve the final map is not required.
Packet Pg. 24
Item 3
CONCURRENCES
The Director of Public Works and the Fire Department concur with the recommended action.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Orcutt Area Specific Plan and an associated Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)
were approved and certified in March 2010. Consistent with Public Resources Code § 21080.7,
Council determined on October 1, 2013, that no additional environmental review was required
since the tentative map is in a urbanized area, the project involves construction of housing that is
consistent with a specific plan that has a certified EIR that was adopted not more than five years
prior, and the initial study (IS) prepared for the project identified no new impacts. Both the 2010
FEIR and subsequent IS constitute the complete environmental determination for the project.
The final map is substantially in compliance with the tentative map evaluated with this prior
environmental determination.
Approval of the final map is statutorily exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to Section 15268(b)(3) Ministerial Projects (approval of final subdivision
maps) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (State CEQA Guidelines). Therefore, no
further environmental review is required.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: N/A Budget Year: N/A
Funding Identified: N/A
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding Sources Current FY Cost
Annualized
On-going Cost
Total Project
Cost
General Fund N/A*
State
Federal
Fees
Other:
Total
*There is no new fiscal impact to the City associated with approving the final map for Tract 3044.
The public improvements that will be constructed with this phase will result in an increase in
maintenance costs for the public streets, public water and sewer, and other infrastructure upon
acceptance of the improvements by the City. These costs will be shown in future Financial Plans as
the facilities are accepted and begin to require standard maintenance. The bike path connection to
Orcutt Road will be open to the public but will be privately-maintained. The subdivider is proposing
that maintenance be the responsibility of the multi-family lot owner and that owner’s management
company. The stormwater BMPs located in the street right-of-way and the drainage basin on Lot 48
(future Parcel 7 of Parcel Map SLO 17-0115) are also proposed to be maintained by the
multi-family lot owner.
Packet Pg. 25
Item 3
ALTERNATIVE
Deny approval of the final map. Denying approval of the final map can apply if findings are
made that the requirements or conditions of the tentative map have not been met or performed
(Section 66473 of the Subdivision Map Act) or if findings are made that the final map is not in
substantial compliance with the previously approved tentative map (Section 66474.1 of the
Subdivision Map Act). Because the final map is in substantial compliance with the tentative map
and all of the conditions of the map will be met or securities deposited prior to map recordation,
Sections 66474.1 and 66473 of the Subdivision Map Act require that City Council approve the
map. Therefore, denying approval of the final map is not a recommended alternative unless the
required findings are made.
Attachments:
a - Vicinity Map
b - Reading File - Resolution No. 10462 (2013 Series)
c - Reading File - Tentative Map
d - Revised Phasing Line
e - Draft Final Map
f - Subdivision Agreement
g - Draft Resolution Approving Final Map
Packet Pg. 26
Item 3
Packet Pg. 27
Item 3
Packet Pg. 28
Item 3
LICE
NS
E
D
L
A
NDSURV E Y O R
S T ATEOF
CA
L
I
F
O
R
NIA
DA
N
H
U
T
C
H
I
N
S
O
N
Ex
p
.
0
6
-
3
0
-
2
0
1
9
No
.
5
1
3
9
Packet Pg. 29
Item 3
Packet Pg. 30
Item 3
CO
N
T
R
O
L
D
I
A
G
R
A
M
SC
A
L
E
:
1
"
=
5
0
0
'
Packet Pg. 31
Item 3
SEE SHEET 5
Packet Pg. 32
Item 3
SEE SHEET 4 Packet Pg. 33
Item 3
1
SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is dated this ______ day of ___________201___ by and
between WC Taylor Ranch, LLC, a California limited liability company, herein referred to
as "Subdivider," and the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, herein referred to as the "City."
RECITALS
REFERENCE IS HEREBY MADE to that certain proposed subdivision of real
property in the City of San Luis Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, a
description of which is shown on the Final Map of Tract 3044, City of San Luis Obispo,
California, as approved by the City Council on the ____ day of ___________, 201___,
and on Parcel Map SLO 17-0115, City of San Luis Obispo, California, as approved by the
Community Development Director on the _____ day of ________________, 201___.
The Subdivider desires that said Tract 3044 and Parcel Map SLO 17-0115 be
accepted and approved as a Final Map and Parcel Map pursuant to the Subdivision
Regulations of the City of San Luis Obispo (Title 16 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal
Code), and
It is a condition of said regulations that the Subdivider agree to install the
improvements as set forth on the plans therefore.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS:
In consideration of the foregoing, the Subdivider does hereby agree to construct
and install the following subdivision improvements in accordance with said subdivision
regulations, and in accordance with approved plans and specifications on file in the office
of the City Engineer, City of San Luis Obispo, to wit:
1. CURB, GUTTERS AND SIDEWALKS
Packet Pg. 34
Item 3
2
2. STREET BASE AND SURFACING
3. WATER MAINS and SEWER MAINS, including sewer laterals to the property line
and water services to the curb stop.
4. LANDSCAPING
5. DRAINAGE STRUCTURES
6. STREET LIGHTS
7. ELECTRIC, GAS, TELEPHONE AND CABLE TELEVISION: In addition to the
inspection and approval of such facilities by the City, each public utility shall be
required to file a letter stating that the developer has properly installed all facilities to
be provided by him, and that the said utility is prepared to provide service to
residents upon request.
8. ANY & ALL OTHER IMPROVEMENTS shown on plans or required by project
approvals.
All of the above facilities shall be installed in the locations designated and to the plans and
specifications on file and approved by said City Engineer.
The lines and grades for all of said improvements shall be established by the
Subdivider in accordance with said approved plans and specifications.
The Subdivider agrees that the work of installing the above improvements shall
begin within thirty (30) days from the date of recording of the final map, and that the work
shall be completed within twelve (12) months of said recording date, unless an extension
has been granted by the City, provided that if completion of said work is delayed by acts of
God or labor disputes resulting in strike action, the Subdivider shall have an additional
period of time equivalent to such period of delay in which to complete such work. Any
extension of time hereunder shall not operate to release the surety on the Improvement
Security filed pursuant to this agreement. In this connection, the surety waives the
provisions of Section 2819 of the Civil Code of the State of California.
Packet Pg. 35
Item 3
3
No building permits will be issued nor occupancy granted after the expiration date
of the agreement until completion and acceptance of all subdivision improvements unless
specifically approved by the City.
The Subdivider does also agree to comply with the conditions established by the
City Council and has paid the necessary fees as indicated on the attached Exhibits 1
and 2.
Setting of new survey monuments or resetting of disturbed monuments shall be in
accordance with Article 5, paragraph 8771 et seq., of the Professional Land Surveyors
Act, Chapter 15 of the Business and Professions Code of the State of California.
The Subdivider attaches hereto, as an integral part hereof, and as security for the
performance of this agreement, instruments of credit or bond approved by and in favor of
the City of San Luis Obispo, and conditional upon the faithful performance of this
agreement. Said instruments of credit or bond are in the total amount of $4,480,100 which
is the amount of the estimated cost of said improvements.
Subdivider agrees to remedy any defects in the improvements arising from faulty
workmanship or materials or defective construction of said improvements occurring within
twelve (12) months after acceptance thereof. In accordance with Sections 66499.7 and
66499.9 of the Government Code of the State of California, upon final completion and
acceptance of the work, City will release all but 10% of the improvement security, that
amount being deemed sufficient to guarantee faithful performance by the Subdivider of his
obligation to remedy any defects in the improvements arising within a period of one year
following the completion and acceptance thereof.
Packet Pg. 36
Item 3
4
Completion of the work shall be deemed to have occurred on the date which the
City Council shall, by resolution duly passed and adopted, accept said improvements
according to said plans and specifications, and any approved modifications thereto.
Neither periodic nor progress inspections or approvals shall bind the City to accept said
improvements or waive any defects in the same or any breach of this agreement.
“AS-BUILT” record drawings are to be submitted within four weeks of completion of
construction and prior to City acceptance of the public improvements.
If the Subdivider fails to complete the work within the prescribed time, the
Subdivider agrees that City may, at its option, declare the instrument of credit or bond
which has been posted by Subdivider to guarantee faithful performance, forfeited and
utilize the proceeds to complete said improvements, or city may complete said
improvements and recover the full cost and expense thereof from the Subdivider or his
surety.
The Subdivider has deposited with the City a labor and materials surety in the
amount of 50% of the above described subdivision improvements ($2,240,050) in
accordance with State law .
Said Subdivider shall pay an inspection fee for City to inspect the installation of said
subdivision improvements, and to verify that they have been completed in accordance with
the plans and specifications.
If off-site dedication of property is necessary to facilitate the construction of the
required subdivision improvements, the Subdivider shall exhaust all avenues available to
acquire said off-site dedication and shall provide proof that a reasonable written offer to
purchase the property at fair market value was made, in accordance with an appraisal
Packet Pg. 37
Item 3
5
conducted by an MAI appraiser. In the event the Subdivider is unable to acquire said
property, the City Council may consider lending the Subdivider its powers of condemnation
to acquire the off-site dedication, including any necessary construction, slope, and
drainage easements. The Subdivider shall pay all costs associated with such acquisition
or condemnation proceedings including but not limited to all attorney’s fees, court costs,
expert witness fees, and jury awards of any kinds. Prior to proceeding with the
condemnation process, the Subdivider shall deposit with the City all or a portion of the
anticipated costs of the condemnation proceedings, as determined by the City
Attorney. The City does not and cannot guarantee that the necessary property rights can
be acquired or will, in fact, be acquired. All necessary procedures of law would apply and
would have to be followed. Without limiting the foregoing, the Subdivider shall indemnify,
defend and hold City harmless from and against any and all such claims, liabilities, and
causes of action of any kind, associated with City’s acquisition or condemnation of such
real property interests.
Title 16 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, entitled "Subdivision," all plans and
specifications on file with said City Engineer as a part of said Subdivision Map, and all
other documents filed with the City by the Subdivider and approved by the City Engineer
are hereby referred to for further particulars in interpreting and defining the obligations of
the Subdivider under this agreement.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9(b), the subdivider 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 subdivision, and all actions
Packet Pg. 38
Item 3
6
relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review (“Indemnified Claims”).
The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any Indemnified Claim upon being
presented with the Indemnified Claim and City shall fully cooperate in the defense against
an Indemnified Claim.
It is understood and agreed by and between the Subdivider and the City hereto that
this agreement shall bind the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of
the respective Parties to this agreement.
It is agreed that the Subdivider will furnish copies of the successful bidder's contract
unit prices and total bid prices for all of the improvements herein referred to.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement has been executed by:
SUBDIVIDER
WC Taylor Ranch, LLC
a California limited liability company
BY: JPF Capital, LLC
a California limited liability company
ITS: Sole Member
BY: ______________________________
Joshua E. Peterson, President and Treasurer
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
MAYOR Heidi Harmon
Packet Pg. 39
Item 3
7
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK Teresa Purrington
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY Christine Dietrick
Packet Pg. 40
Item 3
8
EXHIBIT 1
TRACT 3044 AND PARCEL MAP SLO 17-0115
SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
1. The Subdivider has deposited a monumentation security in the amount of $18,794 to
guarantee the installation of survey monuments in accordance with the approved maps and
payment for same. Said guarantee will be released once the installation of monuments has
been verified and that existing monuments have not been disturbed, and upon receipt by the
City of a letter from the Surveyor indicating that they have completed the work and have
been paid. Subdivider shall adhere to the requirements of California Business and
Professions Code Section 8771 with regards to monument preservation. The monumenation
security also guarantees the replacement of any monuments that were disturbed during
construction, along with filing of Records of Survey or Corner Records required by said
Section 8771.
2. Park-in-lieu fees shall be paid at time of issuance of building permit per the fee schedule
listed in the most current Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP) Public Facilities Financing Plan
(PFFP).
3. Water and sewer impact fees shall be paid at time of building permits per the fee schedule in
effect at the time the Vesting Tentative Tract Map was approved (adjusted for CPI
increases), unless the vesting rights have expired as set forth in Government Code Section
66498.5(b) through (d). If the vesting rights have expired, the fees shall be paid at the rate in
effect at time of building permits.
4. Citywide Transportation Impact Fees shall be paid at time of building permits per the fee
schedule in effect at the time the Vesting Tentative Map was approved (adjusted for CPI
increases), unless the vesting rights have expired as set forth in Government Code Section
66498.5(b) through (d). If the vesting rights have expired, the fees shall be paid at the rate in
effect at time of building permits.
5. Orcutt Area Transportation Impact Add-On Fee shall be paid at time of building permit per
the fee schedule listed in the most current OASP PFFP in effect at time of building permits.
6. The Subdivider has submitted a bond in the amount of $454,819 guaranteeing payment to
Righetti Ranch LP for their fair share of costs of constructing an off-site water line from
Cedar to Tiburon, a water main in Ranch House Road to Sponza, a recycled water main, a
sewer main in Ranch House Road from Tiburon to Sponza, and Orcutt Road east side
improvements from Fiala Property to Garay Property, including a left turn lane at Tiburon as
shown in a reimbursement agreement with Righetti Ranch LP approved by Council
Resolution No. 10812 (2017 Series) on June 20, 2017. These improvements are a
requirement of Tract 3044 to satisfy Conditions #4, #19, and #26 of Council Resolution
No. 10462 (2013 Series). Once Righetti Ranch LP constructs the improvements and the
improvements are accepted by the City, Tract 3044 shall pay their fair share as determined
by the reimbursement agreement, which could be in excess of the bonding amount. The
$454,819 bond will be released once payment to Righetti Ranch LP is made, otherwise the
City may use the bond to fully or partially reimburse Righetti Ranch LP and the Subdivider
Packet Pg. 41
Item 3
9
will be responsible for any required reimbursement amount above and beyond the bond
amount. If Righetti Ranch LP fails to construct the improvements, then Tract 3044 shall
bond for and construct the improvements prior to occupancy. If Tract 3044 constructs the
improvements, payment to Righetti Ranch LP will not be required and the $454,819 bond
can be released.
7. The subdivider shall comply with all requirements of Council Resolution No. 10462 (2013
Series) and Director’s Resolution No. 17-12 approving the tentative maps.
Packet Pg. 42
Item 3
10
EXHIBIT 2
TRACT 3044 AND PARCEL MAP SLO 17-0115 - FEE AND BOND LIST
3725 ORCUTT ROAD
Amount Form Date Received Bond Release Status
Bonds and Guarantees:
Faithful Performance for On-Site
Subdivision Improvements
(FMAP-0978-2017)
$3,832,300
xxx xxx Can be released upon City acceptance of
improvements, deposit of one-year
warranty surety, and approval of record
drawings.
Faithful Performance for Off-Site
Improvements (Orcutt Road)
(FMAP-1385-2018)
$647,800 Can be released upon City acceptance of
improvements, deposit of one-year
warranty surety, and approval of record
drawings.
Labor & Materials for On-Site
Subdivision Improvements
$1,916,150 xxx xxx Can be released 90 days after
acceptance of improvements, if no
claims. (Civil Code Section 8412)
Labor & Materials for Off-Site
Improvements (Orcutt Road)
$323,900 xxx xxx Can be released 90 days after
acceptance of improvements, if no
claims. (Civil Code Section 8412)
Monument Guarantee $18,794 CD or Letter
of Credit
xxx Can be released upon verification that
monuments have been set and surveyor
has been paid.
10% Warranty To be
collected prior
to release of
Faithful
Performance
Bonds
Can be released one-year after
acceptance of improvements, if no
defects, and approval of record
drawings.
Righetti Reimbursement Agreement $454,819 xxx xxx
Fees:
Map Check Fee Tract 3044 $21,630 Check 8/30/17
Map Check Fee Parcel Map SLO 17-0115 $9,388.69 Check 5/31/18
Plan Check Fee:
On-Site Improvements
Off-Site Improvements
Total Plan Check Fee
$44,661.42
$16,585.36
$61,246.78
Check
Check
Various
8/15/18
Improvement Plan Inspection:
On-Site Improvements
Off-Site Improvements
Total Improvement Plan Inspection Fee
$127,492.82
$34,400.45
$161,893.27
Check
Check
10/16/18
8/15/18
Park In-Lieu Fee1 To be collected with building permit
Affordable Housing Requirements See Affordable Housing Agreement
Water Impact Fee1 To be collected with building permit
Wastewater Impact Fee1 To be collected with building permit
Transportation Impact Fee1 To be collected with building permit
1 All Impact Fees are adjusted annually (July 1) based on CPI. Credit given for demolished units.
Packet Pg. 43
Item 3
R _____
RESOLUTION NO. (2019 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE FINAL MAP FOR TRACT 3044
(3725 ORCUTT ROAD, TR 137-11)
WHEREAS, the City Council made certain findings concerning the vesting tentative map for
Tract 3044, as prescribed in Resolution No. 10462 (2013 Series); and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director approved minor corrections to the
tentative map as allowed by the City Municipal Code and California Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the subdivider has requested that the Council approve the final map for
Tract 3044; and
WHEREAS, all requirements, conditions and mitigation measures required per said
Resolution No. 10462 (2013 Series) have been completed or appropriate securities will be in place
to guarantee their completion prior to map recordation; and
WHEREAS, the subdivider will submit appropriate securities to guarantee installation of
the required subdivision improvements as shown on the approved plans prior to map recordation,
and fees will be received prior to map recordation, as prescribed in the Subdivision Agreement;
and
WHEREAS, the Orcutt Area Specific Plan and an associated Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR) were approved and certified in March 2010. Consistent with Public Resources
Code § 21080.7, Council determined on October 1, 2013, that no additional environmental review
was required since the tentative map is in a urbanized area, the project involves construction of
housing that is consistent with a specific plan that has a certified EIR that was adopted not more than
five years prior, and the initial study (IS) prepared for the project identified no new impacts. Both the
2010 FEIR and subsequent IS constitute the complete environmental determination for the project;
and
WHEREAS, approval of the final map is statutorily exempt under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15268(b)(3) Ministerial Projects (approval
of final subdivision maps) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (State CEQA Guidelines).
Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. The final map for Tract 3044 is found to be in substantial compliance with the
tentative map.
Packet Pg. 44
Item 3
Resolution No. (2019 Series) Page 2
SECTION 2. Approval of the draft final map for Tract 3044 shown in Attachment E of the
staff report is hereby granted with the understanding that minor changes to the final map for technical
accuracy and condition compliance may still be needed. The Public Works Director is authorized to
approve these changes and record the map when it is deemed to be complete and all conditions and
mitigation measures are complied with.
SECTION 3. The Subdivision Agreement for Tract 3044 is approved, and the Mayor is
authorized to approve minor revisions to the agreement and execute the document in a form
substantially the same as shown in Attachment F of the staff report
SECTION 4. The Mayor and City staff are authorized to take action necessary to carry out
the intent of this resolution.
SECTION 5. Environmental Review. The Orcutt Area Specific Plan and an associated
Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) were approved and certified in March 2010. Consistent
with Public Resources Code § 21080.7, Council determined on October 1, 2013, that no additional
environmental review was required since the tentative map is in a urbanized area, the project
involves construction of housing that is consistent with a specific plan that has a certified EIR that
was adopted not more than five years prior, and the initial study (IS) prepared for the project
identified no new impacts. Both the 2010 FEIR and subsequent IS constitute the complete
environmental determination for the project. Approval of the final map is statutorily exempt under
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15268(b)(3) Ministerial
Projects (approval of final subdivision maps) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations
(State CEQA Guidelines). Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by ________________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this ______ day of _______________ 2019.
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 45
Item 3
Resolution No. (2019 Series) Page 2
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 46
Item 3
Department Name: Community Development
Cost Center: 4008
For Agenda of: January 15, 2019
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Cara Vereschagin, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: 2019 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDING
RESERVATION LETTER TO THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO AND THE SAN LUIS OBISPO NONPROFIT HOUSING
CORPORATION
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Human Relations Commission (HRC), authorize the Community
Development Director to execute the attached Reservation Letter (Attachment A) authorizing the
City to reserve the total allocation of 2019 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds
for Housing/Public Facilities/Economic Development projects, estimated in the amount of
$294,899, to the Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo (HASLO) and the San Luis Nonprofit
Housing Corporation (SLONP) for property acquisition of an existing home for housing special
needs households that are either homeless or at risk of becoming homeless.
DISCUSSION
Community Development Block Grant Background
The City’s annual CDBG review process provides Council and the public with an opportunity to
provide early input in the grant award procedure and informs the City Council on current,
community needs. One of the main objectives is to maintain an open, inclusive, and fair grant
application process.
Previous Advisory Body/City Council Action and Upcoming CDBG Process
The Human Relations Commission (HRC) advises the Council on community health and human
service needs and various grant programs. On December 5, 2018, the HRC held a public hearing
to review the 2019 CDBG draft funding recommendations with respect to the previously adopted
funding priorities by City Council on November 13, 2018. With a preliminary allocation of
$453,691, the HRC recommends funding two projects in addition to the necessary administrative
costs (Attachment B). This year, all HRC recommendations are within 84% or greater of the
amount of CDBG funds requested by each project. Those recommendations were forwarded to
the County to be included in the 2019 Draft Urban County Action Plan, where a 30-day public
review process is required. After the public review process has closed, those recommendations
will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration via a public hearing, scheduled for
February 19, 2019.
Packet Pg. 47
Item 4
HASLO/SLONP’s 2019 CDBG Application
One of the projects recommended for funding by the HRC was submitted by the Housing
Authority of San Luis Obispo (HASLO) and their affiliate, the San Luis Obispo Nonprofit
Housing Corporation (SLONP), for property acquisition of an existing home within the City of
San Luis Obispo (the “Project”). The home will be permanently reserved for special needs
households that are either homeless or at risk of becoming homeless, which will increase the
overall availability of permanent supportive housing units in the City by 10% (Attachment B).
Additionally, wrap-around services that support personal development and self-sufficiency of the
residents will be provided within the home (Attachment C). As the Project meets the first and
second funding priorities set previously by City Council, the HRC recommends funding the full
allocation of funds reserved for Housing/Public Facilities/Economic Development projects,
estimated to be $294,899, to this Project.
Special Needs Housing Property Acquisition Costs
The Project is in early stages of gathering and finalizing funding sources. HASLO/SLONP
anticipates financing the $700,000 project via the City’s CDBG allocation, along with assistance
from the County Housing Trust Fund and potentially other sources. The City’s CDBG allocation
will help secure remaining funding sources. Once the financing for the property acquisition has
been finalized, remaining costs will be minimal, as the Project will not require ongoing
City/County monies for operations or maintenance.
Policy Context
The recommendation, ultimately allowing for the Community Development Director to sign a
letter to reserve CDBG funds for this particular affordable housing project, is supported by
several goals, policies, and programs in the City’s Housing Element and the Housing Major City
Goal. For example, Policy 8.12 of the Housing Element states to “Assist the homeless and those
at risk of becoming homeless by supporting shelters, temporary housing, transitional housing,
and by facilitating general housing assistance.” The proposed Project is also supported by
Program 8.23 of the Housing Element, to “Encourage the creation of housing for persons with
developmental disabilities. The City will seek grant opportunities for housing construction and
rehabilitation specifically targeted for persons with developmental disabilities.”
Public Engagement
Public engagement for this particular item is not required per the Community Development
Block Grant guidelines. However, City Council’s consideration of the funding recommendations
will require a public hearing which is scheduled for February 19, 2019.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to the recommended action in this
report, because the action does not constitute a “Project” under CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15278.
Packet Pg. 48
Item 4
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: No Fiscal Year: 2019-2020
Funding Identified: Yes
Fiscal Analysis
Funding Sources Current FY Cost
Annualized
On-going Cost
Total Project
Cost
General Fund N/A
State
Federal
Fees
Other:
Total
It is anticipated that this item will not have a fiscal impact to the City’s General Fund, since it is
simply a recommendation to reserve an estimated future allocation of grant funding to the
project. If the City Council and the County Board of Supervisors decide to fund the Project, the
CDBG monies will go directly to HASLO/SLONP.
Decisions made regarding CDBG funding determine how the limited pool of funds the City
receives annually through the Urban County allocation process is spent. To the extent that
projects are funded through CDBG, the burden on the City’s General Fund or Affordable
Housing Fund to pay for those projects is reduced. As a result, projects that receive CDBG
funding have a positive fiscal impact on the City if they otherwise would have been paid from
alternative City funds.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council may deny the Reservation Letter and wait until February 19th to approve any
CDBG funds for HASLO/SLONP’s Special Needs Housing Project. Staff does not
recommend this alternative because it will be difficult for HASLO/SLONP to secure crucial,
alternative financing sources without a reserved commitment of CDBG funds.
2. The Council may continue consideration of authorizing the Reservation Letter. Staff does
not recommend this action because the delay in time would also affect HASLO/SLONP’s
ability to secure other needed financing sources.
Attachments:
a - CDBG Reservation Letter for SLONP
b - 2019 CDBG DRAFT Funding Allocations
c - HASLO/SLONP 2019 CDBG Application
Packet Pg. 49
Item 4
Packet Pg. 50
Item 4
2019 CDBG General
Fund
Other
Sources
No. Activity (Note 1)(Note 2)(Note 3)Total
1 40 Prado Homeless Services Center 71,623$ 68,054$ 57,000$ -$ 125,054$
SUBTOTAL, Public Services - 15% Max 71,623$ 68,054$ 57,000$ -$ 68,054$
2 Special Needs Housing Acquisition 350,000$ 294,899$ -$ -$ 294,899$
350,000$ 294,899$ -$ -$ 294,899$
3a CDBG Administration 15,879$ 15,879 -$ -$ 31,758$
3b Capacity Building 15,879$ 15,879 -$ -$
4 County of San Luis Obispo (Note 4)CDBG Administration 58,980$ 58,980$ -$ -$ 58,980$
90,738$ 90,738$ -$ -$ 90,738$
512,361$ 453,691$ 57,000$ -$ 453,691$
1 Estimated Funding for CDBG Program Year 2018: $453,691
2 Tenative General Fund allocations for FY 19-20 (Estimate based on previous awards)
3 Additional Funding (i.e. Affordable Housing Fund Awards)
4 CDBG administration funding share per the 2018-20 Cooperation Agreement
2019 CDBG DRAFT Funding Recommendations
Amount Recommended
Amount
RequestedApplicant
Community Action Partnership of San
Luis Obispo (CAPSLO)
Public Services (15% of $453,691)
Housing/Public Facilities/Economic Development
City of San Luis Obispo
SUBTOTAL, Program Admin/Planning - 20% Max
TOTAL
NOTES:
Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo
(HASLO) & San Luis Obispo Nonprofit
Housing Corporation (SLONP)
Program Administration (20% of $453,691)
City of San Luis Obispo
SUBTOTAL, Housing/Public Facilities
Page 1
Packet Pg. 51
Item 4
SLONP/HASLO CDBG APPLICATION
Permanent Supportive Housing for
Special Needs Homeless/At Risk of
Homeless
Location: San Luis Obispo
Eligible Activity: Acquisition of Vacant
Housing
Housing Our Community
Packet Pg. 52
Item 4
71 Zaca Lane, Suite 130, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 543-5970 www.slochtf.org
October 18, 2018
Delivered via email to SSmith@haslo.org
Scott Smith
Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo
487 Leff Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Support for CDBG application
Dear Mr. Smith:
The San Luis Obispo County Housing Trust Fund strongly supports HASLO’s request for CDBG funds to
purchase homes in the City of San Luis Obispo for special needs households and individuals.
Increasing the supply of affordable rental housing for lower income households is rightfully the City’s top
housing priority. Your proposal addresses this priority and it does far more.
Safe, supportive and affordable housing for our neighbors with special needs is even more critical than
affordable apartments. It is a matter of life and death for many. It is also more difficult and expensive
than simply building new apartment units. It can be just as difficult and time consuming to get the needed
approvals and financing for just one or two units of special needs housing as it is for 30 or 40 apartments.
In addition to the housing structure, you need to secure, coordinate and fund various services for the
clients who live in these homes.
HASLO has a long track record of partnering with local governments, funders and service providers to
make special needs housing successful. The Housing Trust Fund is proud to have worked with you on a
number of these projects. Incidentally, our most recent loan was for Hope House in Los Osos. We
partnered with you and Restorative Partners to provide a housing environment in which women released
from incarceration can re-enter society and reunite with their children. Kudos for your great work.
The Housing Trust Fund has always prioritized financing housing for those with special needs. We look
forward to partnering with you again to create more safe, supportive and affordable housing for those
with special needs using your new CDBG grant.
Best of luck.
Sincerely,
Gerald L. Rioux
Executive Director
Packet Pg. 50Packet Pg. 53
Item 4
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & BUILDING
HSG-1003
08/28/2018
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Program Year 2019 Application
976 OSOS STREET, ROOM 300 | SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93408 | (805) 781-5600 | TTY/TRS 7-1-1 PAGE 1 OF 22
www.sloplanning.org | actionplan@co.slo.ca.us
The County of San Luis Obispo is pleased to announce the availability of funds for the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. Applications MUST address one of the three national objectives
set by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), or they will NOT be considered for
CDBG funding (see the section on Qualifying Criteria for detailed information on the objectives).
Furthermore, completed applications should provide the necessary exhibits, budgets, or requested
information on targeted populations. Please email grant applications to ActionPlan@co.slo.ca.us by the
application deadline of 5:00 P.M., Friday, October 19, 2018. Please label your email subject with the grant
program name and the agency name (Example: CDBG – CAPSLO). *Note: Supplemental documents and
information or answers which exceed the allotted space or character limit may be added as attachments.
APPLICANT INFORMATION
(1-1) Organization Name
DUNS Number
Project Manager/Title
Phone/Fax Numbers
Email
Address
City, State, Zip
PROJECT SUMMARY
(2-1) Project/Program Title
Project/Program Address
Jurisdiction/Area Served
Targeted clientele
Project type (select one):
Public Service Public Facilities Economic Development Housing
(2-2) Brief Project Description:
(2-3) Total CDBG Funding Requested
Total Cost to Complete Project
Anticipated Start Date: Anticipated End Date:
Packet Pg. 54
Item 4
HSG-1003
08/28/2018
2019 CDBG APPLICATION
976 OSOS STREET, ROOM 300 | SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93408 | (805) 781-5600 | TTY/TRS 7-1-1 PAGE 2 OF 22
planning@co.slo.ca.us | www.sloplanning.org
AGENCY DETAILS, CAPACITY, AND EXPERIENCE (25 points)
(3-1) Type of Agency 501 (c)(3) For Profit Gov’t/Public Faith-based Other:
Date of Incorporation Annual Operating Budget
Number of Paid Staff Number of Volunteers
(3-2) Agency Mission Statement:
(3-3) Please describe your organization’s capacity to implement the proposed project/program. Who will
be involved in the project/program? (In-house employees, contractors, other agency partners, etc.) List
projects of similar size and type that your organization has completed.
Packet Pg. 55
Item 4
HSG-1003
08/28/2018
2019 CDBG APPLICATION
976 OSOS STREET, ROOM 300 | SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93408 | (805) 781-5600 | TTY/TRS 7-1-1 PAGE 3 OF 22
planning@co.slo.ca.us | www.sloplanning.org
(3-4) Briefly describe your agency’s record keeping system with relevance to the proposed project/program:
(3-5) Briefly describe your agency’s auditing requirements, including those for the proposed
project/program, and attach a copy of your most recent audit:
Packet Pg. 56
Item 4
HSG-1003
08/28/2018
2019 CDBG APPLICATION
976 OSOS STREET, ROOM 300 | SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93408 | (805) 781-5600 | TTY/TRS 7-1-1 PAGE 4 OF 22
planning@co.slo.ca.us | www.sloplanning.org
(3-6) Will the services offered by your organization increase or expand
as a result of CDBG assistance? If YES, please answer the following two
questions.
Yes No
What new programs or services will be provided?
Describe how existing programs or services will be expanded and what percentage of an increase is
expected?
(3-7) If your program serves homeless households, please describe how your program coordinates with
other homeless service providers to connect homeless individuals and families to resources.
Packet Pg. 57
Item 4
HSG-1003
08/28/2018
2019 CDBG APPLICATION
976 OSOS STREET, ROOM 300 | SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93408 | (805) 781-5600 | TTY/TRS 7-1-1 PAGE 5 OF 22
planning@co.slo.ca.us | www.sloplanning.org
QUALIFYING CRITERIA (10 points)
The Community Development Block Grant program was established by Congress in 1974 with
passage of the Housing and Community Development Act and is administered by the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This program provides funds to
municipalities and other units of government around the country to develop viable urban
communities. This is accomplished by providing affordable, decent housing, a suitable living
environment and by expanding economic opportunities principally for low and moderate income
persons. Although local units of government develop their own programs and funding priorities,
all activities must be consistent with one or more of the following HUD national objectives:
• Principally benefits low- and moderate-income persons
• Prevents or eliminates slum or blight
• Addresses an urgent need or problem in the community (e.g., natural disaster)
As an entitlement Urban County under the CDBG program, the County of San Luis Obispo receives
annual funding allocations from the federal government to fund activities to address these
national objectives.
As a funding recipient, San Luis Obispo County is required to submit an Annual Action Plan that
describes how the Urban County will utilize federal funds to address the national objectives in a
manner that will produce the greatest measurable impact on the Urban County communities. The
lead agency responsible for submission of this Plan to HUD is the Planning and Building
Department of the County of San Luis Obispo.
(4-1) Please identify the appropriate CDBG objective that applies to the proposed
project/program by checking the box next to A, B, or C. In addition, please provide a
corresponding explanation of how the proposed activity meets the national objective.
A. Objective One – Low/Moderate Income (check one):
Note: To meet this national objective, the proposed activity must benefit a specific clientele or
residents in a particular area of the County or participating city, of which at least 51 percent are low-
and moderate-income persons.
Select one:
Area Benefit – The project serves only a limited geographic area which is proven by 2010 Census
data or survey to be a predominately (51% or more) low/moderate-income area. Applicants choosing
this category must be able to prove their project/activity primarily benefits low/moderate -income
households.
Clientele – The project benefits a specific group of people, at least 51% of whom are
low/moderate-income persons. Note: Income verification for clients must be provided for this
category; however, the following groups are presumed to be low/moderate-income: abused children;
Packet Pg. 58
Item 4
HSG-1003
08/28/2018
2019 CDBG APPLICATION
976 OSOS STREET, ROOM 300 | SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93408 | (805) 781-5600 | TTY/TRS 7-1-1 PAGE 6 OF 22
planning@co.slo.ca.us | www.sloplanning.org
elderly persons; battered spouses; homeless persons; illiterate adults; adults meeting census
definition of severely disabled; persons living with AIDS; and migrant farm workers.
Housing – The project adds or improves permanent residential structures that will be/are
occupied by low/moderate-income households upon completion.
Jobs – The project creates or retains permanents jobs, at least 51% of which are taken by
low/moderate-income persons or considered to be available to low/moderate -income persons.
Assistance to Microenterprises – The project provides technical assistance to microenterprises
owned by low/moderate-income persons.
B. Objective Two – Slums or Blight
Assists in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight. Note: To meet this national objective, the
proposed activity must be within a designated slum or blighted area and must be designed to address
one or more conditions that contributed to the deterioration of the area.
Select one:
Addressing Slums or Blight on an Area Basis
Addressing Slums or Blight on a Spot Basis - This project will prevent or eliminate specific
conditions of blight or physical decay. Activities are limited to clearance, historic preservation,
rehabilitation of buildings, but only to the extent necessary to eliminate conditions detrimental to
public health and safety.
C. Objective Three – Urgent Need
Meets community development needs having a particular urgency where existing conditions pose a
serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community, and no other funding sources
are available, i.e., a major catastrophe such as a flood or earthquake. Note: To meet this national
objective, the proposed activity must deal with major catastrophes or emergencies such as floods or
earthquakes.
Please explain how the proposed activity meets the selected National Objective:
Packet Pg. 59
Item 4
HSG-1003
08/28/2018
2019 CDBG APPLICATION
976 OSOS STREET, ROOM 300 | SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93408 | (805) 781-5600 | TTY/TRS 7-1-1 PAGE 7 OF 22
planning@co.slo.ca.us | www.sloplanning.org
(4-2) Which of the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan goal(s) does your project/program plan to
address? Check all that apply.
Create housing opportunities for residents
Preserve and maintain existing affordable housing
Reduce and end homelessness
Create a suitable living environment through public services
Stabilize and revitalize diverse neighborhoods (public facility improvements)
Improve educational and job readiness
(4-3) Check any of the following eligible activity categories that apply to the proposed
project or program: (Refer to CDBG regulations and
https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/Basically-CDBG-Chapter-2-Activity.pdf )
Acquisition of real property*
Disposition of real property
Public facilities and improvements (may include acquisition, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation or
installation)*†
Privately owned utilities
Public services
Relocation of individuals, families, businesses, non-profit organizations, and/or farms
Removal of architectural barriers
Housing rehabilitation†
Homeownership assistance
Technical assistance to businesses/micro-enterprise development
Administrative technical assistance and planning studies (specified)
PROJECT DETAILS/DESCRIPTION (25 points)
(5-1) Targeted Clientele: Individuals or households? Identify the projected target population your
proposed activity will serve. (Include age, race, residency, handicap status, income level or other unit
characteristics or subgroup information)
* See relocation provisions in Exhibit A
† See lead-based paint provisions in Exhibit A
Packet Pg. 60
Item 4
HSG-1003
08/28/2018
2019 CDBG APPLICATION
976 OSOS STREET, ROOM 300 | SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93408 | (805) 781-5600 | TTY/TRS 7-1-1 PAGE 8 OF 22
planning@co.slo.ca.us | www.sloplanning.org
(5-2) If the project or program is designed specifically to provide benefit to low- and
moderate-income persons, please estimate the number of unduplicated persons (or
households) to benefit from the project, and break that estimate down by income group.
Note: Unduplicated means the number who are served, i.e., the grant will allow 25 children to participate in
preschool – not 25 children x 5 days x 52 weeks = 6,500.
(Check box if project serves households or individual
persons)
Number Households Persons
TOTAL Number of Persons or Households
(regardless of income):
Of the total number of persons or households entered above,
how many will be low-income:
(earning 51% - 80% or less of the County median-income)
Of the total number of persons or households entered above,
how many will be very low-income:
(earning 50% or less of the County median-income)
(5-3) Please describe the proposed project or program in detail. Make a case for why your project
should be funded. Describe the need and the degree of urgency for the proposed project or program. What
would the consequences be if the proposed project or program is not funded in the next year? Please attach
a timeline of the project/program milestones.
Packet Pg. 61
Item 4
HSG-1003
08/28/2018
2019 CDBG APPLICATION
976 OSOS STREET, ROOM 300 | SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93408 | (805) 781-5600 | TTY/TRS 7-1-1 PAGE 9 OF 22
planning@co.slo.ca.us | www.sloplanning.org
(5-4) Does the project require the issuance of a permit? (State, local, or federal)
Yes No
If YES, please respond to the following:
Identify the permits necessary:
Have the necessary permits been issued? Please provide proof of issuance:
If permits are required but not yet obtained, when will the permits be issued?
Packet Pg. 62
Item 4
HSG-1003
08/28/2018
2019 CDBG APPLICATION
976 OSOS STREET, ROOM 300 | SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93408 | (805) 781-5600 | TTY/TRS 7-1-1 PAGE 10 OF 22
planning@co.slo.ca.us | www.sloplanning.org
BENEFICIARY DATA (15 points)
Organizations will be asked to provide detailed beneficiary data regarding race, ethnicity, gender,
income, etc. If they cannot provide data, they may not be eligible for funding.
(6-1) How do you document and maintain income status of each client in compliance with
HUD regulations? (Example: very low (≤50% AMI) and low (≤80% AMI) Area Median Income (AMI). Please
provide a sample of your intake process as an attachment if possible.
(6-2) How do you collect demographic data on the beneficiaries of the proposed project or
program? (Example: racial/ethnic characteristics) Please provide a sample of your intake process as an
attachment if possible.
Packet Pg. 63
Item 4
HSG-1003
08/28/2018
2019 CDBG APPLICATION
976 OSOS STREET, ROOM 300 | SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93408 | (805) 781-5600 | TTY/TRS 7-1-1 PAGE 11 OF 22
planning@co.slo.ca.us | www.sloplanning.org
FINANCIAL INFORMATION (20 points)
For CDBG applications to the County of San Luis Obispo involving acquisition, construction, or
rehabilitation projects, the County will require additional information on financial source and use
of funds and other budget details prior to the draft Action Plan funding recommendations.
(7-1) How do you plan to fund the operation and maintenance costs (if any) associated with
this project? Are these funds available now? If not, when will they be available? Will the
project be required to pay a prevailing wage?
(7-2) Do you have any CDBG funds remaining from prior Fiscal Year allocations?
Yes No If YES, answer the following:
What fiscal year did you receive funding?
What project did you receive funding for?
How much is remaining?
Packet Pg. 64
Item 4
HSG-1003
08/28/2018
2019 CDBG APPLICATION
976 OSOS STREET, ROOM 300 | SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93408 | (805) 781-5600 | TTY/TRS 7-1-1 PAGE 12 OF 22
planning@co.slo.ca.us | www.sloplanning.org
(7-3) Itemize all sources of funding expected to be available for each category, if applicable
(please include commitment letters if available):
CDBG Funds Requested
Other Federal Fund(s)
State Source(s)
Local Source(s)
Title 29 Requested
Applicants Matching Funds
Other:
(7-4) Will CDBG funds be used to match/leverage other funds from other sources? List below
funding sources and amounts and identify award dates of these sources.
Source(s): Amount:
TOTAL
(7-5) Identify all jurisdictions you are applying to for CDBG funds. Indicate the amount
applied for at each jurisdiction, and the total amount requested. Note: Any project/program
being recommended less than $8,000 total will not be funded per the Cooperation Agreement.
City of Arroyo Grande
City of Atascadero
City of Morro Bay
City of Paso Robles
City of Pismo Beach
City of San Luis Obispo
County of San Luis Obispo
TOTAL
Packet Pg. 65
Item 4
HSG-1003
08/28/2018
2019 CDBG APPLICATION
976 OSOS STREET, ROOM 300 | SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93408 | (805) 781-5600 | TTY/TRS 7-1-1 PAGE 19 OF 22
planning@co.slo.ca.us | www.sloplanning.org
Exhibit A – Housing Rehab and Construction Projects
Will the affordable housing project be applying for tax credits? Yes No
If yes, what round? March June
If March was selected and if your project is identified to receive funds, will your
project require a Reservation Letter for the state tax creditors Yes No
Has NEPA been completed on this project? Yes No
What is the age of the property/building in years?
Has a property inspection report been completed if undertaking rehab? Yes No
For buildings/structures constructed prior to 1978:
Have asbestos and lead hazard risk assessment reports been issued for the facility? Yes No
Has the facility been abated for asbestos and lead paint? Yes No
Will children occupy the facility? Yes No
If yes, indicate the age range of children:
Has a Phase I or Phase II environmental assessment been conducted for the
property? If so, please provide a copy.
Yes No
List and describe any known hazards (e.g. asbestos, storage tanks – underground, aboveground):
No Rehab. This is Acquistion Only
Packet Pg. 66
Item 4
HSG-1003
08/28/2018
2019 CDBG APPLICATION
976 OSOS STREET, ROOM 300 | SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93408 | (805) 781-5600 | TTY/TRS 7-1-1 PAGE 20 OF 22
planning@co.slo.ca.us | www.sloplanning.org
Has the property been designated or been determined to be potentially eligible
for designation as a local, state, or national historic site? If Yes, describe below: Yes No
Is the building/structure located on a Historic Site? Yes No
Is the building/structure located in a Historic District? Yes No
Is the building/structure in a Flood Zone? Yes No
Is the building/structure in a Flood Plain? Yes No
Does your agency have flood insurance? Yes No
Will there be demolition required? Yes No
The questions below ask about zoning. If zoning information is not known, contact the local municipality
to request assistance.
What is the project structure type?
Residential Commercial Public facility Public right-of-way
What is the current zoning of the project site?
Is the project site zoned correctly for the proposed
activity? Yes No
If no, provide below an explanation of efforts and a timetable to change the zoning or obtain a variance:
Packet Pg. 67
Item 4
HSG-1003
08/28/2018
2019 CDBG APPLICATION
976 OSOS STREET, ROOM 300 | SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93408 | (805) 781-5600 | TTY/TRS 7-1-1 PAGE 21 OF 22
planning@co.slo.ca.us | www.sloplanning.org
B.15. Does the project require temporary/permanent relocation of occupants? Yes No
If yes, this project is subject to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act (URA). Describe the relocation plans, including timetable and notifications to occupants.
List how many of the occupied units are: (a) owner-occupied; (b) renter-occupied; or (c) businesses.
Indicate whether temporary and/or permanent displacement is required. [NOTE: This will be for site
information only. Relocation activities will not be eligible for funding with Fiscal Year 2018 CDBG
funds.]
Packet Pg. 68
Item 4
HSG-1003
08/28/2018
2019 CDBG APPLICATION
976 OSOS STREET, ROOM 300 | SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93408 | (805) 781-5600 | TTY/TRS 7-1-1 PAGE 22 OF 22
planning@co.slo.ca.us | www.sloplanning.org
Federal regulations require that all facilities and/or services assisted with CDBG funds be accessible to the
disabled. Accessibility includes such things as: entrance ramps, parking with universal logo signage,
grab bars around commodes and showers, top of toilet seats that meet required height from the
floor, drain lines under lavatory sink either wrapped or insulated, space for wheelchair
maneuverability, accessible water fountains, access between floors (elevators, ramps, lifts), and
other improvements needed to assure full access to funded facilities/programs, incl uding serving
the blind and deaf.
Describe below whether the project currently meets ADA standards for accessibility by the disabled. If
not, describe the accessibility problems and methods to be utilized to address the problems,
including funding and timetable.
Packet Pg. 69
Item 4
2019 CDBG APPLICATION
(7-6) Please list expenditures under CDBG by item or cost category, and attach a timeline of
the expenditures.
Housing Acquisition
FEDERAL REQU I REMENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Every person or Agency awarded a 2019 CDBG Contract or grant by San Luis Obispo County for the
provision of services shall be required to certify to the County that they will comply with federal and local
requirements including, but not limited to, those listed below. Please initialeach ceftification listed to
indicate you or your agency can and will comply with these requirements if funded,
Affirmative Marketing
Americans with
Disabilities Act
Quarterly and annual repofts shall be submitted by the
project/program manager to the County for CDBG-funded public
services and housing projects. Each report shall include the total
number of project/program applicants and clients served with
respect to race, ethnicity, gender, and disability status' Affirmative
marketing efforts shall be taken to increase the participation of any
$350,000
Federal Requirements
TOTAL
underserved groups,
Certify that this agency has reviewed its projects, programs and
services for compliance with all applicable regulations contained in
Title ll, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,
Civil Rights Act
Agrees to have an annual audit conducted in accordance with
current San Luis Obispo County policy regarding audits and 2 CFR
200,501 audit requirements. Shall comply with current San Luis
Obispo County policy concerning the purchase of equipment and
shall maintain inventory records of all non-expendable personal
property as defined by such policy as may be procured with funds
976 OSOS SIREET, ROOM 300 | SAN LUIS OBISPO, C493408 | (805) 781-s600 I TTY/TRS 7-1-1
planning@co.slo,ca.us I www.sloplanning.org
rovided through the grant,
Certifu that it complies with and prohibits discrimination
accordance with Title Vl of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
lnitials
PAGE 13 OF 22
Packet Pg. 70
Item 4
20'19 CDBG APPLICATION
Conflict of lnterest (2 CFR 200.112,200.318, and 570,611) CeftiÛ and agree that no
covered persons who exercise or have exercised any functions or
responsibilities with respect to CDBG-assisted activity, or who are in
a position to participate in a decision-making process or gain inside
information with regard to such activities, may obtain a financial
interest in any contract, or have a financial interest in any contract,
subcontract, or agreement with respect to the CDBG-assisted
activity, either for themselves or those with whom they have
business or immediate family ties, during their tenure or for a period
of one (1 ) year thereafter. A "covered person" includes any person
who is an employee, agent, consultant, officer, or elected or
Debarment Status of
Contractors
Drug-Free Workplace
appointed official of the agenc
Environmental
Review
Certify that, to the best of its knowledge and beliel that it and its
principals will not knowingly enter into any subcontract with a
person who is, or organization that is, debarred, suspended,
proposed for debarment, or declared ineligible from award of
contracts by any Federal agency
(https://www,sa m, gov/po rta l/pu bl i c/SAM/)
Certify that it will provide a drug-free workplace.
Prior to HUD's release of grant conditions and/or funds for the
CDBG-funded project, a review of the project's potential impact on
the environment must be conducted and approved by the County of
San Luis Obispo prior to obligating or incurring project costs, The
County must certify to HUD that it has complied with all applicable
environmental procedures and requirements. Should project costs
be obligated or incurred prior to the completion of the necessary
environmental review, the project shall not benefit from the federal
funds, The level of environmental review required depends on the
nature of the project. 24 CFR Part 58 is available at
Financial
Management
http://www.hud,gov/offi ces/pih/i h/codetal k/ona p I docs/24cf r58
Accounting Standards: Agrees to comply with 2 CFR 200(EXF) and
agrees to adhere to the accounting principles and procedures
required therein, utilize adequate internal controls, and maintain
necessary source documentation for all costs incurred.
Cost Principles: Shall administer its program in conformance with 2
CFR 200(E), "Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations," or 2 CFR
225,"Cosl Principles for State and Local Governments," as applicable.
These principles shall be applied for all costs incurred whether
976 OSOS STREET, ROOM 300 | SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93408 | (805) 781-s600 | TTY/TRS 7-1-1
p!-anning@co.slo.ca.us I www.sloplanning'org
charged on a direct or indirect basis.
Procurement Policies: Certify and agree to
property, or services in accordance with the
200.320-326.
procure all materials,
requirements of 2 CFR
PAGE 14 OT 22
Packet Pg. 71
Item 4
2019 CDBG APPLICATION
HMIS Repofting All homeless seruice providers applying for CDBG funds to assist,
house, or shelter the homeless must identify and demonstrate the
capacity to participate in the County of San Luis Obispo Homeless
Management lnformation System (HMIS) to provide: personnelfor
data entry, user licensing, and hardware and software necessary for
compatibility with HMIS. HMIS is an electronic data collection system
that stores client level information about persons who access the
homeless services system in a Continuum of Care, and reports
aggregate data for the County as per HUD's Data Standards, HUD
updated its data standards in2014, and the new standards are in
effect as of October 1,2014. More information can be found at
https://www.hudexchange,info/resources/docu ments/H M lS-Data-
Standarcls-Manual.pdf and
https://www, hudexchange.info/resou rces/d ocu ments/H M lS-Data-
Liability
Lobbying Activities
The County and cities require all grant recipients to maintain general
liability, automobile and workman's compensation insurance with
limits of not less than $1 million (may vary by jurisdiction). lf you are
successful in obtaining a reward, you will be asked to provide
documentation regarding your ability to provide the required
Certify that no Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be
paid, by or on behalf of the agency, to any person for influencing or
attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a
Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an
employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding
of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making
of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement,
and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or
modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan or cooperative
Lobbying Disclosure The undersigned certifies to the best of his or her knowledge and
beliel that:
A, No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by
or on behalf of the Subrecipient, to any person for influencing or
attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a
Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an
employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding
of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making
of any Federal loan, the entering into a cooperative agreement, and
ement,
976 OSOS SIREET, ROOM 300 | SAN LU lS OBISPO, CA 93408 | (805) 781-s600 | TTY/TRS 7-1-1
planning@co.slo.ea,us I www.sloplanninS'org
the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of
PAGE15OF22
Packet Pg. 72
Item 4
2019 CDBG APPLICATION
any Federal contract, grant loan, or cooperative agreement in
accordance with the Department of lnterior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, known as the Byrd Amendments, and HUD'S 24
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 87.
B. lf any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid
or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to
influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of
Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a
member of Congress in connection with this federal contract, grant,
loan, or cooperative agreement, the Subrecipient shall complete and
submit Standard Form LL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in
accordance with its instructions, and other federal disclosure forms
as requested,
C. The Subrecipient shall require that the language of this
certification be included in the award documents for all subawards
at alltiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under
grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients
shall certify and disclose accordingly.
This certification is a material representation of fact upon which
reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into.
Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or
entering into this transaction imposed by Section 1352, Title 3'1, U,S,
Code, Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be
subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than
Mandatory Disclosure
$100,000 for each such failure,
The non-Federal entity or applicant for a Federal award must
disclose, in a timely manner*, in writing to the Federal awarding
agency or pass-through entity all violations of Federal criminal law
involving fraud, bribery, or gratuity violations, potentially affecting
the Federal award, Failure to make required disclosures can result in
any of the remedies described in 2 CFR 200.338 (Remedies for
Noncompliance), including suspension or debarment, (See also 2 CFR
Part 'l 80 and 31 USC 3321). Limit one violation per form' The
subrecipient acknowledges that the completion and submission of
this form will satisfy the requirement in 2 CFR 200.1 13 (Mandatory
Disclosure) and will be done at the time of subrecipient agreement
Minority Business
Enterprise (MBE),
Women's Business
976 OSOS STREET, ROOM 300 | SAN LUIS OBlSPO, CA 93408 | (80s) 781-s600 I TTY/TRS 7-1-1
planning@co.slo.ca.us I www.sloplanninS'org
execution with the CountY,
Certify that it will comply with 2 CFR 200.321 to take all necessary
affirmative steps to assure that minority firms, women business
enterprises, and labor surplus area firms are used when possible.
PAGE16OF22
Packet Pg. 73
Item 4
2019 CDBG APPLICATION
Enterprise (WBE),
Small Business
Contracting
Real Property
Further certify that it will submit to San Luis Obispo County at the
time of project completion a report of the MBE and WBE status of all
subcontractors to be paid with CDBG funds with contracts of $10,000
Religious Activities
Relocation
or greater, in a format that will be provided by the County.
Certify that it will comply with real property standards (24 CFR Part
570,505) applicable to any property within the owner's control that is
acquired or improved in whole or in part using CDBG funds in excess
of $25,000.
Certiñ7 and agree that funds provided to the agency will not be
utilized for inherently religious activities prohibited by 24 CFR
570.200(i), such as worship, religious instruction, or proselytization.
Any project that involves the acquisition of property, construction,
and/or rehabilitation and that is funded in whole or in part with
federal CDBG funds is subject to federal relocation requirements, ln
general, any property owner, commercial business, or residential
occupant who is displaced by a HUD-funded project may be eligible
for relocation benefits, A project cannot be broken into separate
"projects" in order to avoid the federal requirements connected with
property acquisition and relocation. Any questions concerning the
relocation regulations for a specific property acquisition project
should be directed to the County Housing and Economic
Section 3
Development staff before anv action is taken on the project.
Certify and agree to ensure that opportunities for training and
employment arising in connection with contracts or subcontracts for
a housing rehabilitation (including reduction and abatement of lead-
based paint hazards), housing construction, or other public
construction project are given to low- and very low-income persons
residing within the metropolitan area in which the CDBG-funded
project is located; where feasible, priority should be given to low-
and very low-income persons within the service area of the project
or the neighborhood in which the project is located, and to low- and
very low-income participants in other HUD programs; and award
contracts for work undeftaken in connection with a housing
rehabilitation (including reduction and abatement of lead-based
paint hazards), housing construction, or other public construction
project to business concerns that provide economic opportunities
for low- and very low-income persons residing within the
metropolitan area in which the CDBG-funded project is located;
where feasible, priority should be given to business concerns that
provide economic opportunities to low- and very low-income
residents within the service area or the neighborhood in which the
project is located, and to low- and very low-income participants in
976 OSOS STREEI, ROOM 300 | SAN LUlS OBISPO, CA 93408 | (80s) 781-5600 I TTY/TRS 7-1-1
planning@co.slo.ca.us I www.sloplanning.org
other HUD programs.
PAGE 17 OF 22
Packet Pg. 74
Item 4
2019 CDBG APPLICATION
Section 504
Do not hesitate to contact Tony Navarro at: tnavarro@co.slo.ca.us, or by phone at 805-781 -5787 if
you have any questions.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973: Certify that it has read
and understands all of its obligations under Section 504 to prohibit
discrimination against persons with disabilities in the operation of
roqra ms receivi ng federal fi nancia I assista nce.
I certify
Sign
Scott
rmation in th ion is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and ability,
Printed or
SLONP/HASLO
/a -/g' / ø
DATE
10t18118
976 OSOS STREET, ROOM 300 | SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93408 | (805) 781-5600 | TTY/TRS 7-1-1
planning@co.slo,ca.us I www.sloplanning'org
Title
PAGE 18 QI22
Packet Pg. 75
Item 4
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg. 76
Item 4
Department Name: Utilities
Cost Center: 6001
For Agenda of: January 15, 2019
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Aaron Floyd, Interim Utilities Director
Prepared By: Jennifer Metz, Utilities Projects Manager
SUBJECT: 2018 WATER RESOURCES STATUS REPORT
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file the 2018 Water Resources Status Report.
DISCUSSION
The 2018 Water Resources Status Report (2018 Report;
Attachment A) provides an overview and update on the
City's water resources. This report covers Water Year 2018;
which extends from October 1, 2017 through September 30,
2018. Highlights from the 2018 Report include:
1. In April, the City Council approved Resolution 10878
authorizing participation in Pacific Gas and Electric’s
(PG&E’s) Sustainable Solutions Turnkey Program for
the Water Energy Efficiency Project.
2. In May, the City Council approved text amendments to
the City’s Water and Wastewater Management Element
of the General Plan. The primary focus of the
amendment was to update water supply information
from the City’s safe annual yield model for Salinas and
Whale Rock Reservoirs to address longer and more
intense droughts in California to water supplies as a
result of climate change. This action reduced the City’s
annual water supply availability from 12,115-acre feet to 10,130-acre feet for 2018.
3. In August, the California Department of Water Resources published Making Water Conservation a
California Way of Life to summarize the requirements of two new policy bills – Senate Bill (SB) 606
and Assembly Bill (AB) 1668. These bills establish a new foundation for long-term improvements in
water conservation and drought planning to adapt to climate change and the resulting longer and more
intense droughts in California.
4. Also, in August, the City submitted a Con cept Proposal for the Proposition 1 Groundwater Grant
Program. The City has received notice from the State Water Resources Control Board inviting
submittal a full proposal for consideration in 2019.
5. Per capita water use increased from 91 gallons per capit a per day in Water Year 2017 to 100
gallons per capita per day in Water Year 2018.
Packet Pg. 77
Item 5
6. Use of recycled water for construction purposes increased from 19-acre feet in Water Year 2017 to
36-acre feet in Water Year 2018.
Table 1: Water Year 2018 Summary
Water Year 2018 Summary
Total Water Use: 5,225 acre feet
Potable Water Use 4,981 acre feet
Recycled Water Use 244 acre feet
2018 Population 46,548
Per Capita Demand Per Day (Potable Only) 100 gallons
Water Projection Model (as of September 30, 2018) >5 years of supply
Water Resource Availability:
Salinas & Whale Rock Reservoirs 4,910 acre feet
Nacimiento Reservoir 5,482 acre feet
Recycled Water (from 2017) 1 238 acre feet
Siltation (from 2010 to 2060) (500 acre feet)
Total: 10,130 acre feet
Water Supply Accounting:
Primary Water Supply 2 7,496 acre feet
Reliability Reserve 3 1,220 acre feet
Secondary Water Supply 4 1,414 acre feet
NOTES:
1. The quantity of recycled water included here is the actual prior year’s recycled water usage
(calendar year 2017) per General Plan Policy A 7.2.2.
2. Per General Plan Policy A 5.2.2, primary water supply is the amount of water needed for
General Plan build-out using the water use rate established by policy A 5.2.1 (117 gpcd).
3. Per General Plan Policy A 5.2.3, reliability reserve that is 20-percent of the water use rate
established in Policy A 5.2.1 multiplied by the City’s current population (46,548 in 2018).
4. Per General Plan Policy A 5.2.4, secondary water supply is the remaining City water supply
available after accounting for primary water supply and a reliability reserve.
5. Values are rounded.
Regional Water Planning
On January 8, 2018, the City provided comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR) for the 2035 Cal Poly Master Plan related to water supply and other potential impact
areas. Since that time, City staff has worked with Cal Poly to help them better evaluate and
understand their future water needs. City staff and the Cal Poly team have mutually surfaced a
broad range of regional water supply opportunities to serve Cal Poly’s future growth and
increase the resiliency and redundancy of both City and Cal Poly water supplies. Cal Poly is
conducting further feasibility analysis on top alternatives and anticipates recirculation of the
DEIR for the Master Plan in 2019. The DEIR will discuss all of the alternatives evaluated and
focus on five that have been identified that can provide adequate water supply to meet future
water demand estimates to support build-out of the Master Plan.
Packet Pg. 78
Item 5
Policy Context
The 2018 Report was prepared in accordance with the General Plan, Water and Wastewater Management
Element, Policy A5.3.11.
Public Engagement
Annual Water Resources Status Reports have been provided to the City Council and community since
1985 and serve to both inform future policy decisions as well as provide historical documentation of
water conditions.
CONCURRENCES
Community Development concurs with the environmental review findings.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The 2018 Report is not a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), because the
action does not involve any commitment to a specific project which may result in a potentially significant
physical impact on the environment, as contemplated by Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section
15378.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: FY 18-19
Funding Identified: Yes
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding Sources Current FY Cost Annualized
On-going Cost Total Project Cost
General Fund
State
Federal
Fees
Other: Water Fund N/A*
Total
* The Utilities Department prepares annual Water Resources Status Reports using in-house staffing resources. All applicable cost,
mainly attributed to staff time, are an integral part of the Water Fund budget and fully accounted for in the 2018-19 Financial Plan
supplement. The annual Water Resources Status Report is posted online, and no printing charges are budgeted for the
reproduction of the report.
1 5.3.1 An update on water supply accounting and demand projections will be presented to the City Council as part
of the annual Water Resources Status Report.
Packet Pg. 79
Item 5
ALTERNATIVE
The City Council could elect not to receive and file the 2018 Report and provide direction to staff on
desired modifications. Staff does not recommend this alternative, as the Report was prepared in
compliance with General Plan, Water and Wastewater Management Element, Policy A5.3.1.
Attachments:
a - 2018 Water Resources Status Report
Packet Pg. 80
Item 5
2018 Water Resources Status Report
For the Time Period October 1, 2017 through September 30, 2018
Prepared by the Water Division of the City of San Luis Obispo, Utilities Department
Packet Pg. 81
Item 5
City of San Luis Obispo
2018 Water Resources Status Report
Page 2
The City’s 2018 Water Resources Status Report was prepared in accordance with the General Plan, Water
and Wastewater Management Element, Policy A5.3.1. The reporting period corresponds to the Water
Year (October 1, 2017 through September 30, 2018), the 12-month period for which precipitation totals
are measured designated by the calendar year in which it ends. This report for Water Year 2018 is organized
as follows:
I. Water Projects and Policy Update
II. Water Supply
III. Water Demand
IV. Water Resource Availability
V. Water Supply Accounting
I. WATER PROJECTS AND POLICY UPDATE
2018 Update to General Plan, Water and Wastewater Management Element
In May 2018, the City Council approved text amendments to the City’s Water and Wastewater
Management Element (WWME) of the General Plan. The primary focus of the amendment was to provide
updated water supply information from the City’s safe annual yield model. No policy changes were made
as part of the amendment.
The City defines the terminology “safe annual yield” as the amount of water which can be reliably
withdrawn annually from coordinated operation of Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs. A previous key
assumption used in the model was the "controlling drought period" from 1986-1991. The 2018 update to
the safe annual yield model added data from the most recent drought that ended in 2016 consistent with
WWME program A 3.3.2 and analyzed three climate change scenarios. Based on the updated modeling
and analysis of climate change scenarios, safe annual yield from Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs was
reduced from 6,940-acre feet to 4,910-acre feet as part of the amendment.
Change in Annual Water Supply Availability
2017 Annual
Availability
2018 Annual
Availability
Salinas Reservoir and
Whale Rock Reservoir 6,940 AF 4,910 AF1
Nacimiento Reservoir 5,482 AF 5,482 AF
Recycled Water 193 AF 238 AF
Siltation to 2060 (500 AF) (500 AF)
TOTAL 12,115 AF 10,130 AF
NOTES:
1. Reflects reduction in Safe Annual Yield as determined by the City’s model.
2. Water supply accounting data is in “AF” or acre feet.
Although this is a significant reduction in the safe annual yield from these reservoirs, the City has a multi-
source water supply to meet the City’s future water demand. Data provided in Section IV of this report on
Water Resource Availability, reflects the updated WWME.
Packet Pg. 82
Item 5
City of San Luis Obispo
2018 Water Resources Status Report
Page 3
Water Resiliency Planning – Water Energy Efficiency Project
The City declared Climate Action a Major City Goal in the 2017-19 Financial Plan and identified objectives
focused on energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reductions within City facilities, such as the City’s Water
Treatment Plant. In April, the City Council approved Resolution 10878 authorizing participation in Pacific
Gas and Electric’s Sustainable Solutions Turnkey Program for the Water Energy Efficiency Project. The
Project is analyzing both the use of photovoltaic panels and a hydropower turbine that would convert the
energy in the high-pressure water line from Nacimiento Reservoir into electricity. The electricity
generated would offset the Water Treatment Plant’s overall power demand (Water = Energy). The Project
is also assessing pump efficiencies within the Water Treatment Plant, the primary disinfection system,
water quality in storage tanks, water distribution main inter-ties between service zones, and settings of
related controls needed for control system (SCADA-Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) integration.
Recommendations will be presented to the City Council in 2019 on alternative energy generation
opportunities as well as replacing aging infrastructure in a holistic manner from the surface water source,
to the treatment plant, and within the distribution system.
Water = Energy
Water Energy Efficiency Project, 2018.
Packet Pg. 83
Item 5
City of San Luis Obispo
2018 Water Resources Status Report
Page 4
2018 State Legislation on Water Conservation and Drought Planning
The California State Legislature (Legislature) enacted two
policy bills in 2018 – Senate Bill (SB) 606 and Assembly
Bill (AB) 1668 – to establish a new foundation for long-
term improvements in water conservation and drought
planning to adapt to climate change and the resulting
longer and more intense droughts in California. These
two bills amend existing law to provide expanded and
new authorities and requirements to enable permanent
changes and actions for those purposes, improving the
state's water future for generations to come.
In August 2018, the State made the Public Review Draft
of Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life
available addressing the four primary goals in Executive
Order B-37-16 and the 2017 Framework:
(1) use water more wisely,
(2) eliminate water waste,
(3) strengthen local drought resilience, and
(4) improve agricultural water use efficiency
and drought planning.
Goals 1 through 3 will apply to the City’s water planning.
The bills include changes in Urban Water Management
Plan (UWMP) preparation requirements as well as
schedule and content provisions for the most critical
reporting requirement – the annual water use report.
Under the new authorities and requirements, the City
would be required to prepare, adopt, and submit a Water
Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) and conduct a
Drought Risk Assessment (DRA) every five years in
addition to conducting an annual water supply and
demand assessment. The City already has adopted a
WSCP and prepares this WRSR annually. However, these
documents will need to align with new State
requirements with the 2020 update to the City’s UWMP.
Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life is
available at the following link:
https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-
Pages/Programs/Water-Use-And-Efficiency/Make-Water-
Conservation-A-California-Way-of-Life/Files/PDFs/Primer-of-
2018-Legislation-on-Water-Conservation-and-Drought-
Planning.pdf
Packet Pg. 84
Item 5
City of San Luis Obispo
2018 Water Resources Status Report
Page 5
II. WATER SUPPLY
Per the General Plan Water and Wastewater Management Element,
Policy A2.2.1, the City uses multiple water sources to meet its water
supply needs. The City has four primary water supply sources including
Whale Rock Reservoir, Salinas Reservoir, Nacimiento Reservoir, and
supplies recycled water for landscape irrigation and construction water.
Groundwater serves as a fifth supplemental source. The supply per
source for Water Year 2018 (from October 1, 2017 to September 30,
2018) is summarized below.
2018 City Water Supply by Source (Acre Feet)
Nacimiento
Reservoir
Whale Rock
Reservoir 2
Recycled
Water
Salinas
Reservoir Groundwater 3 Total City Water
Demand
3,848 410 244 723 0 5,225
73% 8% 5% 14% 0% 100%
Notes:
1. Values are rounded.
2. Water delivered to Cal Poly State University is excluded from the City’s water demand.
3. Groundwater was not used for potable purposes during Water Year 2018.
During Water Year 2018, 73 percent of the City’s total water demand was met by Nacimiento Reservoir.
San Luis Obispo County operates and maintains the water delivery system from Nacimiento Reservoir to
participating agencies (currently the cities of Paso Robles and San Luis Obispo, Atascadero Mutual Water
Company, Templeton Community Services District, County Service Area 10A [Cayucos], Santa Margarita
Ranch, and Bella Vista Mobile Home Park). The Nacimiento Project Commission provides oversight to
project operations, maintenance, and the project budget. The Commission is made up of representatives
from each of the four agencies’ governing boards and a County Representative who is a member of the
County Board of Supervisors which also sits as the Board of Directors for the Flood Control District.
During Water Year 2018, the City utilized a total of 1,133-acre feet from Salinas and Whale Rock reservoirs,
meeting 22 percent of total City water demand. The City pays the County of San Luis Obispo Flood Control
and Water Conservation District (County) to provide oversight, operations, and maintenance of the Salinas
Reservoir and related water delivery facilities. The City provides the oversight, operations, and
maintenance of the Whale Rock Reservoir for the benefit of the Whale Rock Commission, a joint powers
agency made up of Cal Poly State University, California Men’s Colony, and the City.
For Water Year 2018, the City delivered 244-acre feet of recycled water for
landscape irrigation and construction water, up from 229-acre feet in Water
Year 2017 and five percent of total City water demand. New recycled water
customers include the Homeless Services Center located on Prado Road and
the new Park and Ride located on Calle Joaquin. Construction water use
increased from 19-acre feet in Water Year 2017 to 36-acre feet in Water
Year 2018.
The design phase for the City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) Project continued through Water
Year 2018. Construction of the Project is planned to begin in 2019 and will take approximately three years.
When complete, the new technology used at the WRRF will reduce overall treatment time from
approximately 28 hours to eight hours.
City of San Luis Obispo
Water Supply Sources
✓ Nacimiento Reservoir
✓ Whale Rock Reservoir
✓ Recycled Water
✓ Salinas Reservoir
✓ Groundwater
Recycled Water
for Construction
(in acre feet)
2017 2018
19 36
Note: Values are rounded.
Packet Pg. 85
Item 5
City of San Luis Obispo
2018 Water Resources Status Report
Page 6
With increasing demand for recycled water, the City has developed a recycled water production model to
simulate future recycled water supply and demand. This model will assist in developing parameters for
how much recycled water is available for in-City customers and excess recycled water that may be
available for outside-City deliveries.
Although the City stopped using groundwater for potable purposes in April 2015, groundwater wells
remain in an operable, stand-by position should the use of groundwater be required. During Water Year
2018, the City continued its work with a hydrogeologist to site a future well field for a potential
groundwater program expansion. The City submitted a Concept Proposal in August 2018, to be
considered for the Proposition 1 Groundwater Grant Program. The City received notice from the State
Water Resources Control Board invit ing the City to submit a full proposal for consideration in 2019.
The City’s permit program for the use of the Corporation Yard well expired December 31, 2018 and the
well will be closed to the public starting January 1, 2019. After several years of close coordination with
County of San Luis Obispo Public Works staff, a County-owned potable water filling station is scheduled
to open to the public on January 1, 2019. This filling station is intended to supply the needs of those
currently utilizing the City’s Corporation Yard well.
III. WATER DEMAND
During Water Year 2018, 62 percent of total water use in the City was to support single and multi-family
residential uses, 24 percent was to support commercial and other non-residential development, and 14
percent was to support landscape irrigation that is separately metered. Historical water use is summarized
below, as well as corresponding population, per capita use rate, and rainfall. The 2018 per capita water
use was 100 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). Per capita water use is calculated by dividing total water
use in the City by the City’s population. Total water use includes residential and daytime population needs
for all uses such as restaurants, hotels, industrial/manufacturing, government/schools, and irrigation.
Based on the City’s General Plan Water and Wastewater Management Element policies, the City uses a
factor of 117 gpcd to project water required to serve the General Plan’s estimated population in 2035.
Population, Water Use, and Rainfall
Year Population3 Total Water Use (acre
feet)
Per Capita Water Use
(gpcd) Rainfall1,2 (inches)
2009 44,829 6,134 122 18.9
2010 44,948 5,489 109 36.0
2011 45,418 5,285 104 18.9
2012 45,308 5,541 109 21.5
2013 45,541 5,892 116 3.8
2014 45,473 5,524 109 14.2
2015 45,802 4,990 97 11.8
2016 46,117 4,731 92 17.8
2017 46,424 4,975 95 35.1
2018 46,548 5,225 100 12.9
NOTES:
1. Rainfall for 20 09 through 2012 calendar year source was from Cal Poly CIMIS Weather Stati on. Rainfall for calendar year
2013 through 2018 was from SLO Reser voir.
2. Rainfall data for 2009 through 2014 is for the calendar year; 2015 through 2018 data covers the Water Year (October through
September).
3. Population data is available at: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-1/
Packet Pg. 86
Item 5
City of San Luis Obispo
2018 Water Resources Status Report
Page 7
The City’s water supply reservoirs are in different watersheds, therefore rainfall at various locations within
San Luis Obispo County benefits the City. During Water Year 2018, the majority of area rainfall occurred
in March. All reservoir locations received less than the annual average during Water Year 2018.
Water Year 2018 Rainfall Totals
Rainfall Measurement
Location Watershed
Annual Average
Rainfall
(in inches)
Water Year 2018
Total Rainfall
(in inches)
Rocky Butte Nacimiento Reservoir 40 29.4
Hwy 46 and W 7 Mile Road,
Cambria, CA Whale Rock Reservoir 30 16.9
SLO Reservoir City 24 12.9
Salinas Dam Salinas Reservoir 22 12.3
Source: https://wr.slocountywater.org/list.php?sensor_class=11&mode=sensor&cache=1&refresh=off
IV. WATER RESOURCE AVAILABILITY
The following table summarizes the Water Resource Availability based on Water and Wastewater
Management Element, Section 3. Water availability for 2018 is 10,130-acre feet.
2018 Water Resource Availability
Water Resource Acre Feet Description
Salinas & Whale Rock Reservoirs 4,910 Safe Annual Yield 1
Nacimiento Reservoir 5,482 Dependable Yield 2
Recycled Water 238 2017 Annual Usage 3
Siltation from 2010 to 2060 (500) WWME Policy A 4.2.2 4
10,130 2018 Annual Availability
NOTES:
1. The City’s Safe Annual Yield model was updated in 2018.
2. Dependable Yield is the contractual amount of water the City has rights to from
Nacimiento Reservoir.
3. The quantity of recycled water included is the actual prior year’s recycled water usage
(calendar year 2017) per General Plan Water and Wastewater Management Element
Policy A 7.2.2.
4. Reservoir siltation is a natural occurrence that reduces storage capacity over long periods,
resulting in the reduction of safe annual yield.
Packet Pg. 87
Item 5
City of San Luis Obispo
2018 Water Resources Status Report
Page 8
V. WATER SUPPLY ACCOUNTING
Per General Plan Water and Wastewater Management
Element, Section 5, the City accounts for water supplies
necessary to meet three specific community needs:
• Primary water supply
• Reliability reserve
• Secondary water supply
The City’s primary water supply is defined as the amount of
water needed to serve the build-out population identified
in the General Plan, Land Use Element (2014). Table 3 in the
Land Use Element identifies an urban reserve capacity of
57,200 people. The quantity of water needed for the
primary water supply is calculated per WWME Policy A
5.2.2, using 117 gallons per capita per day (gpcd).
The City’s reliability reserve provides a buffer for future
unforeseen or unpredictable long-term water supply
impacts. The quantity of water for the reliability reserve is
defined in WWME Policy A 5.2.3, using 20 percent of the
existing City population (46,548, 2018 population) at 117
gpcd. The reliability reserve will change over time as the
City’s population changes. The reliability reserve concept is
included in the City’s Charter (Section 909) which identifies
that the water may not be used to serve future
development.
The City’s secondary water supply is the amount of water remaining from available water resources above
those needed to meet the primary water supply and reliability reserve. The secondary supply is identified
to meet peak water demand periods or short-term loss of City water supply sources, per General Plan
Water and Wastewater Management Element, Policy A 5.2.4. The amendment to the City’s WWME to
reflect the update to the City’s Safe Annual Yield model, discussed in Section I of this report, led to the
reduction in the City’s available secondary water supply for Water Year 2018.
Water supply accounting is summarized in the table below .
2018 Water Supply Accounting (acre feet)
Total Primary Water Supply Reliability Reserve Secondary Water Supply
10,130 7,496 1,220 1,414
In summary, despite a significant reduction in safe annual yield from the combined operation of Whale
Rock and Salinas Reservoirs, the City maintains a robust water supply portfolio with greater than five years
of water available. Per capita water use (obtained from adding up all water used by visitors, residents,
commercial uses, etc.) has increased to 100 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) from 95 gpcd the prior year.
Recycled water use continues to rise over time.
Primary Water Supply
= 117 gpcd x City Build-out Population
= 117 gpcd x 57,200 x 365 day/year x
Acre-Ft/325,851 gal
7,496 Acre-Ft/year
Reliability Reserve
= 117 gpcd x City Population x 20 percent
= 117 gpcd x 46,548 x 365 day/year x
Acre-Ft/325,851 gal x 20 percent
1,220 Acre-Ft/year
Secondary Water Supply
= Current Annual Availability – Primary
Water Supply – Reliability Reserve
= 10,130 Acre-Ft/yearA – 7,496 Acre-
Ft/year – 1,220 Acre-Ft/year
1,414 Acre-Ft/year
A 2018 Annual Availability
Packet Pg. 88
Item 5
Department Name: Finance
Cost Center: 2001
For Agenda of: January 15, 2019
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Brigitte Elke, Finance Director
Prepared By: Rico Pardo, Accounting Manager/Controller
SUBJECT: FY 2017-18 ANNUAL REPORT ON DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
UNDER AB1600
RECOMMENDATION
1. Review the 2017-18 Fiscal Year Report on Development Impact Fees in compliance with
AB1600 annual disclosure requirements; and
2. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) accepting the report and making findings related to
impact fee balances and in-lieu fees.
DISCUSSION
Background
The City of San Luis Obispo has an adopted development impact fee program that is subject to
AB 1600 (the Mitigation Fee Act, Gov. Code §§ 66000 et seq.) and its annual disclosure and
reporting requirements. This report (Attachment B) is developed to satisfy the required criteria
by briefly describing each type of fee, identifying the amount of each fee collected, the
disbursements made from each fee type, and the amount of interest apportioned to each fee
balance during the 2017-18 fiscal year. In addition, an accompanying analysis has been prepared
that reflects, for each fee type, the aging of the balance held by the City.
As required by Gov. Code 6606(b), this report was made available for public inspection in the
City Clerk’s office and the Finance Department on December 29, 2018. Notice of availability
was published in the New Times and posted on the City’s website on December 27, 2018.
The individual fund schedules provide a breakdown of the fee balances on hand as of June 30,
2018, based on audited information. AB1600 requires that the annual report shall include the
following information:
1. The amount of each fee.
2. The amount of developer fees disbursed on each project for the year just ended.
3. The amount of developer fees collected for the year just ended.
4. The amount of interest earned by the developer fees for the year just ended.
5. Any other income received that is related to the projects, if applicable.
6. The beginning and ending fund balance for each development fee account.
7. The total cost of projects undertaken during the last year and the percentage of the project
Packet Pg. 89
Item 6
cost paid out of developer fees.
8. The identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public
improvement will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been
collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement and the public
improvement remains incomplete.
9. The amount and purpose of all interfund transfers during the last year.
The following is a brief description of the purpose of the fee and the nature of projects funded in
the current year.
The City of San Luis Obispo’s Fee Areas
Citywide Transportation Impact Fee
This impact fee was established for the construction of multimodal transportation infrastructure
within the City needed to support planned growth as adopted under the City’s General Plan.
There were nine active projects funded by this fee during the most recent fiscal year. The
following projects have impact fees associated to them:
• Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 Interchange
• Prado Road Interchange
• LOVR Interchange Landscaping
• Bike Bridge/Phillips
• Prado Road Bridge Widening
• Calle Joaquin Park and Ride
• Monterey/Osos Traffic Signal
• Broad St. Corridor Improvement
• Orcutt & Tank Farm Roundabout
Margarita & Airport Specific Plans Transportation Impact Fee
These two impact fees were established for the expansion of transportation facilities in and
around the Margarita and Airport areas to support planned development in those specific plan
areas. On April 3, 2018, the City Council adopted a resolution in compliance with AB1600 that
consolidated these two fee programs into the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee program which
became effective July 1, 2018.
Orcutt Area Impact Fee
This impact fee was established for the expansion of transportation and park facilities in and
around the Orcutt area to support planned development in that specific plan area. The Orcutt
Area Specific Plan (OASP) Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) was amended on December
17, 2017, and again on October 16, 2018, to update costs to reflect current cost estimates and to
revise the scope of certain capital improvement projects within the PFFP. No fees were collected
and no expenditures occurred using OASP PFFP fees last fiscal year.
Packet Pg. 90
Item 6
Los Osos Valley Road Impact Fee
This impact fee was established for the expansion of capacity for Los Osos Valley Road
interchange at US 101 for construction, project management, and inspection. Though the project
has been completed, the Fund recorded a liability for the reimbursement owed for an amount
equal to the impact fees collected for the year. The City has an existing reimbursement
agreement with Costco for improvements already constructed at the Los Osos Valley Road
(LOVR) interchange. Parkland Development Fees
This fee was established for the purpose of acquisition and development of community parks and
existing park facilities intended for access and use by the entire City.
Open Space Protection
This fee was established to address the need to acquire new open space lands commensurate with
similar land lost to development projects within the Airport Area Specific Plan area and will be
added to the City’s existing open space inventory.
Water Impact Fees
This fee was established for the expansion and improvement of facilities used for water supply,
water treatment and water distribution. The fees are used for debt service for the following
projects:
1. Nacimiento Pipeline
2. Water Reuse Project Loan
3. 2018/2006 Water Treatment Plant Refunding Debt Service
4. 2012 Water Refunding Debt Service
Sewer Impact Fee
This impact fee was established for the expansion and improvement of facilities used for sewer
collection and sewer treatment.
The fees were used for the following projects:
1. Calle Joaquin Lift Station
2. Margarita Lift Station
3. Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) Upgrade
4. Tank Farm Lift Station
POLICY CONTEXT
As the City has an active development impact fee program, this report is an annual requirement
under AB1600 which governs impact fee collections and disbursement.
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
The report must be made public, so interested parties can review the fee collection and applicable
uses and disbursements during the fiscal year.
Packet Pg. 91
Item 6
CONCURRENCES
The Public Works and Utilities Departments concur with the recommendations contained within
this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to the recommended action in this
report, because the action does not constitute a “Project” under CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15278.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: 2018-19
Funding Identified: Yes
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding Sources Current FY Cost
Annualized
On-going Cost
Total Project
Cost
General Fund $10,000 $0 $0
State
Federal
Fees
Other:
Total
This report used to be prepared by an outside consultant and budgeted in the Finance
Department’s contract services account. However, staff determined that the report can be
accomplished in-house and the funding has not been expended this year and will be eliminated
from the budget going forward.
This report in itself is required to make the findings called for in the resolution in order to allow
the impact fees to be retained by the City to fund identified projects. The in-lieu fees, which
have balances, are not subject to the same finding requirement for retention, but staff has
included a finding in the resolution affirming the need for retention, nonetheless.
Packet Pg. 92
Item 6
ALTERNATIVE
Council could choose not to make the findings called for in this report. This is not recommended
as it would require reimbursement of certain impact fees collected under the program and present
a monetary shortfall for many of the development related improvements.
Attachments:
a - DIF Resolution
b - DIF Annual Report
c - DIF Annual Report Exhibit A - Fee Amounts
d - DIF Annual Report Exhibit B - Developers Fees Collected
e - DIF Annual Report Exhibit C - Developers Fees Disbursed
Packet Pg. 93
Item 6
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2019 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE 2017-18 ANNUAL REPORT
ON DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REAFFIRMING THE NECESSITY
OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES AND MAKE FINDINGS OF
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES AND MAKE FINDINGS RELATED TO
IMPACT FEE BALANCES AND IN-LIEU FEES
WHEREAS, the City has an established Development Impact Fee program and collects
applicable fees accordingly; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) is required to make certain findings
every five years with respect to the unexpended fund balance of certain development impact fee
funds pursuant to California Government Code section 66001.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Recitals. All of the above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated
herein by this reference.
SECTION 2. Acceptance. The 2017-18 Annual Report on Development Impact Fees is
hereby accepted.
SECTION 3. Findings. The following findings are made as required under Government
Code section 66001:
1. The purpose to which each Development Impact Fee is collected for has been
identified.
2. There is a continued need for the improvements and that there is a reasonable
relationship between the fee, the timing of the improvements, and the impacts for
development for which the fees are collected.
3. The sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete the financing of capital
projects have been identified and will be deposited into the appropriate account upon
receipt or during the normal capital improvement program budget cycle.
4. A copy of the approved resolution shall be forwarded to the Finance Director for use
in overseeing these monies.
Packet Pg. 94
Item 6
Resolution No. _____ (2019 Series) Page 2
SECTION 4. These findings are based, in part, on information provided in the City of San
Luis Obispo’s 2017-19 Capital Improvement Plan.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2019.
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 95
Item 6
City of San Luis Obispo
AB 1600 Annual Report and Findings
The City of San Luis Obispo has an adopted Development Fee program, governed under AB 1600 which
is otherwise known as the Mitigation Fee Act and is codified in Government Code §§ 66000 et seq . The
power to exact development impact fees arises from the city’s police power to protect the public health,
safety and welfare. (Cal. Const., Art. XI, § 7.) The police power allows a city to act in the interest of its
citizenry and to enact and enforce ordinances and regulations that are not in conflict with state law. Charter
cities have the additional power to regulate by virtue of their plenary aut hority with respect to municipal
affairs. (Cal. Const., Art. XI, § 5.)
When does AB 1600 Apply
AB 1600 applies to all local agencies in the state, including all general law and charter cities. (Gov. Code
§ 66000(c).) However, AB 1600 does not apply to every fee or exaction collected by a local agency. AB
1600 only applies when a local agency imposes a fee on an applicant in connection with approval of a
development project to defray all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the pro ject. (Gov.
Code § 66001.) “Public facilities” are defined to include public improvements, public services and
community amenities. (Gov. Code § 66000(d).)
Definition of Development Impact Fees
A development impact fee is a monetary exaction other than a tax or special assessment that is charged by
a local governmental agency to an applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the
purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project. (Gov.
Code § 66000(b).) A development impact fee is not a tax or special assessment; by its definition, a fee is
voluntary and must be reasonably related to the cost of the service provided by the local agency. If a
development impact fee does not relate to the impact created by development or exceeds the reasonable
cost of providing the public service, then the fee may be declared a special tax and must then be subject to
a two-thirds voter approval. (Cal. Const., Art. XIII A, § 4.)
Annual Accounting for Fees
Funds collected for each capital facility or service shall be deposited in separate accounts and not
commingled with any other funds for other impact fees. (Gov. Code § 66006(a).) While funds are accruing
for individual capital facilities, the city must keep track of each fund and provide an annual report. (Gov.
Code § 66006(b).)
Annual Report
This report is submitted to satisfy the requirements of AB 1600 and identifies the amount of each
development impact fee collected, the disbursements made from each fee type and the amount of interest
apportioned to each fee balance during the 2017-18 fiscal year. Accompanying the report is information
specifically prepared to reflect each fee type and the aging of the balance held by the City. Per AB1600,
each fee collected to mitigate a specific impact has to be spent within five years of collection. If the fee is
held beyond this time frame due to specific circumstances or insufficient collection for the needed
improvements, the City Council has to make specific findings to continue holding the fees. Otherwise, the
fees are subject to refund.
As required by law, the development impact fee report has been available for public inspection prior to
tonight’s meeting in the Finance Department. Notice was posted on the City Clerk’s bulletin board in front
of City Hall on December 27, 2018.
Packet Pg. 96
Item 6
The schedules referred to above provide a breakdown of the individual fee balances on hand as of June 30,
2018 based on unaudited information. The Mitigation Fee Act requires that this report include the following
information:
1. The amount of each fee. – Exhibit A
2. The amount of developer fees collected for the year just ended. - Exhibit B
3. The amount of developer fees disbursed on each project for the year just ended. – Exhibit C
4. The amount of interest earned by the developer fees for the year just ended.
5. Any other income received that is related to the projects, if applicable.
6. The beginning and ending fund balance for each development fee account.
7. The total cost of projects undertaken during the last year and the percentage of the project cost paid
out of developer fees.
8. The identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will
commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete
financing on an incomplete public improvement and the public improvement remains incomplete.
9. The amount and purpose of all interfund transfers during the last year.
10. The following is a brief description of the purpose of the fee and the nature of projects funded in
the current year.
AB 1600 Fee – Fund Details
Citywide Transportation Impact Fee
This impact fee was established for the expansion of transportation facilities and travel lanes within the
City. There were nine active projects funded by this fee during the most recent fiscal year.
Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 Interchange – The largest of the nine projects partially funded by impact
fees over the years has been the Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 Interchange Project. In prior year, $97,548
was expended during the 2016-17 fiscal year for the project while $711,169 was expended during the 2017-
18 fiscal year. Major construction on the project is now complete but impact fee funding is used to pay for
the debt incurred for the interchange in the amount of $250,000.
LOVR Interchange Landscaping – $600 was expended during the 2017-18 fiscal year for the project.
Bike Bridge/Phillips – $329,511 was expended during the 2017-18 fiscal year for the project.
Prado Road Bridge Widening – $298,787 was expended during the 2017-18 fiscal year for the project.
Calle Joaquin Park and Ride - $230,053 was expended during the 2017-18 fiscal year for the project.
Monterey/Osos Traffic Signal - $210 was expended during the 2017-18 fiscal year for the project.
Broad St. Corridor Improvement - $9,722 was expended during the 2017-18 fiscal year for the project.
Orcutt & Tank Farm Roundabout - $46,668 was expended during the 2017-18 fiscal year for the project.
Prado Rd. Interchange - $30,428 was expended during the 2017-18 fiscal year for the project.
Packet Pg. 97
Item 6
As of June 30, 2018, $6,884,471 in funds were available for projects and $599,636 were held longer than
five year.
The $599,636 of funds held for longer than five years are programmed for planning, design, and
construction of the Prado Road Interchange which will be built to mitigate impacts of planned growth.
These funds have not yet been expended because collected fees have not yet accumulated to a sufficient
level and project planning & design is currently 25% complete. The table below is the adopted funding plan
for the interchange project, which identifies the estimated project cost and additional funds needed aside
from the fee program. All funds are anticipated to be collected and construction initiated by 2021 as adopted
in the City’s Capital Improvement Program.
Table 1
Margarita Area Impact Fee
This impact fee was established for the expansion of transportation facilities in and around the Margarita
area. For fiscal year ending June 30, 2018, $978,796 was collected in Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP)
Aging of Funds Held
Current Yr
Funds
FY 2017-18
1 yr old
Funds
FY 2016-17
2 yr old
Funds
FY 2015-16
3 yr old
Funds
FY 2014-15
4 yr old
Funds
FY 2013-14
Funds
attributed to
recent 5
years
If Number is
Positive, then
Funds subject
to findings or
refund
Total Ending
Balance
1,235,025$ 1,607,744$ 1,463,965$ 947,157$ 1,030,944$ 6,284,836$ 599,636$ 6,884,471$
Packet Pg. 98
Item 6
transportation fees. No funding was held longer than five years with no current year expenditures. These
funds have not yet been expended because collected fees have not yet accumulated to a sufficient level and
project planning & design is currently at 25% complete. The table below is the adopted funding plan for
the interchange project, which identifies the estimated project cost and additional funds needed aside from
the fee program. All funds are anticipated to be collected and construction initiated by 2021 as adopted in
the City’s Capital Improvement Program. See Table 1.
On April 3rd, 2018 the City Council adopted a resolution in compliance with AB1600 that consolidated this
fee program into the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee Program.
Orcutt Area Impact Fee and Public Facilities Financing Plan
This impact fee was established for the expansion of transportation and park facilities in and around the
Orcutt area. For fiscal year ending June 30, 2018, $12,394 was collected in the Orcutt Area Specific P lan
transportation fees. No fees were held longer than five years and no projects were funded by fees from the
OASP impact fee fund during last fiscal year. Similarly, no interfund loans were funded using OASP fees.
Construction activity has commenced within the OASP area with many capital projects under construction
that were included in the Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) as updated by the City Council on
November 15, 2016. Any fees collected from the OASP for last fiscal year and in the future wi ll likely be
used to reimburse developers that are currently constructing projects and have existing reimbursement
agreements because the costs of the improvements exceed the fees owed by the development. For the PFFP,
no fees have been collected as of yet and no interest has accrued in the fund.
Orcutt Area Project Specific Fees
Land Use Transportation Pedestrian &
Bicycle Paths
Parks &
Recreation
Single Family $10,040 $2,406 $6,585
Multi-Family $7.014 $1,681 $4,899
Aging of Funds Held
Current Yr
Funds
FY 2017-18
1 yr old
Funds
FY 2016-17
2 yr old
Funds
FY 2015-16
3 yr old
Funds
FY 2014-15
4 yr old
Funds
FY 2013-14
Funds
attributed to
recent
5 years
If Number is
Positive, then
Funds subject
to findings or
refund
Total Ending
Balance
516,772$ 415,373$ 46,650$ -$ -$ 978,796$ -$ 978,796$
Aging of Funds Held
Current Yr
Funds
FY 2017-18
1 yr old
Funds
FY 2016-17
2 yr old
Funds
FY 2015-16
3 yr old
Funds
FY 2014-15
4 yr old
Funds
FY 2013-14
Funds
attributed to
recent 5
years
If Number is
Positive, then
Funds subject
to findings or
refund
Total Ending
Balance
12,442$ -$ 5,936$ -$ -$ 18,378$ (43,163)$ (24,785)$
Packet Pg. 99
Item 6
Airport Area Impact Fee
This impact fee was established for the expansion of transportation facilities in and around the airport area.
The only project funded during the fiscal year from these fees was the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP)
design services. On April 3, 2018, the City Council adopted a resolution in compliance with AB1600 that
consolidated this fee program into the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee Program.
As of June 30, 2018, $1,122,875 in funds were available for projects and $669,361 in Airport Area Impact
Fees have been held longer than five years The funds held for longer than five years are also part of the
planned Prado Road Interchange which is for the purpose of mitigating impacts of planned growth in this
area. All funds are anticipated to be collected and construction initiated by 2021 as adopted in the City’s
Capital Improvement Program. See Table 1.
Los Osos Valley Road Impact Fee
This impact fee was established for the expansion of capacity for Los Osos Valley Road interchange at US
101 for construction, project management, and inspection. Though the project has been completed, the Fund
recorded a liability for the reimbursement owed for an amount equal to the impact fees collected for the
year. The City has an existing reimbursement agreement with Costco for improvements already constructed
at the Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) interchange. As of June 30, 2018, $97,929 in funds were available.
Parkland Development Impact Fees
This impact fee was established for the purpose of acquisition and development of community parks and
existing park facilities intended for access and use by the entire city.
As of June 30, 2018, $2,367,263 in funds are available for projects and $754,082 of Parkland Development
Impact Fees have been held longer than five years.
Aging of Funds Held
Current Yr
Funds
FY 2017-18
1 yr old
Funds
FY 2016-17
2 yr old
Funds
FY 2015-16
3 yr old
Funds
FY 2014-15
4 yr old
Funds
FY 2013-14
Funds
attributed to
recent 5
years
If Number is
Positive, then
Funds subject
to findings or
refund
Total Ending
Balance
14,019 34,014 142,458 4,344 258,679 453,514 668,502$ 1,122,016$
Aging of Funds Held
Current Yr
Funds
FY 2017-18
1 yr old
Funds
FY 2016-17
2 yr old
Funds
FY 2015-16
3 yr old
Funds
FY 2014-15
4 yr old
Funds
FY 2013-14
Funds
attributed to
recent 5
years
If Number is
Positive, then
Funds subject
to findings or
refund
Total Ending
Balance
3,577$ 428,804 16,175 1,514 10,670 460,740 (363,024)$ 97,716$
Packet Pg. 100
Item 6
Open Space Protection
This impact fee was established to address the need to acquire new open space lands commensurate with
similar land lost to development projects within the Airport Area Specific Plan area and will be added to
the City’s existing open space inventory. As of June 30, 2018, $595,673 in funds were available for projects
and $496,815 were held longer than five years.
Water Impact Fees
This fee was established for the expansion and improvement of facilities used for water supply, water
treatment and water distribution. The fees are used for debt service for the following projects:
1. Nacimiento Pipeline
2. Water Reuse Project Loan
3. 2018/2006 Water Treatment Plant Refunding Debt Service
4. 2012 Water Refunding Debt Service
Fees collected and retained were used for debt service to pay for new development’s fair share for upgrades
to the water treatment plant, the recycled water system, as well as the pipeline serving the City from
Nacimiento Lake. In fiscal year 2017-18, $2,131,345 was collected in impact fees, while $4,096,021 was
expended. No funds were held longer than five years as payments cover debt service expenses upon receipt.
Sewer Impact Fee
This impact fee was established for the expansion and improvement of facilities used for sewer collection
and sewer treatment.
Aging of Funds Held
Current Yr
Funds
FY 2017-18
1 yr old
Funds
FY 2016-17
2 yr old
Funds
FY 2015-16
3 yr old
Funds
FY 2014-15
4 yr old
Funds
FY 2013-14
Funds
attributed to
recent 5
years
If Number is
Positive, then
Funds subject
to findings or
refund
Total Ending
Balance
484,228 522,336 222,825 276,757 107,035 1,613,181 752,270$ 2,365,450$
Aging of Funds Held
Current Yr
Funds
FY 2017-18
1 yr old
Funds
FY 2016-17
2 yr old
Funds
FY 2015-16
3 yr old
Funds
FY 2014-15
4 yr old
Funds
FY 2013-14
Funds
attributed to
recent 5
years
If Number is
Positive, then
Funds subject
to findings or
refund
Total Ending
Balance
7,442 12,116 51,470 2,289 25,541 98,858 496,815$ 595,673$
Aging of Funds Held
Current Yr
Funds
FY 2017-18
1 yr old
Funds
FY 2016-17
2 yr old
Funds
FY 2015-16
3 yr old
Funds
FY 2014-15
4 yr old
Funds
FY 2013-14
Funds
attributed to
recent 5
years
If Number is
Positive, then
Funds subject to
findings or
refund
Total
Ending
Balance
2,131,345 1,281,874 1,542,268 2,473,474 825,127 8,254,088 (10,914,743)$ (2,660,655)$
Packet Pg. 101
Item 6
The fees were used for the following projects:
1. Calle Joaquin Lift Station
2. Margarita Lift Station
3. Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) Upgrade
4. Tank Farm Lift Station
As of June 30, 2018, available funds are ($3,839,891). As future dev elopment occurs, and, in turn, future
impact fees are collected, more funds will become available to fund future projects and offset the negative
balance. This reflects the fact that improvements were needed for the orderly development of the City and
the negative balance will adjust with future impact fee payments. No funds were held longer than five
years.
Conclusion
The City will continue to closely monitor its impact fee collection to report the use and retention of the fees
in compliance with AB 1600. Finding on retained fund balances over five year will be integrated in the
report, so the City Council can approve appropriate action on an annual basis.
Attachments
Exhibit A – 2017-18 Fee Schedule
Exhibit B – 2017-18 Fees Collected
Exhibit C – 2017-18 Fees Disbursed
Aging of Funds Held
Current Yr
Funds
FY 2017-18
1 yr old
Funds
FY 2016-17
2 yr old
Funds
FY 2015-
16
3 yr old
Funds
FY 2014-15
4 yr old
Funds
FY 2013-
14
Funds
attributed to
recent 5
years
If Number is
Positive, then
Funds subject
to findings or
refund
Total Ending
Balance
811,229 665,053 681,887 1,161,746 271,066 3,590,981 (7,453,719)$ (3,862,737)$
Packet Pg. 102
Item 6
Transportation Impact & Plan Prep Fees As of July 1st, 2017
CityWide
Base
TIF
LOVR Sub Area
Base Traffic Fee
TIF MASP Sub Area Sub Area
Base Traffic Fee Plan Prep
TIF Fee Citywide Sub Area Sub Area
Base Traffic Fee Plan Prep
TIF Fee Citywide Sub Area Sub Area
Base Traffic Fee Plan Prep
TIF (includes Bikes& Peds)Fee
Use Category
Single Family Residential Dwelling Unit 3,694$ 3,046$ 6,293$ 2,722$ 10,206$ 211$ 3,694$ ADT Trips Acre 3,694$ 12,394$ 919$
Multi-family Residential Dwelling Unit 3,278$ 2,703$ 4,134$ 2,414$ 6.297$ 200$ 3,278$ ADT Trips Acre 3,278$ 8,658$ 404$
Retail Square Feet 7.782$ 6.410$ 15.190$ 5.719$ 46.010$ 184$ 7.782$ ADT Trips Acre 7.782$ ADT Trips Acre
Office Square Feet 7.409$ 6.108$ PM Trips 5.458$ 19.308$ 184$ 7.409$ ADT Trips Acre 7.409$ ADT Trips Acre
Service Commercial Square Feet 4.016$ 3.313$ 9.253$ 2.960$ ADT Trips Acre 4.016$ 3.639$ 0.143$ 4.016$ ADT Trips Acre
Business Park Square Feet ADT Trips ADT Trips 7.974$ ADT Trips 19.308$ 184$ ADT Trips 4.834$ 0.097$ ADT Trips ADT Trips Acre
Industrial Square Feet 2.140$ 1.764$ 4.569$ 1.576$ 19.308$ 184$ 2.140$ 0.726$ 0.130$ 2.140$ ADT Trips Acre
Hospital Square Feet 6.282$ 5.178$ PM Trips 4.627$ ADT Trips Acre 6.282$ ADT Trips Acre 6.282$ ADT Trips Acre
Motel/Hotel Room 1,716$ 1,414$ 3,430$ 1,263$ ADT Trips Acre 1,716$ ADT Trips Acre 1,716$ ADT Trips Acre
Service Station (includes 1,000 sq. ft.)Pump 8,726$ 7,196$ PM Trips 6,428$ ADT Trips Acre 8,726$ ADT Trips Acre 8,726$ ADT Trips Acre
Other
Average Daily Trip (PM for
LOVR ) or Acreage 344$ 284$ 6,169$ 255$ 1,713$ 2,566$ 344$ 358$ 1,379$ 344$ 1,364$ 5,416$
LOVR & AASP Overlap Area (Use all 3)
Needs Sq Ft Conversion & ADT conversion
ADT Trips, PM Trips or Acre Denotes Item that needs additional calculation from Public Works
LOVR Sub Area
MASP Sub Area
AASP Sub Area
OASP Sub Area
12/18/2017
Packet Pg. 103
Item 6
City of San Luis Obispo
Developer Impact Fee Compliance 2018
Transportation Impact Fee
Fund 405 -Total
Fiscal
Year
Beginning
Balance Impact Fees Interest
Non
AB 1600
Interest
Revenue
Other
Agencies
Other
Revenue Transfers In
AB 1600
Expenses
Other
Expenses
AB 1600
Transfers
Out
Total
Ending
Balance
2008-09 4,057,425$ 498,385 197,387 - 668,853 - - 1,829,260 - - 3,592,790$
2009-10 3,592,790$ 30,237 107,553 - 399,911 87,221 74,000 864,670 28,700 - 3,398,342$
2010-11 3,398,342$ 860,530 72,051 - 647,364 - - 671,057 86,100 - 4,221,130$
2011-12 4,221,130$ 274,470 66,373 - 212,085 (481,252) - 376,931 404,030 - 3,511,844$
2012-13 3,511,844$ 221,213 3,044 - 1,059,704 - - 974,689 777,319 - 3,043,797$
2013-14 3,043,797$ 1,002,592 28,352 - 282,208 - - 408,460 301,140 - 3,647,349$
2014-15 3,647,349$ 898,574 48,584 - 350,172 63,791 7,873,360 1,077,990 2,918,542 - 8,885,296$
2015-16 8,885,296$ 1,356,158 107,807 - - - - 381,535 3,422,400 320,000 6,225,326$
2016-17 6,225,326$ 1,615,385 (7,641) - - - - 172,719 97,548 - 7,562,803$
2017-18 7,562,803$ 1,230,254 4,771 - - (6,208) - 945,980 711,169 250,000 6,884,471$
Aging of Funds Held
Current Yr
Funds
FY 2017-18
1 yr old
Funds
FY 2016-17
2 yr old
Funds
FY 2015-16
3 yr old
Funds
FY 2014-15
4 yr old
Funds
FY 2013-14
Funds
attributed to
recent 5
years
If Number is
Positive, then
Funds subject
to findings or
refund
Total Ending
Balance
1,235,025$ 1,607,744$ 1,463,965$ 947,157$ 1,030,944$ 6,284,836$ 599,636$ 6,884,471$
Packet Pg. 104
Item 6
City of San Luis Obispo
Developer Impact Fee Compliance 2018
Transportation Impact Fee
Fund 405 - Margarita Area TIF Fee
Fiscal
Year
Beginning
Balance Impact Fees Interest
Non
AB 1600
Interest
Revenue
Other
Agencies
Other
Revenue Transfers In
AB 1600
Expenses 405405
AB 1600
Transfers
Out
Total
Ending
Balance
2011-12 -$ - - - - - - - - - -$
2012-13 -$ - - - - - - - - - -$
2013-14 -$ - - - - - - - - - -$
2014-15 -$ - - - - - - - - - -$
2015-16 -$ 43,215 3,435 - - - - - - - 46,650$
2016-17 46,650$ 417,347 (1,974) - - - - - - - 462,023$
2017-18 462,023$ 514,776 1,996.50 - - - - - - - 978,796$
Aging of Funds Held
Current Yr
Funds
FY 2017-18
1 yr old
Funds
FY 2016-17
2 yr old
Funds
FY 2015-16
3 yr old
Funds
FY 2014-15
4 yr old
Funds
FY 2013-14
Funds
attributed to
recent
5 years
If Number is
Positive, then
Funds subject
to findings or
refund
Total Ending
Balance
516,772$ 415,373$ 46,650$ -$ -$ 978,796$ -$ 978,796$
Packet Pg. 105
Item 6
City of San Luis Obispo
Developer Impact Fee Compliance 2018
Transportation Impact Fee
Fund 405 - Orcutt Area TIF Fee
Fiscal
Year
Beginning
Balance Impact Fees Interest
Non
AB 1600
Interest
Revenue
Other
Agencies
Other
Revenue Transfers In
AB 1600
Expenses
Other
Expenses
AB 1600
Transfers
Out
Total
Ending
Balance
2012-13 -$ $ 3,457 48$ - - - - - - - 3,505$
2013-14 3,505$ - - - - - - - - - 3,505$
2014-15 3,505$ - - - - - - - - - 3,505$
2015-16 3,505$ 5,499 437 - - - - - - - 9,441$
2016-17 9,441$ - - - - - - - - - 9,441$
2017-18 9,441$ 12,394 48 - - - - 46,668 - - (24,785)$
Aging of Funds Held
Current Yr
Funds
FY 2017-18
1 yr old
Funds
FY 2016-17
2 yr old
Funds
FY 2015-16
3 yr old
Funds
FY 2014-15
4 yr old
Funds
FY 2013-14
Funds
attributed to
recent 5
years
If Number is
Positive, then
Funds subject
to findings or
refund
Total Ending
Balance
12,442$ -$ 5,936$ -$ -$ 18,378$ (43,163)$ (24,785)$
Packet Pg. 106
Item 6
City of San Luis Obispo
Developer Impact Fee Compliance 2018
Transportation Impact Fee
Fund 405 - Transporation Impact Fee
Fiscal
Year
Beginning
Balance Impact Fees Interest
Non
AB 1600
Interest
Revenue
Other
Agencies
Other
Revenue Transfers In
AB 1600
Expenses
Other
Expenses
AB 1600
Transfers
Out
Total
Ending
Balance
2008-09 4,057,425$ 498,385 197,387 - 668,853 - - 1,829,260 - - 3,592,790$
2009-10 3,592,790$ 30,237 107,553 - 399,911 87,221 74,000 864,670 28,700 - 3,398,342$
2010-11 3,398,342$ 860,530 72,051 - 647,364 - - 671,057 86,100 - 4,221,130$
2011-12 4,221,130$ 274,470 66,373 - 212,085 (481,252) - 376,931 404,030 - 3,511,844$
2012-13 3,511,844$ 217,756 2,996 - 1,059,704 - - 974,689 777,319 - 3,040,292$
2013-14 3,040,292$ 1,002,592 28,352 - 282,208 - - 408,460 301,140 - 3,643,844$
2014-15 3,643,844$ 898,574 48,584 - 350,172 63,791 7,873,360 1,077,990 2,918,542 - 8,881,791$
2015-16 8,881,791$ 1,307,444 103,935 - - - - 381,535 3,422,400 320,000 6,169,235$
2016-17 6,169,235$ 1,198,038 (5,667) - - - - 172,719 97,548 - 7,091,339$
2017-18 7,091,339$ 703,084 2,727 - - (6,208) - 899,312 711,169 250,000 5,930,461$
Aging of Funds Held
Current Yr
Funds
FY 2017-18
1 yr old
Funds
FY 2016-17
2 yr old
Funds
FY 2015-16
3 yr old
Funds
FY 2014-15
4 yr old
Funds
FY 2013-14
Funds
attributed to
recent 5
years
If Number is
Positive, then
Funds subject
to findings or
refund
Total Ending
Balance
705,811$ 1,192,371 1,411,379 947,157 1,030,944 5,287,662 642,799$ 5,930,461$
Packet Pg. 107
Item 6
City of San Luis Obispo
Developer Impact Fee Compliance 2018
Parkland Impact Fee
Fund 420
Fiscal
Year
Beginning
Balance Impact Fees Interest
Non
AB 1600
Interest
Revenue
Other
Agencies
Other
Revenue Transfers In
AB 1600
Expenses
Developer
Reimb
AB 1600
Transfers
Out
Total
Ending
Balance
2007-08 200,679$ 861,834 38,135 - - - - 84,326 - - 1,016,322$
2008-09 1,016,322$ 176,579 54,896 - 94,781 - - 22,705 - - 1,319,873$
2009-10 1,319,873$ 36,378 41,787 - - - - 66,981 - - 1,331,057$
2010-11 1,331,057$ 35,805 23,628 - 25,583 - - 169,411 - - 1,246,662$
2011-12 1,246,662$ 40,135 19,130 - - - - 214,309 - - 1,091,618$
2012-13 1,091,618$ 152,217 318 - - - - 11,746 - - 1,232,407$
2013-14 1,232,407$ 97,535 9,500 - - - - 173,120 - - 1,166,322$
2014-15 1,166,322$ 273,647 3,110 - - - - 822,521 - - 620,558$
2015-16 620,558$ 217,069 5,756 - - - - 1,572 - - 841,811$
2016-17 841,811$ 505,886 16,450 - - - 900,000 4,142 - - 2,260,005$
2017-18 2,260,005$ 456,140 28,088 (1,590) 217,193 160,000 2,365,450$
Aging of Funds Held
Current Yr
Funds
FY 2017-18
1 yr old
Funds
FY 2016-17
2 yr old
Funds
FY 2015-16
3 yr old
Funds
FY 2014-15
4 yr old
Funds
FY 2013-14
Funds
attributed to
recent 5
years
If Number is
Positive, then
Funds subject
to findings or
refund
Total Ending
Balance
484,228 522,336 222,825 276,757 107,035 1,613,181 752,270$ 2,365,450$
Packet Pg. 108
Item 6
City of San Luis Obispo
Developer Impact Fee Compliance 2018
Open Space Impact Fee
Fund 430
Fiscal
Year
Beginning
Balance Impact Fees Interest
Non
AB 1600
Interest
Revenue
Other
Agencies
Other
Revenue Transfers In
Impact Fee
Expenditures
Other
Expenses
AB 1600
Transfers
Out
Total
Ending
Balance
2007-08 81,559$ - 11,997 - - - 323,000 22,772 - 5,000 388,784$
2008-09 388,784$ - 16,221 - 6,436 100 234,000 383,991 - - 261,550$
2009-10 261,550$ - 12,706 - 314,824 10,500 260,378 370,498 - - 489,460$
2010-11 489,460$ - (807) - 186,809 153 - 560,516 - - 115,099$
2011-12 115,099$ - 3,336 - - - 305,000 240,069 - - 183,366$
2012-13 183,366$ - (1) - - - 22,500 11,566 - - 194,299$
2013-14 194,299$ 20,981 4,560 - 50,205 - 200,000 - 58,452 - 411,593$
2014-15 411,593$ - 2,289 - - - 275,000 38,258 - 35,000 530,623$
2015-16 530,623$ 47,369 4,101 - - - - 32,743 - - 549,350$
2016-17 549,350$ 7,419 4,697 - 63,351 - - 36,074 - - 588,743$
2017-18 588,743$ - 7,442 - - (512) - - - - 595,673$
Aging of Funds Held
Current Yr
Funds
FY 2017-18
1 yr old
Funds
FY 2016-17
2 yr old
Funds
FY 2015-16
3 yr old
Funds
FY 2014-15
4 yr old
Funds
FY 2013-14
Funds
attributed to
recent 5
years
If Number is
Positive, then
Funds subject
to findings or
refund
Total Ending
Balance
7,442 12,116 51,470 2,289 25,541 98,858 496,815$ 595,673$
Balances from Transfers (6 Years)497,500$
Balances attributed to Impact Fees -$
Packet Pg. 109
Item 6
City of San Luis Obispo
Developer Impact Fee Compliance 2018
Airport Area Impact Fee
Fund 450
Fiscal
Year
Beginning
Balance Impact Fees Interest
Non
AB 1600
Interest
Revenue
Other
Agencies
Other
Revenue Transfers In
AB 1600
Expenses
Developer
Reimb
AB 1600
Transfers
Out
Total
Ending
Balance
2008-09 966,198$ - 48,509 - - - - 20,991 - - 993,716$
2009-10 993,716$ 3,599 31,393 - - - - - - - 1,028,708$
2010-11 1,028,708$ - 19,147 - - - - 19,383 - - 1,028,472$
2011-12 1,028,472$ 11,280 16,993 - - - - 35,173 - - 1,021,572$
2012-13 1,021,572$ 134,210 8,248 - - - - 317,712 - - 846,318$
2013-14 846,318$ 255,011 3,668 - - - - 9,845 - - 1,095,152$
2014-15 1,095,152$ - 4,344 - - - - 23,487 - - 937,498$
2015-16 937,498$ 134,210 8,248 - - - - - - - 1,079,956$
2016-17 1,079,956$ 24,437 9,577 - - - - 5,000 - - 1,108,970$
2017-18 1,108,970$ - 14,019 - - (973) - - - 1,122,016$
Aging of Funds Held
Current Yr
Funds
FY 2017-18
1 yr old
Funds
FY 2016-17
2 yr old
Funds
FY 2015-16
3 yr old
Funds
FY 2014-15
4 yr old
Funds
FY 2013-14
Funds
attributed to
recent 5
years
If Number is
Positive, then
Funds subject
to findings or
refund
Total Ending
Balance
14,019 34,014 142,458 4,344 258,679 453,514 668,502$ 1,122,016$
Packet Pg. 110
Item 6
City of San Luis Obispo
Developer Impact Fee Compliance 2018
Los Osos Valley Road Impact Fee
Fund 460
Fiscal
Year
Beginning
Balance Impact Fees Interest
Non
AB 1600
Interest
Revenue
Other
Agencies
Other
Revenue Transfers In
AB 1600
Expenses
Developer
Reimb
AB 1600
Transfers
Out
Total
Ending
Balance
2008-09 282,240$ - 48,311 - - - - 229,058 8,875 - 92,618$
2009-10 92,618$ 79,719 15,084 - - - - - 4,043 - 183,378$
2010-11 183,378$ 11,166 8,599 - - - - - 18,963 - 184,180$
2011-12 184,180$ 1,797,650 18,233 - - - - 1,622,651 1,576 375,836$
2012-13 375,836$ - 1,166 - - - - 49,577 179,809 - 147,616$
2013-14 147,616$ 3,097 7,573 - - - - 9,979 3,097 - 145,210$
2014-15 145,210$ - 1,514 - - - - - - - 146,724$
2015-16 146,724$ 14,661 2,585 - - - - - - - 163,970$
2016-17 163,970$ 422,858 5,946 - - - - 40,482 423,344 - 128,948$
2016-18 128,948$ - 3,577 - - (291) - 34,518 - - 97,716$
Aging of Funds Held
Current Yr
Funds
FY 2017-18
1 yr old
Funds
FY 2016-17
2 yr old
Funds
FY 2015-16
3 yr old
Funds
FY 2014-15
4 yr old
Funds
FY 2013-14
Funds
attributed to
recent 5
years
If Number is
Positive, then
Funds subject
to findings or
refund
Total Ending
Balance
3,577$ 428,804 16,175 1,514 10,670 460,740 (363,024)$ 97,716$
Packet Pg. 111
Item 6
City of San Luis Obispo
Developer Impact Fee Compliance 2018
Affordable Housing Inclusionary Impact Fee
Fund 470
Fiscal
Year
Beginning
Balance Impact Fees Interest
Non
AB 1600
Interest
Revenue Other
Agencies Other Revenue Transfers In
AB 1600
Expenses
Developer
Reimb
AB 1600
Transfers
Out
Total
Ending
Balance
2007-08 3,811,662$ 682,418 155,631 - - - - 630,000 - - 4,019,711$
2008-09 4,019,711$ 465,726 199,625 - - 1,450 - 892,462 - - 3,794,050$
2009-10 3,794,050$ - 32,584 - 270,000 9,000 - 3,416,692 21,286 - 667,656$
2010-11 667,656$ 332,841 15,988 - 30,000 3,929 - 39,854 - - 1,010,560$
2011-12 1,010,560$ 848,788 21,915 - - - - 112,696 - - 1,768,567$
2012-13 1,768,567$ 182,685 7,417 - - - - 30,000 - - 1,928,669$
2013-14 1,928,669$ 793,655 52,712 - - - - 30,000 - 17,000 2,728,036$
2014-15 2,728,036$ 159,602 12,882 - - 179,552 - 697,000 - 17,000 2,366,072$
2015-16 2,366,072$ 625,506 34,414 - - - - 698,978 - - 2,562,826$
2016-17 2,562,826$ 1,130,587 5,246 - - 359,081 - 1,490,738 - - 2,567,002$
2017-18 2,567,002$ 357,581 9,056 - 75,177 87,422 850,000 2,482,050$
Aging of Funds Held
Current Yr
Funds
FY 2017-18
1 yr old
Funds
FY 2016-17
2 yr old
Funds
FY 2015-16
3 yr old
Funds
FY 2014-15
4 yr old
Funds
FY 2013-14
Funds attributed
to recent 5
years
If Number is
Positive, then
Funds subject to
findings or
refund
Total
Ending
Balance
366,637$ 1,135,833$ 659,920$ 172,484$ 846,367$ 3,181,241$ (699,191)$ 2,482,050$
Packet Pg. 112
Item 6
City of San Luis Obispo
Developer Impact Fee Compliance 2018
Water Impact Fee
Fund 500
Fiscal
Year
Beginning
Balance Impact Fees Interest
Non
AB 1600
Interest
Revenue
Other
Agencies
Other
Revenue Transfers In
AB 1600
Expenses
Developer
Reimb
AB 1600
Transfers
Out
Total
Ending
Balance
2008-09 4,426,570$ 663,000 40,922 - - - - 895,190 122,259 - 4,357,561$
2009-10 4,357,561$ 448,200 21,717 - - - - 970,096 14,918 - 3,872,300$
2010-11 3,872,300$ 639,600 15,322 - - - - 803,305 59,772 - 3,783,689$
2011-12 3,783,689$ 643,160 12,999 - - - - 703,006 - - 3,736,842$
2012-13 3,736,842$ 1,625,113 26,300 - - - - 3,906,320 41,330 - 1,523,265$
2013-14 1,523,265$ 819,477 5,650 - - - - 2,865,321 - - (516,929)$
2014-15 (516,929)$ 2,471,502 1,972 - - - - 280,830 - - 1,675,715$
2015-16 1,675,715$ 1,542,268 - - - - - 2,572,741 - - 645,242$
2016-17 645,242$ 1,266,674 15,200 - - - - 2,605,220 - - (678,104)$
2017-18 (678,104)$ 2,131,345 - (17,875) 4,096,021 (2,660,655)$
Aging of Funds Held
Current Yr
Funds
FY 2017-18
1 yr old
Funds
FY 2016-17
2 yr old
Funds
FY 2015-16
3 yr old
Funds
FY 2014-15
4 yr old
Funds
FY 2013-14
Funds
attributed to
recent 5
years
If Number is
Positive, then
Funds subject to
findings or
refund
Total
Ending
Balance
2,131,345 1,281,874 1,542,268 2,473,474 825,127 8,254,088 (10,914,743)$ (2,660,655)$
Packet Pg. 113
Item 6
City of San Luis Obispo
Developer Impact Fee Compliance 2018
Sewer Impact Fee
Fund 520 & 285
Fiscal
Year
Beginning
Balance Impact Fees Interest
Non
AB 1600
Interest
Revenue
Other
Agencies
Other
Revenue Transfers In
AB 1600
Expenses
Developer
Reimb
AB 1600
Transfers Out
Total
Ending
Balance
2008-09 1,229,684$ 171,000 4,919 - - - - 528,164 49,055 - 926,494$
2009-10 926,494$ 98,600 3,063 - - - - 854,235 3,733 - 177,655$
2010-11 177,655$ 169,800 2,632 - - - - 849,584 14,956 - (484,541)$
2011-12 (484,541)$ 141,237 1,990 - - - - 655,355 - - (996,669)$
2012-13 (996,669)$ 355,395 - - - - - 1,308,687 9,430 - (1,959,391)$
2013-14 (1,959,391)$ 268,132 2,934 - - - - 608,432 - - (2,296,757)$
2014-15 (2,296,757)$ 1,160,654 1,092 - - - - 1,393,810 - - (2,528,821)$
2015-16 (2,528,821)$ 674,831 7,056 - - - - 700,632 - - (2,547,566)$
2016-17 (2,547,566)$ 653,821 11,232 - - - - 700,632 - - (2,583,145)$
2017-18 (2,583,145)$ 811,229 (22,861) 2,067,960 (3,862,737)$
Aging of Funds Held
Current Yr
Funds
FY 2017-18
1 yr old
Funds
FY 2016-17
2 yr old
Funds
FY 2015-
16
3 yr old
Funds
FY 2014-15
4 yr old
Funds
FY 2013-
14
Funds
attributed to
recent 5
years
If Number is
Positive, then
Funds subject
to findings or
refund
Total Ending
Balance
811,229 665,053 681,887 1,161,746 271,066 3,590,981 (7,453,719)$ (3,862,737)$
Packet Pg. 114
Item 6
City of San Luis Obispo
Summary of Local Agency Improvement Fees
(AB 1600 Development Impact Fees)
Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018
Citywide Transportation Impact Fee (Fund 405)
Project
Number Project Name
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
Impact Fees
Impact Fee
Expenditures
Non
Impact Fee
Expenditures
Developer
Impact Fees
Collected
Impact Fee
Interest
Income
Other
Income
90073 MID-HIG IMPROVEMENT PROJ $ - 0% $ - -$
90398 TRAFFIC SAFETY REPORT $ - 0% $ -
-$
90572 BICYCLE FACILITY IMPRO $ - 0% $ -
-$
90653 TRAFFIC VOLUME COUNTS $ - 0% $ -
-$
90741 RRST HWY 101 BR $ - 0% $ -
-$
90949 TRAFFIC MODEL UPDATE $ - 0% $ -
-$
91252 PRADO RD BRIDGE WIDEN $ - 0% $ -
-$
91252 PRADO RD BRIDGE WIDEN $ - 0% $ -
-$
91252 PRADO RD BRIDGE WIDEN $ 298,787 100% $ 298,787 -$
91252 PRADO RD BRIDGE WIDEN $ - 0% $ -
-$
91288 CALLE JOAQUIN PK & RD $ 230,053 100% $ 230,053 -$
91375 BIKE BRIDGE/PHILLIPS $ 329,511 100% $ 329,511 -$
91377 MONT/OSOS TRAFFIC SIG $ 210 100% $ 210 -$
91435 LOVR INTERCHANGE LDP $ 600 100% $ 600 -$
91609 BROAD CORRIDOR IMPR $ 9,722 100% 9,721.63$ -$
91610 HIG ST WD BRG TO ELKS $ - 0%-$ -$
91611 ORCUTT & TANK ROUNDAB $ 46,668 100%46,668$ -$
91613 PRADO RD INTERCHANGE $ 30,428 100%30,428$ -$
99615 BICYCLE PROJECTS
$ - 0%-$ -$
Packet Pg. 115
Item 6
City of San Luis Obispo
Summary of Local Agency Improvement Fees
(AB 1600 Development Impact Fees)
Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018
Project
Number Project Name
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
Impact Fees
Impact Fee
Expenditures
Non
Impact Fee
Expenditures
Developer
Impact Fees
Collected
Impact Fee
Interest
Income
Other
Income
99821 LOVR INTERCHANGE $ - 0% -$ -$
99821 LOVR/US 101 INTERCHANG $ - 0% -$ 707,449$
99821 LOVR/US 101 INTERCHANG $ - 0%-$ 3,720$
99899 COMPLETED PROJECTS -$ 0%-$ -$
Totals 945,980$ 945,980$ 711,169$ 1,230,254$ 4,771$ (6,208)$
Available Funds as of June 30, 2017 7,562,803$
Available Funds as of June 30, 2018 6,884,471$
Funds Collected in recent year and prior 5 years 6,284,836$
Funds held longer than 5 years 599,636$
Packet Pg. 116
Item 6
City of San Luis Obispo
Summary of Local Agency Improvement Fees
(AB 1600 Development Impact Fees)
Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018
Margarita Area Traffic Impact Fee (Fund 405)
Project
Number Project Name
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
Impact Fees
Impact Fee
Expenditures
Non
Impact Fee
Expenditures
Developer
Impact Fees
Collected
Impact Fee
Interest
Income
Other
Income
-$ 0% -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
-$
Totals -$ -$ -$ 514,776$ 1,996$ -$
Available Funds as of June 30, 2017 462,023$
Available Funds as of June 30, 2018 978,796$
Funds Collected in recent year and prior 5 years 978,796$
Funds held longer than 5 years -$
Packet Pg. 117
Item 6
City of San Luis Obispo
Summary of Local Agency Improvement Fees
(AB 1600 Development Impact Fees)
Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018
Orcutt Area Traffic Impact Fee (Fund 405)
Project
Number Project Name
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
Impact Fees
Impact Fee
Expenditures
Non
Impact Fee
Expenditures
Developer
Impact Fees
Collected
Impact Fee
Interest
Income
Other
Income
46,668$ 0% -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
46,668$
Totals 46,668$ -$ -$ 12,394$ 48$ -$
Available Funds as of June 30, 2017 9,441$
Available Funds as of June 30, 2018 (24,785)$
Funds Collected in recent year and prior 5 years 18,378$
Funds held longer than 5 years (43,163)
Packet Pg. 118
Item 6
City of San Luis Obispo
Summary of Local Agency Improvement Fees
(AB 1600 Development Impact Fees)
Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018
Parkland Impact Fee (Fund 420)
Enacted using the Quimby Act. See note below.
Project
Number Project Name
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
Impact Fees
Impact Fee
Expenditures
Non
Impact Fee
Expenditures
Developer
Impact Fees
Collected
Impact Fee
Interest
Income Other Income
90752 Skate Park Improvement -$ 100%-$ -$
91388 Laguna Lake ADA Trail 4,142$ 100%4,142$ -$
Totals 4,142$ 4,142$ -$ 505,886$ 16,450$ -$
Available Funds as of June 30, 2017 2,260,005$
Available Funds as of June 30, 2018 2,365,450$
Fees and Interest Collected in Prior 5 Years 1,613,181$
Funds held Longer Than 5 Years 752,270$
Packet Pg. 119
Item 6
City of San Luis Obispo
Summary of Local Agency Improvement Fees
(AB 1600 Development Impact Fees)
Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018
Open Space Impact Fee (Fund 430)
Project
Number Project Name
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
Impact Fees
Impact Fee
Expenditures
Non
Impact Fee
Expenditures
Developer
Impact Fees
Collected
Impact Fee
Interest
Income Other Income
-$ 100%-$ -$
-$ 100%-$ -$
Totals -$ -$ -$ -$ 7,442$ -$
Available Funds as of June 30, 2017 588,743$
Available Funds as of June 30, 2018 595,673$
Fees and Interest Collected in Prior 5 years 98,858$
Funds Held Longer Than 5 Years -$ **
**Note: $497,500 funds accumulated in Fund 430 for the last 6 years thru 6/30/18 stem from transfers from other than impact fee funds
Packet Pg. 120
Item 6
City of San Luis Obispo
Summary of Local Agency Improvement Fees
(AB 1600 Development Impact Fees)
Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018
Airport Area Impact Fee (Fund 450)
Project
Number Project Name Budget Encumbrances
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
Impact Fees
Impact Fee
Expenditures
Non
Impact Fee
Expenditures
Developer
Impact Fees
Collected
Impact Fee
Interest
Income
91301 Tank Farm Road & Broad Intersection -$ -$ -$ 100%-$ -$
91378 Santa Fe Bridge Replacement -$ -$ 5,000$ 100%5,000$ -$
Totals -$ 5,000$ 5,000$ -$ -$ 14,019$
Available Funds as of June 30, 2017 1,108,970$
Available Funds as of June 30, 2018 1,122,016$
Funds Collected in recent year and prior 5 years 453,514$
Funds Held Longer than 5 Years 668,502$
Packet Pg. 121
Item 6
City of San Luis Obispo
Summary of Local Agency Improvement Fees
(AB 1600 Development Impact Fees)
Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018
Parkland Impact Fee (Fund 420)
Enacted using the Quimby Act. See note below.
Project
Number Project Name
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
Impact Fees
Impact Fee
Expenditures
Non
Impact Fee
Expenditures
Developer
Impact Fees
Collected
Impact Fee
Interest
Income Other Income
90752 Skate Park Improvement -$ 100%-$ -$
91388 Laguna Lake ADA Trail 4,142$ 100%4,142$ -$
Totals 4,142$ 4,142$ -$ 505,886$ 16,450$ -$
Available Funds as of June 30, 2017 2,260,005$
Available Funds as of June 30, 2018 2,365,450$
Fees and Interest Collected in Prior 5 Years 1,613,181$
Funds held Longer Than 5 Years 752,270$
Packet Pg. 122
Item 6
City of San Luis Obispo
Summary of Local Agency Improvement Fees
(AB 1600 Development Impact Fees)
Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018
Los Osos Valley Road Impact Fee (Fund 460)
Project
Number Project Name
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
Impact Fees
Impact Fee
Expenditures
Developer
Reimbursements
Developer
Impact Fees
Collected
Impact Fee
Interest
Income
Other
Income
90668 Costco Reimbursement -$ 100%- 423,344 422,858
91288 Calle Joaquin Park and Ride 34,518$ 100% 34,518 -
Totals 34,518$ 34,518$ 423,344$ 422,858$ 3,577$
Available Funds as of June 30, 2017 128,948$
Available Funds as of June 30, 2018 97,716$
Fees collected in recent year and prior 5 years 460,740$
Funds Held Longer than 5 Years (363,024)$
Packet Pg. 123
Item 6
City of San Luis Obispo
Summary of Local Agency Improvement Fees
(AB 1600 Development Impact Fees)
Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018
Affordable Housing Inclusionary Impact Fee (Fund 470)
Project
Number Project Name
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
Impact Fees
Impact Fee
Expenditures
Non
Impact Fee
Expenditures
Developer
Fees Collected
Impact Fee
Interest
Income Other Income
90496 SLO County Housing Trust Fund -$ 100%-$ -$
90812 1st Time Homebuyer Program -$ 100%-$ -$
91461 Iron Works -$ 100%-$ -$
91490 214 Highland -$ 100%-$ -$
91661 Bishop St. Studios 850,000$ 100% 850,000$ -$
Transfers Out General Fund -$ 100%-$ -$
Totals 850,000$ 850,000$ -$ 357,581$ 9,056$
Available Funds as of June 30, 2017 2,567,002$
Available Funds as of June 30, 2018 2,482,050$
Fees and Interest Collected in Prior 5 Years 3,181,241$
Fees Held Longer Than 5 Years -$
Packet Pg. 124
Item 6
City of San Luis Obispo
Summary of Local Agency Improvement Fees
(AB 1600 Development Impact Fees)
Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018
Water Impact Fee (Fund 500)
Project
Number Project Name
Project Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
Impact Fees
Impact Fee
Expenditures
Developer
Reimbursements
Developer
Fees
Collected
Impact Fee
Interest
Income
Other
Income
55110 Nacimiento 8,603,242$ 39%3,355,264$ -$
89350 Water Reuse Project Loan Debt Service 525,457$ 59% 310,020$ -$
89350 2006 Water Treatment Plant Debt Service 1,033,548$ 29% 299,729$ -$
89350 2012 Water Refunding Debt Service 569,600$ 23% 131,008$ -$
89350 2018 Refunding of '06 & '09 Bonds 0%-$ -$
Totals 10,731,847$ 4,096,021$ -$ 2,131,345$ -$
Available Funds as of June 30, 2017 (678,104)$
Available Funds as of June 30, 2018 (2,660,655)$
Fees collected in recent year and prior 5 years 8,254,088$
Funds Held Longer than 5 Years -$
Packet Pg. 125
Item 6
City of San Luis Obispo
Summary of Local Agency Improvement Fees
(AB 1600 Development Impact Fees)
Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018
Sewer Impact Fee (Fund 520 & 285)
Project
Number Project Name
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
Impact Fees
Impact Fee
Expenditures
Developer
Reimb
Developer
Fees
Collected
Impact Fee
Interest
Income
Other
Income
91118 Calle Joaquin Lift Station 14,324$ 28.0%4,011$ -$ 3,181$
91214 Margarita Lift Station 538,417$ 51.0% 274,593$ -$ 39,592
Silver City -$ 0.0%-$ -$ 50,430
Laguna Lift Station -$ 0.0%-$ -$ 3,181
91219 WRRF Upgrade 6,626,780$ 20.5% 1,358,490$ -$
89351 Tank Farm Lift Station Debt Service 742,874$ 58.0% 430,867$ -$ 32,926
Totals 7,922,396$ 2,067,960$ -$ 811,229$ 11,232$
Available Funds as of June 30, 2017 (2,583,145)$
Available Funds as of June 30, 2018 (3,862,737)$
Fees collected in recent year and prior 5 years 3,590,981$
Funds held longer than 5 years -$
Packet Pg. 126
Item 6
Department Name: Administration
Cost Center: 1001
For Agenda of: January 15, 2019
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: Not Applicable
FROM: Robert A. Hill, Interim Deputy Director, Office of Sustainability
Prepared By: Chris Read, Sustainability Manager
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OPPOSING PLANS TO TRUCK OIL THROUGH SAN LUIS
OBISPO COUNTY AND TO BUILD AN OIL PIPELINE NEAR AND
THROUGH SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution opposing plans to truck oil through San Luis Obispo County and to build an
oil pipeline near and through San Luis Obispo County (Attachment A).
DISCUSSION
Background
In December of 2018, it came to the City’s attention that the County of Santa Barbara was
considering a proposal from ExxonMobil to use approximately 70 truck trips per day to send oil
to processing facilities in Santa Maria and Maricopa, including on roadways in southern San
Luis Obispo County. The project, as described in the application to the County of Santa Barbara,
estimates that the emissions from on-road transport alone could range from 4,600 metric tons of
carbon dioxide per year (MTCO2e) to 11,500 MTCO2e per year. A related project focusing on
replacing the oil pipeline that is currently in place is also under consideration.
Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
The City has a recent history of supporting efforts related to limiting the expansion and
transportation of oil due to health and safety, environmental, and climate concerns:
• On August 21, 2018 the City Council adopted Resolution 10932, which supported Measure G,
a ballot initiative to ban fracking and new oil and gas wells in unincorporated areas of San Luis
Obispo County.
• On October 3, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution 10836, which supports a ban on new
drilling, fracking, and related techniques, opposes new or expansion of existing oil and gas
leases, and supports a phase-out of all oil and gas extraction.
• On June 23, 2015, the City Council committed to fossil fuel divestment through the adoption of
the City of San Luis Obispo Investment Management Plan, which includes the following
restriction, “No investments are to be made to support the direct production of drilling of fossil
fuels.”
• In February 2015, City Council directed staff to write a letter to the County of San Luis Obispo
opposing the Phillips 66 oil train project due to health, safety, and environmental issues.
Packet Pg. 127
Item 7
Policy Context
The attached resolution (Attachment A) opposes the trucking of oil and replacement of pipeline
plans. The resolution recognizes the critical importance of making decisions that supports the
state movement toward carbon neutrality, the protection of groundwater as a fundamental
resource, recognizes that expanded or intensified oil extraction would significantly increase the
demands on the County’s limited water supplies and that the protection of this resource is the
primary responsibility of all levels of government.
The City’s legislative platform authorizes legislative advocacy opposing the expansion and
continuation of oil and gas operations and the council has preliminarily indicated a desire to
include broader opposition to legislation supporting or enabling fossil fuel operations in its 2019
platform. However, the platform does not authorize specific project advocacy on adjudicatory
matters within the jurisdiction of other agencies. Thus, the request for opposition to this
particular project within Santa Barbara’s jurisdiction is presented to the full council for
consideration and actions.
Public Engagement
The proposed resolution affirms the City’s long-standing policy to oppose oil development and
exploration that has the potential to impact the health and safety of the City and directed to be
placed on an upcoming agenda at the January 8, 2019 City Council meeting.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Passing a Resolution that opposes the trucking of oil and replacement of pipeline plans is not
subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a
project as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 (Definitions – Project).
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: 2018-19
Funding Identified: No
Funding Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing Cost
General Fund N/A*
State
Federal
Fees
Other:
Total
*There is no direct fiscal impact associated with the recommended action as it requires minimal
resources from the Administration Department and City Attorney’s Office.
Packet Pg. 128
Item 7
ALTERNATIVE
The City Council could decide to alter the draft Resolution or decide not to adopt a Resolution.
Staff does not recommend this alternative because the resolution is consistent with City’s 2019
Legislative Action Platform, recent actions to restrict new fossil fuel extraction, and the City’s
commitment to climate action.
Attachments:
a - Draft Resolution
Packet Pg. 129
Item 7
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2019 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING A PROPOSAL TO TRUCK
OFFSHORE OIL ALONG SANTA BARBARA, SAN LUIS OBISPO, AND
KERN COUNTY HIGHWAYS AND TO OPPOSE A PROPOSAL TO
BUILD A COASTAL OIL PIPELINE SERVICING AGING OFFSHORE
DRILLING PLATFORMS
WHEREAS, City of San Luis Obispo values our state’s ocean and coastal waters, which
provide habitat to a vast array of wildlife, including fish, whales, sea turtles, and birds that depend
on a healthy and clean environment; and
WHEREAS, San Luis Obispo’s residents and its visitors enjoy our beaches and the Pacific
Ocean for recreational, commercial, and educational activities, all of which support our local
economy; and
WHEREAS, in 2015 a pipeline serving offshore drilling platforms burst near Refugio
State Beach which fouled beaches and coastal waters for miles, causing irreparable damage to the
environment and wildlife; and
WHEREAS, the operating company of the aforementioned pipeline was recently
convicted on multiple charges for failing to properly maintain that pipeline, failing to timely call
emergency response agencies, and killing marine mammals, seabirds, and other marine life; and
WHEREAS, that company has a long history of spills and enforcement actions against it;
and
WHEREAS, newly constructed pipelines pose significant risk of spills, with the risk
increasing dramatically from pipelines after 20 years; many of the pipelines that will connect to
this one are past 20 years of age; and
WHEREAS, oil truck accidents cause fires and explosions, injure and kill people, and spill
hundreds of thousands of gallons of crude a year onto roads and into waterways; and
WHEREAS, burning the 4 million barrels of oil intended for trucking in a year would
result in over 1.7 million metric tons of carbon pollution -- the same amount as burning nearly 2
billion pounds of coal; and
WHEREAS, both the trucking and pipeline routes would pass through critical habitat for
several species protected as threatened or endangered under the federal ESA, including red-legged
frogs, California tiger salamanders and Southern California steelhead, which are highly susceptible
to toxic crude oil; and
WHEREAS, these proposals would ensure ongoing operations of aging offshore drilling
platforms into the foreseeable future, which is fundamentally inconsistent with California’s
legislation and executive orders focused on deep decarbonization and carbon neutrality; and
Packet Pg. 130
Item 7
Resolution No. _____ (2019 Series) Page 2
R ______
WHEREAS, in 2017 the City of San Luis Obispo approved Resolution No. 10836
supporting a ban on new drilling, fracking, and related techniques, opposing new or expansion of
existing oil and gas leases, and supporting a phase-out of all oil and gas extraction.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
that:
SECTION 1. The City of San Luis Obispo opposes any proposal to truck offshore oil
along Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, and Kern County highways and opposes any proposal to
build coastal oil pipelines that service the aging offshore drilling platforms.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2019.
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 131
Item 7
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg. 132
Item 7
Department Name: Administration
Cost Center: 1001
For Agenda of: January 15, 2019
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Robert A. Hill, Interim Deputy Director, Office of Sustainability
Prepared By: Chris Read, Sustainability Manager
SUBJECT: APPROVE A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE CITY OF
MORRO BAY FOR SHARING POLICY BOARD, OPERATIONS BOARD,
AND COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE SEATS ON MONTEREY
BAY COMMUNITY POWER
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Approve the draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the City of Morro Bay for
sharing Policy Board, Operations Board, and Community Advisory Committee seats on
Monterey Bay Community Power (Attachment A); and
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the MOU in a form subject to approval of the City
Attorney’s Office.
DISCUSSION
Background
Community Choice Energy (CCE), authorized by Assembly Bill 117, is a state law that allows
cities, counties, and other authorized entities to aggregate electricity demand within their
jurisdictions to purchase and/or generate electricity supplies for residents and businesses within
their jurisdiction while maintaining the existing electricity provider for physical transmission and
distribution services. CCEs are typically created to provide a higher percentage of renewable
energy electricity, such as wind and solar, at competitive and potentially cheaper rates than
existing investor owned utilities, while giving consumers local choices and promoting the
development of renewable power sources and local economic development. The City Council
has been supportive of the research and development of a viable regional CCE program for the
City of San Luis Obispo and surrounding communities for the last several years.
In November of 2018, the City of Morro Bay and the City of San Luis Obispo adopted
ordinances and resolutions committing both cities to join Monterey Bay Community Power
(MBCP). On December 5, the MBCP Policy Board unanimously voted to approve the two cities’
membership.
Packet Pg. 133
Item 8
MBCP is governed by two Boards: 1) a Policy Board that meets quarterly and is comprised of
elected officials, and 2) an Operations Board that meets at least eight times per year and is
comprised of City Managers and County Administrative Officers. MBCP also has a Community
Advisory Council comprised of local residents and business owners.
In MBCP, counties and jurisdictions with 50,000 or more residents hold six permanent Board
seats. An additional six Board seats are shared by multiple jurisdictions based on geography. As
part of membership, the City of San Luis Obispo and the City of Morro Bay agreed to share a
seat in each of the three bodies.
Upon approval of joining MBCP, the City of San Luis Obispo and the City of Morro Bay each
agreed to negotiate a formal agreement for sharing the Policy Board, Operations Board, and
Community Advisory Council seat. In December of 2018, staff from the two cities drafted and
negotiated the draft MOU that is provided as Attachment A. The draft MOU outlines the
following provisions:
1. Policy Board. The Policy Board representative shall serve for a term of two years and shall
alternate between cities. The City of San Luis Obispo shall provide the initial representative
and will serve from January 2019 to December 2020 and thereafter shall rotate every two
years between the City of Morro Bay and San Luis Obispo.
a. The City with the currently serving Policy Board representative shall, after each Policy
Board meeting, distribute via email to both City Councils and City Managers the meeting
minutes and any additional narrative deemed necessary to stay informed of policy,
business or other related matters.
b. The Policy Board Director alternative shall be identified by the city currently holding the
seat.
2. Operations Board. The Operations Board representative shall serve for a term of two-years
and may be one of two options:
a. The City Manager for the city of the Policy Board representative; or
b. director or deputy-director level staff member as determined by the City Manager of the
Policy Board representative.
3. Community Advisory Council. There shall be one Community Advisory Council (CAC)
member that shall serve a two-year term and shall be selected by the current Policy Board
Member and the Alternate. Although MBCP is not an advisory body, and although the
potential pool of CAC applicants includes registered voters living in Morro Bay and San Luis
Obispo, the selection of the CAC member will mirror established City advisory body
protocol including staff requesting and reviewing applications. The process will conclude
with the election of the CAC member by the current Policy Board Director and Alternate.
Packet Pg. 134
Item 8
The MOU requires that in all cases, the elected officials, staff, or public representing the joint
interests of the two cities shall consider the program purposes outlined in the Central Coast
Community Energy Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement including reducing greenhouse gas
emissions, providing electric power to customers at a competitive cost, carrying the programs to
increase energy efficiency, stimulating and sustaining the local economy by developing local
jobs in renewable energy and energy efficiency, and promoting long-term rate stability and
energy security and reliability for residents through local control of electric generation resources.
The MOU also includes a provision that if a party fails to attend or otherwise comply with the
Monterey Bay Community Power JPA and bylaws, and if the seat becomes vacated because of
such conduct, the other party shall serve in that seat. Should the CAC member fail to regularly
attend or otherwise comply with the JPA and bylaws, a new member will be selected through the
established process.
Consistent with the subcommittee and liaison assignments identified at the January 8, 2019, City
Council Meeting, the following roles are assigned for calendar years 2019 and 2020:
Board Director Alternate
Policy Board Mayor Harmon Vice Mayor Pease
Operations Board Derek Johnson, City
Manager
Bob Hill, Interim Deputy Directory, Office
of Sustainability
The Community Advisory Council (CAC) Member will be identified following Council action
on this item.
POLICY CONTEXT
At Council’s direction, the City has been pursuing participation in a CCE program since 2013.
The MOU considered in this staff report is directly responsive to the most recent Council
direction, in November of 2018, to join MBCP and develop a process for sharing Board seats
with the City of Morro Bay.
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
Council and staff received public and written testimony in support of joining MBCP and sharing
Board seats with the City of Morro Bay at the November 13, 2018, City Council meeting.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to the recommended action in this
report, because the action does not constitute a “Project” under CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15278.
Packet Pg. 135
Item 8
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: 2018-19
Funding Identified: Yes
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding Sources Current FY Cost
Annualized
On-going Cost
Total Project
Cost
General Fund $20,000
State
Federal
Fees
Other:
Total
The only fiscal impact to participating on MBCP’s Boards come from staff time and occasional
travel to Monterey County. These impacts are accounted for in City Administration’s current
standard operational budget.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The City Council could request amendments to the MOU. Should Council request
amendments, they would be provided to the City of Morro Bay for consideration and brought
back to Council at a future date.
2. The City Council could propose an alternative Director and Alternate. Council direction to
propose alternative representation could be accommodated at this meeting.
Attachments:
a - Draft_Memorandum of Understanding - MBCP Shared Seats
Packet Pg. 136
Item 8
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BEETWEEN
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AND
CITY OF MORRO BAY
This MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) is hereby made and entered into by and between
the City of San Luis Obispo, hereinafter referred to as SAN LUIS OBISPO, and the City of Morro Bay,
hereinafter referred to as MORRO BAY.
A. INTRODUCTION
In November 2018, SAN LUIS OBISPO and MORRO BAY jointly pursued community choice energy
program for the purpose of providing choice in the electricity market, reducing greenhouse gas emissions,
proving potential rate savings, supporting energy efficiency, promoting regional collaboration, and
contributing to economic development. The two cities pursued participating in a community choice energy
program by joining Monterey Bay Community Power (MBCP). On December 5, 2018, SAN LUIS OBISPO
and MORRO BAY became official members of MBCP
As outlined in the MBCP Joint Powers Agreement, the agency is governed by two decision making bodies
and one advisory body:
• The Policy Board is comprised of elected officials and meets quarterly to decide high level policy
decisions.
• The Operations Board is comprised of City Managers or their designees and meets approximately
eight times per year to decide finer detailed operational decisions.
• The Community Advisory Council is comprised of community members and serves in an
advisory role to the Policy Board and Operations Board.
MBCP is a large agency and to ensure manageable meetings, smaller jurisdictions share seats on the Policy
Board and Operations Board. Jurisdictions with 50,000 or more residents have permanent seats, while
smaller jurisdictions share seats based on geographic proximity. Since SAN LUIS OBISPO and MORRO
BAY are smaller than 50,000 each, the two cities will share a Policy Board and Operations Board seat.
Additionally, MBCP has communicated that the two cities may select one Community Advisory Council
member.
On November 13, 2018, both City Councils voted unanimously to direct staff to negotiate a Memorandum
of Understanding between SAN LUIS OBISPO and MORRO BAY to provide a collaborative and fair
strategy for MBCP representation and to return to their respective Councils for final approval.
B. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding is to identify a clear framework between SAN LUIS
OBISPO and MORRO BAY to share governance seats on Monterey Bay Community Power’s Policy
Board, Operations Board, and Community Advisory Council.
It should also be noted that community collaboration and regionalism was a key value of the effort to create
a local community choice energy program. This Memorandum of Understanding seeks to encourage further
regional collaboration.
C. SHARED SEATS
Packet Pg. 137
Item 8
1. Policy Board - The Policy Board representative shall serve for a term of two years and shall alternate
between cities. SAN LUIS OBISPO shall provide the initial representative and will serve from
December 2018 to December 2020 and thereafter shall rotate every two years between the City of
Morro Bay and San Luis Obispo.
a. The City with the currently serving Policy Board representative shall distribute via email to
both City Councils and City Managers the meeting minutes and any additional narrative
deemed necessary after each Policy Board meeting to stay informed of policy, business or other
related matters.
b. The Policy Board Director alternative shall be identified by the City currently holding the seat.
2. Operations Board - The Operations Board representative shall serve for a term of two-years and may
be one of two options:
a. The City Manager for the City of the Policy Board representative; or
b. A director or deputy-director level staff member as determined by the City Manager of the
Policy Board representative.
3. Community Advisory Council – There shall be one Community Advisory Council member that shall
serve a two-year term and be selected by the current Policy Board Member and their alternative. The
pool of Community Advisory Committee applicants shall include all registered voters residing in
MORRO BAY and SAN LUIS OBISPO. The city currently providing the Policy Board representative
shall conduct the Community Advisory Council selection process.
4. In all cases, the elected officials, staff, or public representing the joint interests of SAN LUIS OBISPO
and MORRO BAY shall consider the program purposes outlined in the Central Coast Community
Energy Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement:
a. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions;
b. Providing electric power to customers at a competitive cost;
c. Carrying our programs to increase energy efficiency;
d. Stimulating and sustaining the local economy by developing local jobs in renewable energy
and energy efficiency; and
e. Promoting long-term rate stability and energy security and reliability for residents through local
control of electric generation resources.
5. If a party fails to attend or otherwise comply with the Monterey Bay Community Power JPA and
bylaws, and if the seat becomes vacated because of such conduct, the other party shall serve in that
seat.
D. PROCESS
SAN LUIS OBISPO City Council will appoint its respective Board Members for the two-year term by
February 2019. Terms shall run for two-years starting in December and concluding in November of even-
numbered years.
Future term appointees shall be made by alternating City Councils in November of the year that the term
concludes (e.g., MORRO BAY in 2020, SAN LUIS OBISPO in 2022, MORRO BAY in 2024, etc.).
E. PRINCIPAL CONTACTS
Packet Pg. 138
Item 8
The principal contacts for this MOU are:
SAN LUIS OBISPO:
Name Role:
Derek Johnson, City Manager
Bob Hill, City Lead
Chris Read, City Lead
MORRO BAY
Name Role:
Scott Collins, City Manager, City Lead
F. COST OBLIGATION
Each party to this Memorandum of Understanding shall be financially responsible for absorbing costs
incurred for their own participation on the Policy Board, Operations Board, and Community Advisory
Council.
G. COMMENCEMENT/EXPIRATION DATE
This Memorandum of Understanding is executed as of the date of last signature and is effective until an
additional San Luis Obispo County jurisdiction joins MBCP, or SAN LUIS OBISPO or MORRO BAY
withdraw from MBCP, at which time it will be renegotiated.
H. LIABILITIES
It is understood that neither party to this Memorandum of Understanding is the agent of the other
and neither is liable for the wrongful acts, omissions or negligence of the other. Each party shall
be responsible for its wrongful or negligent acts or omissions and those of its officials, officers,
employees, and agents, howsoever caused, to the extent allowed by law, and shall be responsible
for their own Commercial General Liability, Auto, Worker’s Compensation and Errors and
Omissions insurance and adherence to their respective City’s policies. Each party to this
Memorandum of Understanding agrees to indemnify, defend and hold the other, and their officials,
officers, employees, and agents, against any liability, claim, personal injury, including death, or
property damage caused by that party’s negligence or willful misconduct in their performance
under this Memorandum of Understanding.
I. NO ASSIGNMENT
The rights and obligations of the parties to this Memorandum of Understanding may not be
assigned or delegated.
J. AMENDMENT
Packet Pg. 139
Item 8
This Memorandum of Understanding may not be amended or modified in any manner whatsoever
except by written agreement between the parties hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement as of the last written date below.
FOR SAN LUIS OBISPO:
Date:
Derek Johnson, City Manger
FOR MORRO BAY
Date:
Scott Collins, City Manager
Packet Pg. 140
Item 8
Department Name: Community Development
Cost Center: 4003
For Agenda of: January 16, 2018
Placement: Public Hearing
Estimated Time: 180 minutes
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner
Jake Hudson, Transportation Manager
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY FOOTHILL BLVD. CIVIL DEFENSE)
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE A USE
PERMIT FOR A NEW FOUR-STORY MIXED-USE PROJECT WITH 6,800
SQUARE FEET OF GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL/RETAIL SPACE, 78
RESIDENTIAL UNITS, AND 155 PARKING SPACES WITH A REQUEST
FOR MECHANICAL PARKING LIFTS AND EXPANDED HOURS OF
OPERATION FOR THE COMMERCIAL SPACES. TWELVE OF THE UNITS
IN THE PROJECT WILL BE AFFORDABLE FOR VERY-LOW INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS, ALLOWING A 35% DENSITY BONUS AND AFFORDABLE
HOUSING INCENTIVES AND WAIVERS ARE REQUESTED INCLUDING
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 43-FOOT TALL STRUCTURE WHERE 35
FEET IS NORMALLY ALLOWED AND AN INCREASE IN ALLOWABLE
LOT COVERAGE FROM 75% TO 90% (790 FOOTHILL).
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution (Attachment A):
1. Denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of a new four-story
mixed-use project with 6,800 square feet of ground floor commercial/retail space, 78
residential units, and 155 parking spaces with a request for mechanical parking lifts and
expanded hours of operation for the commercial spaces; and
2. Approving a density bonus per Government Code sections 65915 (b), (f)(2) and waiver of
development standards per Government Code 65915(e)(1).1
1 Copy of Gov. Code 65915 provided as Attachment F. All relevant references are highlighted.
Packet Pg. 141
Item 9
SITE DATA
Applicant LR Real Estate Investment Group,
LLC.
Representative Thom Jess, Arris Studio Architects
Zoning C-C-SF
General Plan Commercial
Site Area 1.33 acres (58,076 s.f.)
Environmental
Status
Categorically exempt under Class 32,
In-Fill Development Projects, Section
15332 of the CEQA Guidelines
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The applicant submitted an application for a new four-story mixed-use project with 6,800 square
feet of ground floor commercial/retail space and 78 residential units. The project includes a 35%
density bonus as allowed per State law, because 12 of the units are proposed to be deed restricted
for very-low income households (less than 31-50% of area median income). The applicant is
requesting two affordable housing incentives under Government Code section 65915(d) et seq: a
43-foot maximum height for the structure where 35 feet is allowed and an expansion of the
allowable coverage for the site from 75% to 90%. Alternatively, the applicant has also requested
these incentives as waivers of development standards per Gov. Code § 65915(e)(1). The project
required use permit approval for the use of mechanical parking lifts and expansion of the hours
of operation for retail/commercial spaces within a mixed-use project. Additionally, the project is
located within the Foothill Boulevard/Santa Rosa Special Planning Area and required Planning
Commission (PC) review for compliance with Chapter 8 (Special Focus Areas) of the Land Use
Element (Zoning Regulations, Chapter 17.53: Special Focus Area (S-F) Overlay Zone).
The project was reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) on May 7, 2018 and
July 16, 2018. The ARC approved the applicant’s revised plans with the addition of four new
conditions (Attachment B, ARC Resolution). On July 25, 2018 the Planning Commission (PC)
reviewed and approved the use permit for a mixed-use project, expanded hours of operation, and
the use of mechanical parking lifts (Attachment C, PC Resolution). The ARC’s actions were not
appealed.
The scope of this report is to provide an evaluation of the project in terms of its consistency with
the City’s General Plan, Zoning Regulations and Design Guidelines and other applicable City
policies and standards. Consistency with State codes is also evaluated due to protections
provided by the Density Bonus Law and Housing Accountability Act. The Council is being
asked to review the proposed project in consideration of the appeal, however, the review is
considered de novo2 and Council is not limited to acting on the items brought up in the appeal.
2 17.126.050(A) Hearings and notice: Action on appeals shall be “de novo” review and shall be considered at the
same type of hearing and after the same notice that is required for the original decision.
Packet Pg. 142
Item 9
Based on the analysis set forth below, staff is recommending the City Council deny the appeal,
thereby upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of the project, and approve the waiver of
development standards to allow increased height and lot coverage, as requested by the Applicant
(Attachment A). If the Council denies the appeal, the project will have all necessary entitlements
needed to move forward for building permits. While the staff recommendation is to deny the
appeal and approve the project, the City Council may choose to uphold the appeal. If the City
Council chooses to uphold the appeal and deny the project, special findings are needed as
required by State law to form an adequate basis for the denial. Staff’s recommendation, should
Council want to pursue this option, would be to provide specific direction to Staff and have Staff
return with the necessary findings to uphold the appeal. Similarly, if the City Council reduces the
project’s density or adds conditions to the project that have the effect of reducing the project’s
density, then special findings are required by State law. The following discussion provides
additional background and analysis of the proposed project, the requested development standards
waivers, and the appeal.
DISCUSSION
Site Information/Setting
Table 1: Site Information
Zoning C-C-SF (Community Commercial with a Special Focus Overlay)
Site Size 1.33 acres (58,076 s.f.)
Present Use & Development Vacant building, Black Horse Coffee Shop, two residential structures
Topography Slightly sloped
Access Chorro Street and Foothill Blvd
Surrounding Use/Zoning East: C-R-SF (University Square Shopping Center)
South: C-C-SF (Restaurants, Foothill Shopping Center)
North: R-4 (Multi-family residential developments)
West: C-C-SF (Liquor store)
Project Description
The project (Attachment D, Project Plans) proposes to construct a new four-story mixed-use
project with:
• 6,800 square feet of ground floor commercial/retail space;
• 78 residential units (21 one-bedroom, 45 two-bedrooms and 12 studios restricted for very-
low income households);
• 155 parking spaces; and
• 181 bicycle parking spaces (161 long-term and 20 short-term).
Packet Pg. 143
Item 9
Project Statistics
Table 2: Project Statistics
Item Proposed 1 Standard 2
Setback
Front Yard adjacent to C-C zone 0 feet 0 feet
Other Yard adjacent to R-4 zone 5 – 15 feet 5 – 10 feet
Max. Height of Structure(s) 43 feet3 35 feet3
Max. Building Coverage (footprint) 90%3 75%3
Density Units (DU) 64.86 DU 65 DU (with 35% density bonus)
Parking Spaces
Total Vehicle 155 146
Total Bicycle 187 178
Bicycle (long-term) 167 167
Bicycle (short-term) 20 11
Notes: 1. Applicant’s project plans
2. Zoning Regulations (prior to October 19, 2018)
3. Development standard requested to be waived per Gov. Code § 65915(e)(1).
Background
The applicant initially submitted the project for City review on November 6, 2017. The
entitlements for this project are threefold: (1) design review; (2) a use permit for mechanical
parking lifts, the expansion of the hours of operation for commercial uses within a mixed -use
project, and location within the Foothill Boulevard/Santa Rosa Special Planning Area; and (3)
consideration of affordable housing incentives and waiver of development standards.
Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
• On July 25, 2018 the Planning Commission (PC) reviewed the use permit for a mixed-use
project in the Foothill Boulevard/Santa Rosa Special Planning Area, expanded
commercial/retail hours of operation, and the use of mechanical parking lifts. The Planning
Commission approved the use permit with a vote of 5:1 (Attachment C, PC Resolution).
• On July 16, 2018, the ARC reviewed architectural plans for the project that had been revised
based on the ARC’s directional items. The ARC determined that the applicant’s revised plans
addressed the directional items, with the addition of four new conditions, and approved the
project with a vote of 3:2 (Attachment B, ARC Resolution).
• On May 7, 2018 the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) reviewed the architectural
aspects of the project. The ARC continued the project and provided the applicant with eleven
(11) directional items to incorporate within the revised project.
Policy Context
Land Use Element, Chapter 8: Special Focus Area
In December 2014, the City Council adopted the new Land Use and Circulation Elements
(LUCE) of the General Plan. As a part of the update, a new section was added to the Land Use
Element (LUE) that identified Special Planning Areas. The proposed project is located in the
Foothill Boulevard/Santa Rosa Special Planning Area3 (see Figure 1 below), which includes
3 Land Use Element Section 8.2.1. Foothill Boulevard / Santa Rosa Area and Figure 10.
Packet Pg. 144
Item 9
Figure 1: Foothill Blvd/Santa Rosa Special Planning Area
property on both sides of Foothill Boulevard, approximately between Broad Street and Santa
Rosa Street, currently developed as commercial centers that include highway and neighborhood
serving commercial uses. The Foothill Boulevard/Santa Rosa Special Planning Area encourages
the development of mixed-use projects, adjustments in parking and height requirements and
improving intersections along Foothill Boulevard. The text from Policy 8.2.1 of the LUE is
reprinted below:
8.2.1. Foothill Boulevard / Santa Rosa Area
This area, which includes land on both sides of Foothill Boulevard between Chorro
and Santa Rosa, is
currently developed as
commercial centers that
include highway and
neighborhood serving
commercial uses. At the
affected property owners’
request, the boundary of
this area on the north side
of Foothill may be
extended to include one or
more of the existing
commercial properties
west of Chorro Street. The City shall work with property owners / developers to
redevelop the area as mixed use (either horizontal or vertical mixed use) to include
a mix of uses as described under the Neighborhood Commercial, Community
Commercial and Medium High to High Density Residential designations.
The non-residential component of the project should include elements that serve the
nearby neighborhoods. Examples include:
• specialty stores and services
• food service
• entertainment, and
• recreational facilities (except that movie theaters, nightclubs, bars/taverns and
restaurants serving alcohol after 11 pm shall be prohibited)
As part of this project, the City will evaluate adjustments to parking requirements
to account for predominant pedestrian and bike access. Building height
adjustments in this area can also be considered with mixed use development.
Redevelopment plans shall include consideration of improving the existing complex
intersections of Foothill/Chorro/Broad, the desirability of modifying Boysen at and
through the property on the northeast corner of the area, and enhancement of
pedestrian, bicycle and transit connections across Foothill and Santa
Rosa/Highway 1 and to the campus. Among other possible incentives, building
height adjustments on the North side of Foothill may be considered with mixed use
development.
The Fire Station will be maintained or relocated within the area.
Packet Pg. 145
Item 9
Housing Element
The Housing Element (HE) outlines a series of goals and policies to encourage the development
of housing production for all financial strata of the City's population. HE Goal 24 outlines that
housing should be in line with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), for the 2014 -
2019 planning period. Table 3 provides the remaining RHNA need based on dwelling units
approved, under construction or built through December 31, 2017. The proposed project will
contribute twelve (12) very-low income units towards the City’s RHNA total. The HE further
states that affordable housing units should be intermixed and not segregated by economic status
and encourages housing development that meets a variety of special needs, including large
families, single parents, disabled persons, the elderly, students, veterans, the homeless, or those
seeking congregate care, group housing, single-room occupancy or co-housing accommodations
utilizing universal design (HE Policy 8.1). The Housing Element also states that preference for
residential use be given over commercial uses (Policy 11.15).
In addition, the Housing Element further states:
• That the City should continue to consider increasing residential densities above state density
bonus allowances for projects that provide housing for low, very low and extremely low-
income households (Policy 2.17); and
• That the City should continue to incentivize affordable housing development with density
bonuses, parking reductions and other development incentives, including City financial
assistance (Program 6.19).
Table 3: Housing Element Table 6: Remaining RHNA need based on dwelling units
approved, under construction or built (January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2017)
Income Category
A B A-B
New
Construction
Need
(RHNA)
Dwelling Units
Approved, Under
Construction or Built
Remaining RHNA
Need, Dwelling
Units
Very Low and Extremely-Low
(<31-50% of AMI)
285 96 189
Low (51-80% of AMI) 179 27 152
Moderate (81-120% of AMI) 202 10 192
Above Moderate (>120% of
AMI)
478 5901 -112
TOTAL RHNA UNITS 1,144 7231 421
1No credit allowed for the number of above moderate units built that exceed RHNA.
4 Housing Element Goal 2: Accommodate affordable housing production that helps meet the City’s quantified
objectives.
5 Housing Element Policy 11.1: Where property is equally suited for commercial or residential uses, give p reference
to residential use. Changes in land use designation from residential to non-residential should be discouraged.
Packet Pg. 146
Item 9
Major City Goal
Housing was determined to be one of the most important, highest priority goals for the City to
accomplish over 2015-17 and 2017-19 financial years. This is an ongoing goal to: Implement the
Housing Element, facilitating workforce, affordable, supportive and transitional housing options,
including support for needed infrastructure within the City’s fair share.
State Housing Accountability Act and Density Bonus Law
The Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), codified in Government Code § 65589.5, applies to
any “housing development project”, and was amended last year to include “[m]ixed-use
developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with at lea st two-thirds of the
square footage designated for residential use.” Government Code § 65589.5(h)(2)(B6). The
proposed project is a mixed-use project where more than two thirds of the project’s square
footage is devoted to residential use. As such, if the project complies with all applicable
objective standards, then certain findings are required in order for the agency to lawfully (1)
deny the project; or (2) reduce or impose conditions which have the effect of reducing the
project’s density. In 2017, the State legislature amended the HAA to require that the findings be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record and the agency bears the burden of
proof. By design, the legislature has crafted the findings to be difficult for agencies to make
findings to deny a project. Specifically, in order to deny a HAA project or reduce density, the
agency must find that:
“[t]he housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon
the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the
condition that the project be developed at a lower density...[and] [t]here is no
feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact…other than
disapproval…or the approval…at a lower density” Gov. Code §
65589.5(j)(1)(A)&(B)
A “specific, adverse impact” is defined to mean a “significant, quantifiable, direct, and
unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards,
policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.”
Government Code § 65589.5(j)(1). Accordingly, the City Council may only lawfully deny the
project or reduce its density if it determines the project or the additional density causes a specific
adverse health or safety impact. Standards such as “compatibility” can be lawfully used to
impose design conditions, but cannot be used to deny a housing project or reduce density. The
reason is because the standard of compatibility is subjective in nature and not necessarily related
to public health and safety and the HAA requires the specific adverse impact be based on
objective health and safety standards. Also, even if the City identifies a specific adverse impact,
the City has the obligation to prove that “there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or
avoid the adverse impact…other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the
approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density.” Government
Code § 65589.5(j)(1)(B).
It should be noted that the protections in the HAA and the density bonus provisions in the
6 65589.5 (h) (2)(B) Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with at least two-
thirds of the square footage designated for residential use.
Packet Pg. 147
Item 9
Density Bonus Law (“DBL”), discussed below, work in concert with one another. Specifically,
Government Code § 65589.5(j)(3) states that: “…the receipt of a density bonus pursuant to
Section 65915 shall not constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing
development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with an applicable
plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision specified in
this subdivision.” In other words, the legislature has determined that the benefits afforded by the
DBL do not render the protections in the HAA inapplicable.
The DBL, codified in Government Code § 65915, mandates that public agencies provide a
density bonus and relax development standards through incentives, concessions or waivers if a
proposed project includes a prescribed percentage of affordable housing. The level of the density
bonus and the number of incentives or concessions is dependent on the amount of affordable
housing provided and the level of affordability. A city cannot require a developer to provide a
greater percentage of units or deeper level of affordability than prescribed by the statute in order
to qualify for the density bonus. See Latinos Unidos del Valle de Napa y Solano v. County of
Napa, 217 Cal. App. 4th 1160 (2013).
For this project, the base density of the project without a density bonus is 48 density units. The
developer is proposing twelve (12) units (12.5% of the base density) to be deed restricted for
very low-income households which entitles the developer to a thirty five percent (35%) density
bonus (Gov. Code § 69515(f)(2)) and up to three (3) incentives or concessions (Gov. Code §
65915(d)(2)(C). The City must also ensure that the affordable units will remain affordable for 55
years and that the rents will not exceed those permitted by State law (Gov. Code § 65915(c)(1);
Condition No. 10 requires that the developer deed restrict these units to very low-income
households. On top of this requirement, Gov. Code § 65915(e)(1) mandates that “[i]n no case
may a city…apply any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding
the construction of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b) at the densities or with
the concessions or incentives permitted by this [the DBL].” In other words, the DBL law requires
a city to relax its development standards in order for the project to physically incorporate the
additional units permitted under the law.
Similar to the HAA, there are protections for projects using the DBL. No grounds are provided
that would allow a city to deny a density bonus; rather, "a city …shall grant one density
bonus…." (Gov. Code § 65925(b)(1); see also Wollmer v. City of Berkeley, 193 Cal. App. 4th
1329, 1330 (2011) ("Wollmer") ("Section 65915 mandates that local governments provide a
density bonus…" (emphasis added).
Developers can also request modifications of development standards by requesting either
incentives/concessions (they are the same) or waivers. Incentives or concessions refer to
“regulatory incentives” that provide “identifiable and actual cost reductions” to provide for the
affordable housing (Gov. Code § 65915(k)); in other words, they are provided to allow for
modifications that result in an actual reduction of costs to the project so the affordable housing is
economically feasible. Waivers of development standards are provided under Government Code
§§ 65915(e) if the usual development standards would “physically preclude” a development from
being constructed with the density bonus requested; a project with a 35% greater density may
require modifications of development standards to fit on a site. Necessary waivers may only be
Packet Pg. 148
Item 9
denied if the agency can make a finding based on substantial evidence that the waiver is contrary
to state or federal law, would have an adverse impact on property listed on the California
Historical Register, or would cause a “specific, adverse impact” upon the public health, safety,
or the physical environment, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate
or avoid the specific adverse impact. The definition of “specific, adverse impact” is the same as
that in the HAA – i.e. a “significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on
objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they
existed on the date the application was deemed complete.”
This project includes two waivers of otherwise applicable property development standards – an
eight foot (8’) maximum height increase for a portion of the building (the “Height Exception”)
and increase in the allowable lot coverage for the site from seventy five percent (75%) to ninety
percent (90%) (the “Lot Coverage Exception”). The stated purpose of these modifications is to
allow for the physical construction of the additional density units. Under density bonus law,
these modifications are properly analyzed as waivers, not incentives. In order to deny these
waivers, the City would be required to make the statutory findings based on the standards as
discussed and defined above. Again, to use the example noted above, the City cannot simply
deny the waivers based on findings that the increase in lot coverage or the height increase is not
“compatible” with the neighborhood. Under State law, the City must identify either a violation of
state or federal law, an impact on a historic property, or a specific adverse impact on the public
health, safety, or the physical environment that is directly caused by the waiver, and determine
that there is no feasible way to satisfactorily mitigate it or find an alternative.
Analysis of Requested Affordable Housing Waivers of Development Standards
As previously indicated, the applicant has requested the Height Exception and the Lot Coverage
Exception as both an affordable housing concession (Gov. Code § 65915(d)) and a waiver of
development standards (Gov. Code § 65915(e)(1)). No evidence regarding cost reduction or its
relation to providing affordable housing has been provided to justify an incentive or concession;
rather the modifications are being requested to allow the units with the density bonus to
physically fit on the site. Therefore, the more relevant and appropriate application and analysis
regarding the Height and the Lot Coverage Exceptions is as a waiver of development standards.
In this case, the project is entitled to receive a 35% density bonus, which is approximately one
third more units. The ground floor is comprised of parking and retail and the above three floors
are residential. Logically, there is a nexus between the need for an additional floor area in order
to physically accommodate the approximately one third more residential units. Staff looked at
whether a reasonable reduction in each units’ square footage could result in a significant enough
reduction to obviate the need for the additional floor area. Table 4 below reflects the level of
reduction needed to each unit in order to capture the square footage of the top floor, which is
significant. More importantly, architecturally, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible,
to physically layout the additional units in a reasonably useful manner between floors two and
three and still maintain all building code requirements.
Packet Pg. 149
Item 9
Table 4: Reduction of the two-bedroom units from the proposed 1200 square feet (s.f.) to
700 s.f.
Proposed
1200 s.f. 1150 s.f. 1000 s.f. 950 s.f. 900 s.f. 800 s.f. 700 s.f.
2nd Floor1 24,500 23,750 21,500 20,750 20,000 18,500 17,000
3rd Floor1 24,500 23,750 21,500 20,750 20,000 18,500 17,000
4th Floor1 24,500 23,750 21,500 20,750 20,000 18,500 17,000
Total s.f. for the
units in the
building1
73,500 71,250 64,500 62,250 60,000 55,500 51,000
Difference 2,250 9,000 11,250 13,500 18,000 20,250
1. Calculations assumed each studio is 400 s.f. and each one-bedroom is 700 s.f.
Even assuming that the reductions in the units’ square footage could eliminate the need for the
top story, under current case law, it is unclear if the City has the discretion to require those
reductions or to eliminate project amenities. In the case of Wollmer v. City of Berkeley, 193 Cal.
App. 4th 1329 (2011), the Court stated, in pertinent part:
Here, the City waived the standards for height, number of stories and setbacks,
granting variances to allow an additional story and a higher building height, and
to forego setbacks on two corners. What bothers Wollmer is the fact that the
waiver of standards for height and setbacks were granted to accommodate certain
project “amenities,” namely an interior courtyard, a community plaza and 15–
foot ceilings in the commercial space and nine-foot ceilings in the residential
units. He contends that the City cannot waive development standards in order to
approve a density bonus project unless it specifically finds that the waived
standards physically preclude construction of the density-bonus qualifying
project, and waivers to accommodate project amenities do not meet this test.
…Wollmer's argument goes nowhere. Had the City failed to grant the waiver and
variances, such action would have had “the effect of physically precluding the
construction of a development” meeting the criteria of the density bonus law. If
the project were not built, it goes without saying that housing units for lower-
income households would not be built and the purpose of the density bonus law to
encourage such development would not be achieved. The trial court properly
interpreted the statute, and the City proceeded in the manner required by law in
granting the waivers.
Based on the physical realities of this project and the potential impacts that have been evaluated,
the combination of additional height and lot coverage is the most appropriate method of
achieving the project’s density at the amounts allowed by law. If the applicant reduced the lot
Packet Pg. 150
Item 9
coverage to the City’s standard, then additional height would likely be needed in order to
accommodate the units on floors two, three and four which utilized the additional lot coverage
area. Similarly, the parking could be eliminated in order to potentially reduce the overall height,
however, then there would certainly be neighborhood concerns associated with that type of
concession. Moreover, the Wollmer analysis regarding the City’s ability to compel the
elimination of project amenities would also be implicated. It should be noted that the applicant
did include certain design features to reduce the total height of the project – for example, multi-
story residential projects typically have a “plate-height” of 12 feet; the plate height for this
project is 10 feet, thus reducing the project’s total height by 8 feet.
Appeal
On August 6, 2018, the Foothill Blvd Civic Defense filed an appeal of the Planning
Commission’s decision to approve the use permit (Attachment E, Appeal Application & Letter).
The ARC’s decision on July 16, 2018 approving the design of the project was not appealed, but
the final design approval was contingent on the approval of the use permit and development
standard waivers that are the subject of the appeal. All that was appealed is the use approval. The
appeal generally argues that:
1. The claimed CEQA exemptions from environmental review do not apply because the Project
does not meet the threshold criteria required for the exemptions, and environmental review is
required.
2. The project is inconsistent with the Circulation Element and the Conservation and Open
Space Element of the General Plan (COSE).
3. The project is also inconsistent with the zoning of the property, which is the C-C-SF
(Community Commercial with a Special Focus Overlay) zone.
4. The City cannot bifurcate or divide approval of the housing incentives which result in
reduction of site development standards from the rest of the project review.
5. There is no indication that the project requires a density bonus and two housing concessions
to provide twelve affordable studios.
6. A new Multi modal Transportation Impact Study is necessary to determine if health and
safety would be adversely impacted by the proposed project.
7. The extent of parking demand, occupancy in the mechanical lift system, and potential for
traffic and on-street parking demand were not quantitatively analyzed.
8. Affordable Housing Units. The proportion and one type of low-income affordable units in the
project does not meet the intent of Housing Element Policy 4.2.
A supplement was filed on December 28, 2018 to the appeal which generally argues that:
1. CEQA requires that an exemption cannot be granted if the project violates any general plan
policy. We claim that the project violates the COSE and Circulation element policies on
views, and therefore it cannot be exempt from environmental review.
Packet Pg. 151
Item 9
Staff Analysis
Staff has provided an analysis below of the points outlined in the Appeal Letter.
1. The claimed CEQA exemptions from environmental review do not apply because the Project
does not meet the threshold criteria required for the exemptions, and environmental review is
required.
An infill project is exempt from CEQA when it (a) is consistent with the applicable general plan
designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation
and regulations; (b) occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres
substantially surrounded by urban uses; (c) has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or
threatened species; (d) does not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air
quality, or water quality; and (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and
public services.
The appellants’ primary contention is that the project is inconsistent with various viewshed
protection policies in the City’s General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element (“COSE”).
Some of the relevant viewshed policies are contained in Section 9 of the COSE, starting on page
6-58 and include the following:
9.1.5. View protection in new development. The City will include in all
environmental review and carefully consider effects of new development, streets
and road construction on views and visual quality by applying the Community
Design Guidelines, height restrictions, hillside standards, Historical Preservation
Program Guidelines and the California Environmental Quality Act and
Guidelines.
9.2.1. Views to and from public places, including scenic roadways. The City will
preserve and improve views of important scenic resources from public places, and
encourage other agencies with jurisdiction to do so. Public places include parks,
plazas, the grounds of civic buildings, streets and roads, and publicly accessible
open space. In particular, the route segments shown in Figure 11 are designated
as scenic roadways.
A. Development projects shall not wall off scenic roadways and block views.
***
D. Development projects, including signs, in the viewshed of a scenic roadway
shall be considered “sensitive” and require architectural review.
A project is consistent with the general plan if, considering all its aspects, it will further the
objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment. Perfect conformity
is not required, but the project must be compatible with the General Plan’s objectives and
policies. As a general matter of statutory construction, more specific policies or zoning
provisions will prevail over more general provisions and the General Plan must be read and its
provisions harmonized in that context.
Packet Pg. 152
Item 9
As previously mentioned, the City’s Housing Element (“HE”) and Land Use Element (“LUE”)
contain other policies relating to the production of housing. In particular, the updated LUE
includes specific policies for the “Foothill Boulevard/ Santa Rosa Area” Special Focus Area
which specifically states: “Among other possible incentives, building height adjustments on the
North side of Foothill may be considered with mixed use development.” From a General Plan
consistency analysis, California Government Code Section 65300.5 states that “…the general
plan and elements and parts thereof comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible
statement of policies for the adopting agency.” Accordingly, these policies reflect how view
protection along streets and infill housing can be consistent with one another as required by the
Government Code. In other words, the LUE specifically identifies certain areas which are
appropriate for more intensive infill development. The precise location of these areas was
developed based on a variety of factors and policies which are reflected in the General Plan,
which must be read to be consistent with one another. It would be inconsistent with Land Use
and Planning Law to identify a site as appropriate for increased height, if the determination that
increased height on the site was inconsistent with other policies. In fact, the underlying EIR for
the LUE update in 2014 stated that development under the new LUE policies had the potential to
impact the existing visual character, but stated that such impacts were considered Class III, less
than significant:
By definition, the special focus areas were considered in greater detail than more general land
use designation areas. That analysis was conducted in the broader context of broader general
plan policies and programs; the area at issue here was specifically determined to be appropriate
for increased density and height to accommodate housing. Even if that were not the case,
legislation enacted in 2017 (AB 678, SB 167 and AB 1515) amended certain provisions of the
HAA, which now provides little deference to local government findings that a project is
inconsistent with the General Plan. Specifically, Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(4) states that “…a
housing development project…shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an
applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision if
there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing
development project…is consistent, compliant, or in conformity.” As a consequence of this
change, to support a finding of inconsistency with the general plan, there would need to be an
absence of credible evidence in the record (whether provided by the City or the developer) that
the project is consistent with the plan. In this case, the Planning Commission’s findings of
consistency, the analysis of the special focus area and the specific housing policies applicable to
the area all provide substantial evidence that the project is consistent with the general plan when
read as an integrated whole and harmonized in the context of the most specifically applicable
provisions.
Packet Pg. 153
Item 9
2. The project is inconsistent with the Circulation Element and the Conservation and Open
Space Element of the General Plan (COSE).
See analysis under section 1 above.
3. The project is also inconsistent with the zoning of the property, which is the C-C-SF
(Community Commercial with a Special Focus Overlay) zone.
The Zoning Regulations (2015) provide a matrix (Table 9) of the allowed uses within each of the
zones that cover the City. Table 9 identifies that “Mixed-Use” projects are allowed by right in
the Community Commercial (C-C) zone. Section 17.08.072.B states that “a mixed use project
requires a combination of residential units with any other use, or combination of uses allowed
in the applicable zoning district…” Additionally the General Plan’s description of the Foothill
Boulevard/Santa Rosa Special Planning Area states the “the City shall work with property
owners/developers to redevelop the area as mixed use (either horizontal or vertical mixed use) to
include a mix of uses as described under the Neighborhood Commercial, Community
Commercial and Medium High to High Density Residential designations.” The project located at
790 Foothill is consistent with the zoning of the property because it provides residential units and
6,800 square feet of ground floor commercial/retail space.
The appellants also assert that the project is inconsistent with the zoning, and hence not eligible
for the Class 32 categorical exemption provided under CEQA, because the density bonus and
waivers are not consistent with the zoning. This exact issue was considered in Wollmer, and the
Court of Appeal concluded that, to harmonize density bonus law and CEQA, projects receiving
density bonuses and waivers consistent with State density bonus law were consistent with zoning
and hence qualified for the categorical exemption. (193 Cal. App. 4th at 1347-50.)
4. The City cannot bifurcate or divide approval of the housing incentives which result in
reduction of site development standards from the rest of the project review.
Because the project was deemed complete prior to the City’s Zoning Code update, the City’s
prior Zoning Code establishes the applicable rules and regulations for the project. Former
Chapter 17.90 established the City’s Affordable Housing Incentive regulations in response to the
State’s enactment of the DBL. Since 1995, the DBL has been amended on numerous occasions.
Some provisions in former Chapter 17.907 are valid and some have been superseded by
amendments to the Government Code. Section 17.90.060 of the prior code establishes the
procedure for the City to review incentives or concessions. Subsection A requires City Council
approval of concessions and incentives which is the process the City is using for this project,
including approval of waivers, which were not mentioned in the prior ordinance. Subsection B
requires the applicant to provide “…an estimate of the incentive’s financial value in comparison
with the financial value of the density bonus allowed in Section 17.90.030, as well as the basis
for the comparison estimate.” Appellants suggest that the City should have required the applicant
to provide a pro forma and that information should have been provided to the ARC and the PC
for their consideration. This contention is incorrect for several reasons. First, no economic
analysis is required to justify a density bonus, as discussed above. Second, the modifications
7 See Attachment G for the 2015 Zoning Code requirements for Affordable Housing Incentives.
Packet Pg. 154
Item 9
were requested by the applicant as either incentives/concession or a waiver and are most
appropriately analyzed as a waiver of development standards as outlined above. The analysis
regarding a waiver of development standards has no financial component to it and there is no
such requirement under prior zoning or under state law.
5. There is no indication that the project requires a density bonus and two housing concessions
to provide twelve affordable studios.
As discussed above, the DBL requires cities to provide a density bonus and grant waivers if a
housing project provides a certain level of deed restricted affordable housing and requires
waivers to construct the project with the density bonus. The statute mandates that the City
provide the density bonus. Careful evaluation of the project has found that the project requires
the requested waivers and has not identified any violations of state or federal law, any adverse
impacts on properties listed on the California Register, or any specific adverse impacts with
respect to the waiver of development standards that would justify denial of the waiver. There is
no economic requirement to the request for either the density bonus or the waiver.
It should be noted that subsection (r) of the DBL states that the provisions of the DBL “…shall
be interpreted liberally in favor of producing the maximum number of total housing units.”
Section 5 of the appeal further contends that staff incorrectly guided the ARC and the PC by
insisting that the proposed density of the project cannot be lowered. The staff reports, memos
and advice at each of the hearings clearly articulate the protections imposed by the HAA and the
DBL and the findings which are needed in order to reduce the project’s density or impose
conditions which have the effect of reducing the project’s density. No “specific adverse impact”
on public health and safety, as defined in the statutes, has been identified.
Packet Pg. 155
Item 9
6. A new Multi Modal Transportation Impact Study is necessary to determine if health and
safety would be adversely impacted by the proposed project.
a) The appellant claims that the 2016 volumes used in the traffic impact study are too old
and that 2018 volumes should be significantly higher due to a variety of factors. This is
not valid for the following reasons. 2018 data was not available at the time of the traffic
study, but has since been collected. As shown in Figure 2 below, volumes on Foothill
have not changed dramatically since 2010. Rather, Foothill traffic volumes recorded in
2018 are approximately 2% lower than 2016. Traffic counts are taken every two years on
a fair-weather weekday, during regular CalPoly, Cuesta, and San Luis Unified School
District session.
The claim that the traffic study did not take the 22 Chorro project into consideration is
also not valid. The conclusions and recommendations of the traffic study were based on
“worst-case” forecasted future buildout of the City assuming full occupancy of all land
uses contemplated in the City’s General Plan (including 22 Chorro and the Foothill Plaza
Shopping Center), as well as CalPoly’s Current Master Plan.
b) The appeal states that the combined trip generation of this project with the 22 Chorro and
71 Palomar projects are enough to trigger a traffic impact study. This claim is moot as
two traffic impact studies were indeed conducted, one specific to the 790 Foothill Project
and one for the General Plan EIR which contemplated 275 new, high-density residential
units in the Special Planning Area. If approved, the total unit count of 790 Foothill and
22 Chorro would be 105 units.
Figure 2: Foothill daily traffic volumes from 2010 to 2018
Packet Pg. 156
Item 9
c) The appeal letter states that the trip generation rate used in the traffic study, General
Multifamily, is not accurate and is lower than trip generation rates for student housing.
This is not valid for the following reasons. As shown Figure 3 below the General
Multifamily trip rate used in the traffic study yields the same estimated trips as the
Institute of Traffic Engineers “Off-Campus University Housing” trip rates and is more
conservative (i.e., assumes more trips) than actual rates recorded from 22 Chorro,
Mustang Village, and SLO LIFE apartments based on the number of bedrooms occupied
at the time counts were taken. Because the project is not restricted to student housing the
traffic study used the more conservative trip rate.
d) Foothill has been identified as a high collision rate location and the appeal states that
therefore a Transportation Impact Study is warranted. Two traffic impact studies were
conducted, one specific to the 790 Foothill Project and one for the General Plan EIR.
Study of the project identified geometric issues associated with earlier versions of the
project and how the project interfaces with the Foothill Chorro/Broad Traffic Signal. As a
result of these studies, the project’s access points were redesigned, the project was
conditioned to upgrade the signal configuration at Foothill Chorro/Broad, and the project
was conditioned to upgrade pedestrian crossing to include high visibility treatments to
mitigate the range of potential safety issues that have been identified. Public
improvement plans will need to be developed to the satisfaction of the Public Works
Director to address the need to make high visibility treatments to address the range of
potential safety issues, consistent with applicable traffic safety requirements.
The Council has recently adopted the Bishop Peak & Pacheco Elementary School Safe
Routes to school plan which includes the installation of bike lane extensions and green
lanes under project #4 of that plan. This improvement was subsequently adopted into the
City AB1600 Transportation Impact Fee Program under Projects #36 & #37. Therefore,
staff is recommending that the project be conditioned (Condition No. 13) to implement
these planned improvements along their project frontage, which are eligible for impact
Figure 3: Comparison of PM Peak Trip Rates for the proposed project at 790
Foothill and similar type residential units. Rates account for occupancy level.
Packet Pg. 157
Item 9
fee credits up to the amount collected through the fee program.
The appeal also discusses that the project is not fulfilling the General Plan requirement
for Redevelopment of University Square to conduct a circulation assessment for Boysen
& Santa Rosa, Foothill & Chorro, and Foothill & Broad. The proposed project is not
located on the property that includes University Square shopping center and, therefore, is
not required to fulfill the requirements for redevelopment of that separate property.
e) The appeal states that the LOS score implausibly remains the same for both Cumulative
& the Cumulative Plus project for the Foothill & Chorro Intersection. This claim is
unsubstantiated, the level of service score is an industry standard mathematical
calculation established in the Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity
Manual. The calculation is provided in the body of the Traffic Impact Study Report and
was checked for accuracy.
f) The planned extent of cumulative building in the Foothill Special Focus Area is provided
for in the City’s General Plan and is assumed in the Transportation Impact Study for this
Project. The combination of 22 Chorro & 790 Foothill represents approximately 40% of
the planned residential buildout for this special planning area. Its anticipated that most of
the remaining residential growth anticipated will occur with future redevelopment of
University Square.
g) The collision patterns identified by the Traffic Impact Study & Citywide Traffic Safety
Report are consistent with comments received by residents. To address these safety
issues, the project’s access points were redesigned, the project was conditioned to
upgrade the signal configuration at Foothill Chorro/Broad, and the project was
conditioned to upgrade pedestrian crossing to include high visibility treatments to
mitigate the range of potential safety issues that have been identified, consistent with
applicable traffic safety standards.
7. The extent of parking demand, occupancy in the mechanical lift system, and potential for
traffic and on-street parking demand were not quantitatively analyzed.
a – h) The project provides more parking on-site than is required under City code with
standards designed to address parking impacts, although the project is eligible for parking
reductions, none are being requested. Also, the project has been conditioned to not charge
residents separately for parking so that there is not a monetary benefit to residents and
visitors for parking free on the street as opposed to parking on-site at an additional cost.
i) The mechanical parking lifts are required to comply with all building and safety code
requirements. Some oversized vehicles may not fit within the parking lift, however there
are many parking spaces that are not part of a lift system that can accommodate those
vehicles as well as required ADA accessible parking spaces. The project has incorporated
a loading zone pullout along the Foothill frontage to accommodate trash collection,
landscapers, maintenance & cleaning personnel, and commercial deliveries.
Packet Pg. 158
Item 9
8. Affordable Housing Units. The proportion and one type of low-income affordable units in the
project does not meet the intent of Housing Element Policy 4.2.
As identified in the appeal letter, Housing Element (HE) Policy 4.2 states, “Include both market-
rate and affordable units in apartment and residential condominium projects and intermix the
types of units. Affordable units should be comparable in size, appearance and basic quality to
market-rate units.” The HE further states that affordable housing units should be intermixed and
not segregated by economic status and “encourages housing development that meets a variety of
special needs, including large families, single parents, disabled persons, the elderly, students,
veterans, the homeless, or those seeking congregate care, group housing, single-room occupancy
or co-housing accommodations, utilizing universal design” (HE Policy 8.1).
The project is proposing to construct 78 residential rental units composed of studios, one-
bedrooms and two-bedrooms. Twelve of the studio units will be deed restricted for very-low
income households, which are some of the more challenging units to be provided within a private
development. As designed, the project provides a range of unit sizes and affordability that are
intermixed with one another throughout the project and the affordable units will similar
amenities to the market rate units. Additionally, the twelve, deed restricted, affordable studio
units help fulfill the remaining 189 very low or extremely low affordable units still needed to
meet the City’s RHNA goals for the 2014-2019 period, consistent with HE Policies 2.3 and 2.4.8
These extremely low and very low units are some of the hardest units to include in residential
projects and provide housing for similar households as would be found in the overall project. As
proposed, the inclusion of twelve affordable studio units is consistent with the Housing Element.
Public Engagement
Consistent with the City’s Public Engagement and Noticing (PEN) Manual and the City’s
Municipal Code, the project was noticed per the City’s notification requirements for
Development Projects. Newspaper legal advertisements were posted in the Tribune 10 days prior
to each advisory body meeting (Architectural Review, Planning Commission, and City Council).
Additionally, postcards were sent to both tenants and owners of properties located within 300
feet of the project site 10 days before each advisory body hearing. Public comment was provided
to the advisory bodies through written correspondence and through public testimony at each of
the hearings.
CONCURRENCE
Staff comments provided during review of the proposed project and appeal are incorporated into
the presented evaluation and conditions of approval.
8 Housing Element Policy 2.3: For housing to qualify as “affordable” under the provisions of this Element,
guarantees must be presented that ownership or rental housing units will remain affordable for the longest period
allowed by State law, or for a shorter period under an equity-sharing or housing rehabilitation agreement with the
City.
Housing Element Policy 2.4: Encourage housing production for all financial strata of the City's population, in the
proportions shown in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, for the 2014 - 2019 planning period. These
proportions are: extremely low income, 12 percent, very low income, 12 percent; low income, 16 percent; moderate
income, 18 percent; and above moderate income, 42 percent.
Packet Pg. 159
Item 9
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project categorically exempt under Class 32, In-Fill Development Projects, Section 15332 of
the CEQA Guidelines, because the project is consistent with General Plan policies for the land
use designation and is consistent with the applicable zoning designation and regulations. It
should be noted that modifications to zoning regulations as required by State Density Bonus law,
do not disqualify a project from claiming this exemption. See Wollmer v. City of Berkeley, 193
Cal. App. 4th 1329, 1338 (2011). The project site occurs on a property of no more than five acres
substantially surrounded by urban uses that has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or
threatened species as the site is located on an existing developed property and is served by
required utilities and public services.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: N/A
Funding Identified: No
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding Sources Current FY Cost
Annualized
On-going Cost
Total Project
Cost
General Fund N/A
State
Federal
Fees
Other:
Total
Per policy, Development Services fees are based on 100% cost recovery. However, during the
2016 Fee Study the Council approved a 25% cost recovery for Appeals. The average estimated
labor cost for a Tier 1 Appeal is $3,116, and the current fee for non-applicants is $640.
When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which
found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed
project is consistent with the General Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact. There is no fiscal
impact associated with the approval of this project.
Packet Pg. 160
Item 9
ALTERNATIVES
1. Uphold the appeal, thereby denying the project. The Council can deny the project based on
findings of inconsistency with California State Law, the City’s General Plan, Zoning
Regulations, and other applicable City regulations. Should Council want to pursue this
alternative, Staff recommends that specific information be provided in order for Staff to
return with findings to support Council direction.
2. Continue consideration of the appeal to a future date. The Council can continue review of the
appeal to a future meeting. If this alternative if taken, the Council should provide direction to
staff regarding additional information needed to make a decision.
Attachments:
a - Draft Resolution
b - ARC Resolution (ARC-1013-2018)
c - PC Resolution (PC-1013-18)
d - Project Plans
e - Appeal Application & Letter
f - Gov. Code Section 65915
g - 2015 Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.90
Packet Pg. 161
Item 9
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. __________ (2019 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL (FILED BY FOOTHILL
BLVD CIVIL DEFENSE) APPROVING A DENSITY BONUS AND
WAIVERS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, AND THE USE PERMIT
APPROVAL FOR A NEW FOUR-STORY MIXED-USE PROJECT WITH
6,800 SQUARE FEET OF GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL/RETAIL
SPACE, 78 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, AND 155 PARKING SPACES WITH A
REQUEST FOR MECHANICAL PARKING LIFTS AND EXPANDED
HOURS OF OPERATION FOR THE COMMERCIAL SPACES WITH A
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS
REPRESENTED IN THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT AND
ATTACHMENTS DATED JANUARY 15, 2019 (790 FOOTHILL BLVD.,
APPL-1971-2018)
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, on July 16, 2018, with a three-two vote approving the design of the project,
subject to the findings and conditions of ARC Resolution No. ARC-1013-2018 pursuant to a
proceeding instituted under ARCH-1186-2017, LR Development Group, applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
July 25, 2018, with a five-one vote approving the use permit for the project for a mixed-use project
in the Foothill Boulevard I Santa Rosa Special Planning Area, an extension of the
commercial/retail hours and the use of mechanical parking lifts, subject to the findings and
conditions of PC Resolution No. PC-1013-18 pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-
1187-2017, LR Development Group, applicant; and
WHEREAS, on August 6, 2018, Foothill Blvd Civic Defense, the appellants, filed an
appeal of the Planning Commission’s action on July 25, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on January
15, 2019, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under APPL-1971-2018, Foothill Blvd Civic
Defense, the appellants; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at
said hearing, and
Packet Pg. 162
Item 9
Resolution No. ______________ (2019 Series) Page 2
R ______
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the
following findings to deny the appeal (APPL-1971-2018) of the Planning Commission decision
and approving a density bonus per Government Code sections 65915(b), (f)(2) and a waiving
modifications of development standards per Government Code section 65915(e)(1), thereby
granting final approval to the project (USE-1187-2017):
1. That the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or
working at the site or in the vicinity.
2. As proposed, the project is consistent with the Foothill Boulevard / Santa Rosa Special
Planning Area of the Land Use Element (Policy 8.2.1) and Zoning Regulations because the
project includes a vertical mixed-use project with commercial space of the first floor and high
density residential on the upper floors.
3. That per Government Code § 65300.5, the General Plan and elements thereof comprise an
integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies and that this project is
consistent with those policies, including Conservation and Open Space Policies 9.1.5 and
9.2.1 regarding view protection and Housing Element Policy 8.2.1 establishing the Foothill
Boulevard/Santa Rosa Area Special Focus Area in that, overall view protection through the
Foothill corridor is achieved through denser development in certain infill sites.
4. As proposed the project is consistent with Housing Element Polices 8.1 and 11.1 because the
project encourages the development of housing production for all financial strata of the City's
population, intermixes and does not segregate by economic status and encourages housing
development that meets a variety of housing needs.
5. The project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy 2.3.6 “Housing and Businesses” and
3.8.5 (Mixed Uses) because the project provides residential dwellings within a commercial
district near neighborhood commercial centers, major activity nodes and transit opportunities.
Housing at this location is compatible with proposed and existing commercial and residential
uses on adjacent properties.
6. The project is consistent with Zoning Regulations Section 17.08.072.F(2) and Table 9
because:
i. Community Commercial (C-C) zone allows mixed-use projects;
ii. The project’s design protects public health, safety, and welfare; and
iii. The mixed-use project provides greater public benefits than a single-use development
of the site because it provides needed housing, it is located along a major transit, bike,
and pedestrian corridor, and is in close proximity of workplaces, schools, health
facilities, and services.
Packet Pg. 163
Item 9
Resolution No. ______________ (2019 Series) Page 3
R ______
7. As conditioned, the proposed mechanical parking lifts are consistent with Zoning regulations
Section 17.16.060(D) because:
i. The use of mechanical lift parking results in a superior design and implements City
goals and policies for infill development by providing the required parking;
ii. The lifts are adequately screened;
iii. Mechanical lift parking systems complies with all development standards including
but not limited to height and setback requirements, and Parking and Driveway
Standards and provides spaces for vehicles that do not fit in the lifts;
iv. As conditioned, the mechanical parking systems will be safely operated and
maintained in continual operation with the exception of limited periods of
maintenance; and
v. There are no circumstances of the development or model of mechanical lift system
which could result in significant impacts to those living or working on the site or in
the vicinity.
8. The project is consistent with the Conservation and Open Space Element policy 4.4.3 because
the project promotes higher-density, compact housing in limited areas to achieve more
efficient use of public facilities and services and to improve the jobs/housing balance.
9. Commercial and retail uses on site will not negatively impact the residential uses in the
development because the proposed commercial activity is consistent with adjacent businesses
that have similar hours of operation, consistent with the Land Use Element Policy 8.2.1, and
the businesses must adhere to the City’s Noise Ordinance.
10. The proposed extended hours of operation are consistent with Land Use Element Policy 8.2.1
because the project will provide services that serve the residences of the project and the
nearby neighborhoods.
11. As conditioned, the proposed uses on site will not negatively impact the residential uses in
the development because the proposed commercial activity will be limited to hours of
operation consistent with specific thresholds established within the Noise Ordinance for
noise-sensitive uses, noise levels created by the uses during business hours will be within
allowable limits as described in the Municipal Code.
12. The waiver of development standards, namely, a 43-foot tall structure where 35 feet is
normally allowed and an increase in allowable lot coverage from 75% to 90% are required in
order to physically allow the construction of the project at the density allowed for this project
under the Density Bonus Law.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City Council hereby determines that the project
is categorically exempt under Class 32, In-Fill Development Projects, Section 15332 of the CEQA
Guidelines, because the project is consistent with General Plan policies for the land use designation
and is consistent with the applicable zoning designation and regulations. Specifically, the project
site is located in the Foothill Boulevard/Santa Rosa Special Planning Area, as described in Section
8.2.1 of the City’s General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element (“LUCE”), and complies with
the guidelines and objectives applicable to the project site as a result of its inclusion within the
Packet Pg. 164
Item 9
Resolution No. ______________ (2019 Series) Page 4
R ______
Special Planning Area. Furthermore, the project-site is zoned C-C-SF (Community Commercial),
a designation that permits high-density, mixed-use residential and commercial development, such
as the project. After applying the density bonus provided for under California Government Code
Section 65915 (discussed below), the project complies with all density limitations in the C-C-SF
zone.
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915, the project proponent has requested
waivers of certain development standards, i.e. to exceed the height limit in the C-C-SF zone by 8
feet, and to exceed the maximum lot coverage by 15%. California Government Code Section
65915(e)(1) prohibits an agency from applying any development standard that will have the effect
of physically precluding the construction of the residential units at the densities authorized by
California Government Code Section 65915, and Section 8.2.1 of the Land Use Element
specifically refers to such waivers as being a desirable mechanism for facilitating redevelopment
of the area. Pursuant to Wollmer v. City of Berkeley, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1329, 1338 (2011), inclusion
of the waivers to height and lot coverage requirements does not make the project inconsistent with
applicable general plan policies and zoning regulations.
The project site occurs on a property of no more than five acres. In fact, the project site is
approximately 1.34 acres large and the site is surrounded on all sides by urban uses, including high
density residential and commercial uses. The site is substantially surrounded by urban uses that
has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species as the site is located on an existing
developed property and is served by required utilities and public services.
Approval of the project would not result in any significant impacts relating to traffic, noise, air
quality or water quality. With respect to traffic, a study was conducted confirming that the project
will have no significant effects. A copy of that study is available for review at the City of San Luis
Obispo via the Lead Agency Contact Person. The project will be compatible with the existing
urban environment and high-density residential and commercial surrounding uses and thus will
not present any noise issues. The project will follow all applicable air and water quality regulations.
Accordingly, there is no evidence that the project will result in any significant effects r elated to
noise, air quality, or water quality.
In accordance with the Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. the City of Berkeley, 60 Cal.4th 1086
(2015) case, there are no unusual circumstances surrounding the project which would otherwise
except the project from the infill exemption. The project site is surrounded on all sides by urban
uses, including high density residential and commercial uses.
SECTION 3. Action. Based on the foregoing findings and evidence in the record, the
City Council does hereby deny the appeal of the Planning Commission’s action to approve the
design of the proposed project and hereby approves the density bonus per Government Code
sections 65915(b), (f)(2) and the waivers of development standards per Government Code
65915(e)(1), thereby granting final approval of the application APPL-1971-2018 for a mixed-use
project in the Foothill Boulevard / Santa Rosa Special Planning Area, an extension of the
commercial/retail hours of operation and the use of mechanical parking lifts for the proposed
project at 790 Foothill Blvd subject to the following conditions:
Packet Pg. 165
Item 9
Resolution No. ______________ (2019 Series) Page 5
R ______
1. The proposed use shall operate consistent with the project description, approved plans, and
other supporting documentation submitted with this application unless otherwise conditioned
herein.
2. Hours of operation for the commercial component of the project shall be limited to 7:00 AM
to 10:00 PM, unless otherwise approved by the Community Development Director through a
separate application for extended hours for specific businesses.
3. Prior to building plan approval, the applicant shall record an agreement in a form subject to
the approval of the City Attorney that runs with the land that mechanical parking systems will
be safely operated and maintained in continual operation with the exception of limited periods
of maintenance.
4. All regular (non-mechanical lift) parking spaces shall be available for residential tenants,
employees and customers free from restrictions. No regular parking spaces shall be
individually labeled or allocated.
5. All mechanical lift parking spaces shall be available for all residential tenants, included in
each tenant’s lease agreement without additional rent or consideration, and free from
restrictions, unless otherwise specified in a trip reduction plan.
6. The property owner shall prepare a trip reduction plan, prior to building permit approval, to
include a monitoring program to evaluate the use of parking by the commercial tenants, car
ownership by residents, overall project parking demand, and the use of lifts as approved to
the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and Public Works Director.
7. The proposed structure shall not exceed 43 feet in height and 90% lot coverage (AFFH-1518-
2018).
8. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay 100% of the total estimated cost
of a new 60-foot radio tower located at Fire Station No. 2 or other designated site and, if
needed, replacement of any antenna and appurtenances (the “tower project”). The applicant
shall be responsible if the actual costs of construction of the tower project is greater than any
estimate. Building permits and/or certificates of occupancy may be withheld for lack of timely
payment.
9. Prior to excavation, grading operators will be informed of the previous gas station
remediation work completed. During excavation, should operators encounter any hazardous
spills or 'stains' not previously remediated, work will stop in the immediate area. The
following agencies shall be contacted immediately to determine the appropriate course of
action: City of San Luis Obispo, County Environmental Health Division (CUPA contact).
Work may resume only upon the written approval of the appropriate regulatory agencies.
10. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record a deed restriction, in a form
subject to the approval of the City Attorney, ensuring that 12 studios in the project are only
rented to very-low income households for a period of 55 years.
Packet Pg. 166
Item 9
Resolution No. ______________ (2019 Series) Page 6
R ______
11. The project shall substantially comply with conditions established under Architectural
Review Commission Resolution No. ARC-1013-2018 (Application No. ARCH-1186-2017).
12. The project shall limit the maximum number of occupants to 2 people in a studio and in a one
bedroom and no more than 4 people in a 2-bedroom unit.
13. The proposed project shall implement Project #4 of the Bishop Peak & Pacheco Elementary
Safe Routes to School Plan at the intersection Foothill & Broad/Chorro, Installing Bike Lane
Extensions and green bike lane/turn box treatments thru the Foothill & Broad/Chorro
Intersection approaches/departures. This project is included in the Citywide Transportation
Impact Fee Program under Projects #38 & #39 and is there for eligible for Transportation
Impact Fee crediting up to the amount being collected through the fee program.
14. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers,
and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City and/or its agents,
officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval by the City of this
project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review
(“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified
Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim, and City shall fully cooperate in the
defense against an Indemnified Claim.
Upon Motion of ___________, seconded by _____________, and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 15th day of January 2019.
______________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 167
Item 9
Resolution No. ______________ (2019 Series) Page 7
R ______
APPROVED AS TO FORM
________________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this _______day or ______________, _________.
______________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 168
Item 9
RESOLUTION NO. ARC-1013-2018
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW COMMISSION APPROVING A NEW FOUR-STORY MIXED-
USE PROJECT WITH 6,800 SQUARE FEET OF GROUND FLOOR
COMMERCIAL/RETAIL SPACE, 78 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, AND 155
PARKING SPACES. THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT
UNDER CLASS 32, IN-FILL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, SECTION
15332 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES., AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF
REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED JULY 16, 2018, 790 FOOTHILL
BLVD (ARCH-1186-2017)
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, on July 16, 2018, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-1186-2017,
LR Development Group, applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has
duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and
evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing.
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Architectural Review Commission of
the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The Architectural Review Commission hereby approves the
project design (ARCH-1186-2017), based on the following findings:
1. The project design maintains consistency with the City's Community Design Guidelines
by providing architectural design that complements the architectural character of the
surrounding neighborhood and is consistent with Land Use Element Policy 8.6 the Foothill
Boulevard/Santa Rosa Special Focus Area of the Land Use Element.
2. The project is consistent with the City's Community Design Guidelines because the
proposed project incorporates similar materials and architectural features to the
surrounding neighborhood and provides a complementary color scheme.
3. The mechanical lift parking is consistent with the Community Design Guidelines because
the lifts are adequately screened and compatible with the building and site design of the
proposed project.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review . The Architectural Review Commission hereby
determines that approval of the design of the project is categorically exempt from environmental
review under the California Environmental Quality Act because the project is a Class 32 "In-Fill
Packet Pg. 169
Item 9
Resolution No . ARC-1013-2018
790 Foothill Blvd., ARCH-1186 -2017
Page 2
Development Project" within the meaning of Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. The design
of the project is consistent with General Plan policies for the land use designation and is consistent
with the applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project site occurs on a property of no
more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses that has no value as habitat for
endangered, rare or threatened species as the site is located on an existing developed property and
is served by required utilities and public services.
SECTION 3. Action. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) hereby approves the
project design subject to the following conditions of approval:
Planning-Community Development Department
1. Final project design and construction drawings submitted for a building permit shall be in
substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the ARC. A separate, full-size
sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all
conditions of project approvals listed as sheet number 2.
2. Reference shall be made in the margin oflisted items as to where in plans requirements are
addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping, or other
conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural Review
Commission, as deemed appropriate.
3. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials of all proposed
building surfaces and other improvements. Colors and materials shall be consistent with
the color and material board submitted with Architectural Review application.
4. The locations of all lighting, including bollard style landscaping or path/parking lighting,
shall be included ·in plans submitted for a building permit. All wall-mounted lighting
fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working
drawings. Any wall mounted lighting installed above the first floor on the exterior
elevations shall be minimal and consider its impact on the surrounding neighborhood. All
wall-mounted lighting shall complement building architecture, subject to the approval of
the Community Development Director. The lighting schedule for the building shall include
a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut-sheets on the submitted
building plans . The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to ensure that light is directed
downward consistent with the requirements of the City's Night Sky Preservation standards
contained in Chapter 17.23 of the Zoning Regulations.
5. Plans submitted for a building permit shall clearly depict the type of bicycle rack proposed,
location and dimensions of all short and long-term bicycle parking. Sufficient detail shall
be provided about the placement and design of bike racks and lockers to demonstrate
compliance with relevant Engineering Standards and Community Design Guidelines, to
the satisfaction of the Public Works and Community Development Directors.
Packet Pg. 170
Item 9
Resolution No . ARC-1013-2018
790 Foothill Blvd., ARCH-1186-2017
Page 3
6. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include window details indicating the type of
materials for the window frames and mullions, their dimensions, and colors. Plans shall
include the materials and dimensions of all lintels, sills, surrounds recesses and other
related window features. Plans shall demonstrate the use of high quality materials for the
windows that reflect the architectural style of the project and are compatible with the
neighborhood character, to the approval of the Community Development Director.
7. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include balcony railing details indicating the
type of materials, picket details, dimensions and colors. Plans shall demonstrate the use of
high quality materials for the railings that reflect the architectural style of the project and
are compatible with the neighborhood character, to the approval of the Community
Development Director.
8. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include cornice details indicating the type of
materials, dimensions and colors. Plans shall demonstrate the use of high quality materials
for the cornices that reflect the architectural style of the project and are compatible with
the neighborhood character, to the approval of the Community Development Director.
9. Plans submitted for a building permit shall show the inclusion of accent colors that break
up the proposed earth tone colors, especially along the west and east elevations, and
highlight awnings, doors and/or other architectural features to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director.
10. Mechanical and electrical equipment shall be located internally. With submittal of working
drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of the building, which clearly show
the sizes of any proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment. If any condensers
or other mechanical equipment is to be placed on the roof, plans submitted for a building
permit shall confirm that parapets and other roof features will adequately screen them. A
line-of-sight diagram may be required to confirm that proposed screening will be adequate.
This condition applies to initial construction and later improvements.
11. A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department along with working drawings. The legend for the
landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs , and trees
with corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific locations on
plans.
12. The location of any required backflow preventer and double-check assembly shall be
shown on all site plans submitted for a building permit, including the landscaping plan.
Construction plans shall also include a scaled diagram of the equipment proposed. Where
possible, as determined by the Utilities Director, equipment shall be located inside the
building within 20 feet of the front property line. Where this is not possible, as determined
by the Utilities Director, the back-flow preventer and double-check assembly shall be
located in the street yard and screened using a combination of paint color, landscaping and,
if deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director, a low wall. The size and
Packet Pg. 171
Item 9
Resolution No . ARC-1013-2018
790 Foothill Blvd., ARCH-1186-2017
Page4
configuration of such equipment shall be subject to review and approval by the Utilities
and Community Development Directors.
13. The location of any required transformer shall be shown on the site plans submitted for a
building permit and shall be notched into the building and I or screened to the satisfaction
of the Community Development Director.
14 . The Architectural Review Commission's determination regarding the project is contingent
upon the approval of the City Council in regards to the 35% density bonus that includes a
request for two incentives including the construction of a 43-foot tall structure where 35
feet is normally allowed and an increase in allowable lot coverage from 75% to 90%,
subject to review by the City Council under a separate application (AFFH-1518-2018).
15. Full and final approval of the proposed project is expressly contingent upon the Planning
Commission's approval of a use permit (Application No. USE 1187-2017) per San Luis
Obispo Municipal Code section 17.53.020 because the project site is located in the Foothill
Boulevard/Santa Rosa Special Focus Area. This condition of approval acknowledges that
the Planning Commission's approval or denial of a use permit is subject to appeal to the
City Council.
16. Each of the building segments shall be revised to convey separate identities using cohesive
color and materials to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Plans
submitted for a building permit shall include color elevations that illustrate the revised
color and material changes.
17 . The project shall include more intentional articulation in the form of awnings, window sills,
etc., especially along the west elevation to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director.
18. The roof line of the fourth floor shall be revised to include varying heights and more
transparency to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
Utilities Department
19. Water service to the project's commercial space shall be master metered with submeters
for individual commercial tenants.
20. Any private sewer service that crosses one proposed parcel for the benefit of another shall
provide evidence that a private utility easement and maintenance agreement appropriate
for those facilities has been recorded prior to final subdivision.
21. The project's frontage improvements shall include 230-feet of 8" sewer main along Chorro
(sewer manhole 106-35 to 106-19). If the proposed sewer main improvements result in a
reduction on inflow or infiltration flows, the project will be credited with a reduction
Packet Pg. 172
Item 9
Resolution No. ARC-1013-2018
790 Foothill Blvd., ARCH-1186-2017
Page 5
against the sewer offset requirement listed below and shall be made to the satisfaction of
the Utilities Director.
22. The project's residential units and retail uses are required to implement off-site sewer
rehabilitation (private lateral repair/ replacement) that results in quantifiable inflow and
infiltration reduction in the City's wastewater collection system to offset the project's base
wastewater flow increase. The final selection of the inflow and infiltration reduction project
shall be approved by the Utilities Director.
23. The proposed utility infrastructure shall comply with the latest engineering design
standards effective at the time the building permit is obtained and shall have reasonable
alignments needed for maintenance of public infrastructure.
24. The project's road improvements along Chorro Street and Foothill Boulevard shall include
provisions, including but not limited, to adjust or replace existing water valves, water
mains, fiber cables, service laterals, and pressure reducing station that are material impacts
created by the project and shall be made to the satisfaction of the Utilities Director.
25. The proposed project is within an area subject to shallow ground water. Heat-fused HDPE
pipe shall be used for the new private sewer lateral and public sewer collection system to
prevent groundwater infiltration.
26. If commercial uses in the project include food preparation, prov1s1ons for grease
interceptors and FOG (fats, oils, and grease) storage within solid waste enclosure(s) shall
be provided with the design. These types of facilities shall also provide an area inside to
wash floor mats, equipment, and trash cans. The wash area shall be drained to the sanitary
sewer.
27. The project's commercial and residential uses shall be metered separately. All residential
units are to be individually metered. The CCR's for the property/homeowner association
shall require that the sub-meters be read by the association (or P/HOA contracted service)
and each condominium billed according to water use. Apartment units shall be serviced
with a City owned master meter and sub-metered with private meters.
28. Final grades and alignments of all public and/or private water, and sewer shall be approved
to the satisfaction of the Utilities Department. The final location, configuration, and sizing
of on-site service laterals and meters shall be approved by the Utilities Director in
conjunction with the review of the building plans, fire sprinkler plans, and/or public
improvement plans. Public sewer and water pipe infrastructure shall not be extended into
private access road.
29. Projects generating more than two cubic yards of total waste shall comply with AB 1826,
and local waste management ordinance to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A trash
enclosure capable of storing the required bins for waste, recycling, and organics shall be
provided.
Packet Pg. 173
Item 9
Resolution No. ARC-1013-2018
790 Foothill Blvd., ARCH-1186-2017
Page6
Transportation -Public Works Department
30. Development necessitates a signalized exit to the Broad and Foothill intersection. Per the
Transportation Impact Study dated April 2018, the development shall "modify traffic
signal to provide equipment for southbound approach including any ancillary signal
hardware additions and/or upgrades."
Development shall submit a set of public improvement plans, to be reviewed by the City,
to include the following:
• PIP shall show revised signal phasing diagrams. New vehicle phase shall operate
in a split phase configuration. City will provide existing signal timing and as-built
plans.
• The additional required indications for the Southbound vehicle and EB/WB
pedestrian signal phases to the intersection. Caltrans standard Type 17-2-100 mast
arm pole shall be installed on the Southeast comer for the SB approach to provide
required indications.
• New signal controller, capable of required additional signal phases, is necessary.
This controller shall be a City approved McCain A TC eX 2070 controller to allow
for the number of required vehicle and pedestrian phases at the intersection.
• Controller shall operate McCain Omni eX Intersection control software, to provide
the same.
• Controller shall be installed in an A TC-capable cabinet as required by the
equipment and location in the field.
• Vehicle detection system for added SB vehicle phase, per City Standard
Specifications .
. • Audible pedestrian push buttons for the full signal (required by ADA and MUTCD
when improving a traffic signal)
• Countdown pedestrian signal heads (required by ADA and MUTCD when
improving a traffic signal)
• Multi-conductor cable pulled to the intersection of Foothill and Broad, and/or to
replace all existing single strand conductors with multiconductor cable for signal to
maintain required functionality.
• The left turning phases at Foothill and Broad Street shall be converted from a
protected /permissive operation to a Flashing Yellow Arrow protected permissive
operation.
• Replace existing signal indications as necessary for signal to conform to standards
as outlined in California MUTCD Chapter 4.
• Modify intersection striping, in thermoplastic, per City Standard Specifications.
Developer shall construct all improvements shown in approved PIP before occupancy of
project.
Packet Pg. 174
Item 9
Resolution No. ARC-1013-2018
790 Foothill Blvd., ARCH-1186-2017
Page 7
31. Per the Transportation Impact Study dated April 2018, plans shall show truck turning
movements into and out of the site and adjust the driveway design if warranted.
32. Per the Transportation Impact Study dated April 2018, traffic striping shall be modified to
meet City Standards and the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
33. The crosswalks at Broad and Foothill shall be restriped as hi-visibility crosswalks per City
Standards. Additionally, clear crossing enhancements shall be included across the site
driveway to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Community Development Directors.
34. Access to the long-term bike parking room shall be modified to allow a more easily
accessible entrance to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and the Community
Development Director.
Trees and Urban Forestry -Public Works Department
35. The project proposes to remove 50 trees. The developer shall replace two trees for every
one tree that is removed (the "replacement trees"). The developer shall plant as many of
the replacement trees on the site as feasible of 24" box size. For the remaining required
replacement trees, the developer shall make a financial donation to the Urban Forest Tree
Bank for the purchase of 15-gallon trees to be used in local tree planting projects. The final
tree planting and replacement plan shall be included as part of the building plans and
approved by the City Arborist.
36. The building plan submittal shall show street trees with tree wells, grates and guards to the
approval of the City Arborist and in accordance with City Engineering Standards. Tree
species and sizes and all associated planting requirements shall be per City Engineering
Standards, and shall incorporate the use of structural soils, subject to the approval of the
City Arborist and Community Development Director, as appropriate.
37. The building plans shall include a landscape plan that clearly identifies all the tree species
to be planted on the site. Street tree species shall be approved by the City Arborist and the
Community Development Director. The landscape plans shall show adherence to the City's
Tree Planting Standards, Street Tree Planting Requirements 12.24.070 and Street Tree
Planting Procedures 12.24.080.
Engineering Division -Public Works/Community Development Department
38. A voluntary lot merger shall be completed prior to building permit issuance unless
otherwise deferred to a specific milestone inspection or occupancy to the satisfaction of the
City.
39. The building plan submittal shall show and label all existing property lines, bearings,
distances, and existing survey monumentation per MS SLO 76-176. The plan shall include
any detailed information regarding offset monumentation or property line offsets.
Packet Pg. 175
Item 9
Resolution No. ARC-1013-2018
790 Foothill Blvd., ARCH-1186-2017
Page 8
40. The building plan submittal shall show and reference all existing and/or proposed offers of
dedication. If required, offers shall be completed by the applicant, approved by the City,
and recorded prior to building permit issuance unless otherwise approved for deferral.
41. An offer of dedication will be required for any section of existing or proposed public
sidewalk, ADA extension at driveway approach, curb ramp/landing, and new sidewalk at
the truck pull-out.
42. A temporary encroachment agreement may be required for any private improvements
located within the public right-of-way. These improvements include but are not limited to
landscape and site improvements, landscape irrigation, and potentially the trash truck turn-
out/loading zone. A separate agreement may be required for the management of the solid
waste handling to the satisfaction of the City and San Luis Garbage Company.
43. The definition of uses allowed with trash truck tum-out shall be approved to the satisfaction
of the City. The curb painting, signage, and any published operational hours shall be
approved prior to building permit issuance. The design shall consider drainage, dumpster
containment, and water quality treatment. The truck tum-out details and design shall be
approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department.
44. The applicant and/or engineer of record shall contact this office to coordinate on the
building plan submittal and limits of use of the building plan for covering the proposed
work within the public right-of-way.
45. All existing and proposed improvements located within the public right-of-way shall be
shown and noted for reference. All existing signage, posts, poles, guy wires, vaults, under
sidewalk drains, etc. shall be shown along with their proposed disposition. Existing signs
and posts shall be upgraded to current City Engineering Standards for breakaway safety
(punch posts) and sign reflectivity.
46. A separate public improvement plan submittal for any significant street improvements
including traffic signal modifications shall be submitted to the Engineering Development
Review Section along with the required application, checklist submittal items, engineer of
record estimate of probable cost, and appropriate plan review fee/retainer. A separate
encroachment permit and inspection fees will be required in conjunction with all work
located within the public right-of-way.
47. The curb ramp located at the comer of N. Chorro and Foothill shall be shown to comply
with the current ADA, and City/Cal Trans standards. The ramp shall be upgraded if not in
compliance with the standards in effect at the time of plan submittal and/or construction.
A complying landing and public pedestrian easement may be required at the top of the
ramp.
Packet Pg. 176
Item 9
Resolution No. ARC-1013-2018
790 Foothill Blvd., ARCH-1186-2017
Page 9
48. Any sections of damaged, displaced, or non-compliant sections of sidewalk shall be
repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. The temporary
.transition sidewalk sections with non-compliant cross-slopes located between 215 and 225
N. Chorro shall be removed and replaced to a competent (conforming) sidewalk section.
49. The driveway approach and ADA sidewalk extension serving the parking garage may
require additional pedestrian delineation, color coating, or other approved method to define
the limits of the pedestrian path of travel across the garage opening. This item shall be
approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department.
50. A separate demolition permit will be required for each distinct building/address. The
demolition plans and/or re-development plans shall clearly identify all existing utilities and
utility company meters for reference and shall clarify the limits of abandonment or reuse
per City standards, codes, and ordinances. The existing ABS pipe (sewer?) cleanout
located in the planter and adjacent to 215 N. Chorro shall be identified and the disposition
clarified.
51. The applicant shall coordinate all existing and proposed utility service alterations to the
satisfaction of the several serving utility companies and the City. The applicant shall clarify
whether any utility easements exist or are proposed. The existing ATT above grade cabinet
appears to be located outside the N. Chorro street right-of-way.
52. The applicant shall coordinate a meeting with the pertinent wire utility service planning
personnel and City staff related to the existing overhead PGE and ATT wiring located
along N. Chorro. The applicant shall exhaust reasonable efforts to eliminate/relocate the
PGE l 2K v terminal end pole if practical to the satisfaction of the City. The applicant shall
exhaust reasonable efforts to underground the existing lone reach of A TT cable between
the two poles on N. Chorro if practical to the satisfaction of the City.
53. The applicant shall install a new streetlight along the N. Chorro frontage per City
Engineering Standards or on an existing wood pole if allowed in accordance with utility
company standards and adequate utility clearances are available.
54. The applicant shall exhaust reasonable efforts to extend the full width sidewalk along
Foothill Blvd to provide a complying ADA access around the Sycamore tree to remain, if
practical to the satisfaction of the City. The scope of work would require the relocation of
a section of the short planter wall located along the back of sidewalk at 77 4 Foothill.
55. The parking lot shall comply with the Parking and Driveway Standards and California
Building Code for striping, bay widths, space widths, accessibility, signage, striping,
motorcycle spaces, and clearances from obstructions.
56. The building plan submittal shall include a parking management plan to be approved to the
satisfaction of the City. The mechanical lift system shall be approved to the satisfaction of
the Planning Division in accordance with the Zoning Code.
Packet Pg. 177
Item 9
Resolution No . ARC-1013-2018
790 Foothill Blvd ., ARCH-1186-2017
Page 10
57. Shoring for subterranean sections of the parking garage shall not extend into the public
right-of-way unless specifically approved by the Public Works Department. Temporary
shoring may be authorized if removed upon the completion of construction.
58. The wall drains and/or sub-drains for the parking garage shall outlet to an approved
location. If the water table, perched water, or spring water is encountered or expected, the
project plans shall clarify how this water will be managed in accordance with City
Engineering Standard 1010.B.
59. The building plans shall show any proposed or City required access controls to the yard
areas located between the building and adjoining fence lines. Access controls if required
by the City or proposed by the applicant, shall comply with any applicable codes and
standards.
60. The building plan submittal shall include a drainage report, plan details, and
documentation showing compliance with the Post Construction Stormwater Regulations.
An 0 & M Manuel and Private Stormwater Conveyance Agreement shall be provided and
approved/recorded as a condition of development.
61. The report and plans shall consider and include the areas of sidewalk replacement,
alteration, and expansion within the project limits. The sidewalk shall be included in the
area calculations and the sidewalk runoff shall be treated unless otherwise meeting an
exemption by draining to landscape areas.
62. The demolition, grading, and re-development plans shall clearly show and label the
existing Tree of Heaven tree and any new shoots or saplings. The existing invasive tree(s)
shall be eradicated to the satisfaction of the City Arborist and City Natural Resources
Manager prior to permit issuance.
Indemnification
63. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers
and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents,
officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this
project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review
("Indemnified Claims"). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified
Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and the City shall fully cooperate
in the defense against an Indemnified Claim.
Packet Pg. 178
Item 9
Resolution No. ARC-1013-2018
790 Foothill Blvd., ARCH-1186-2017
Page 11
On motion by Commissioner Rolph, seconded by Commissioner Smith, and on the following
roll call vote:
A YES: Commissioners Rolph, Smith and Chair Root
NOES: Commissioner Soll and Vice-Chair Nemcik
REFRAIN:
ABSENT: Commissioners Beller and Withers
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 161h day of July 2018.
Doug~
Architectural Review Commission
Packet Pg. 179
Item 9
RESOLUTION NO. PC-1013-18
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING A USE PERMIT FOR A MIXED-USE PROJECT IN THE
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIAL FOCUS AREA, AN EXTENSION OF
COMMERCIAL/RETAIL HOURS FROM 6:00 P.M. TO 10:00 P.M. AND
THE USE OF MECHANICAL PARKING LIFTS INCLUDING A
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM CEQA AS REPRESENTED IN THE
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS
DATED July 25, 2018
(790 FOOTHILL BLVD, USE-1187-2017)
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
July 25, 2018 for the purpose of considering a use permit application USE-1187-2017 for a mixed-
use project in the Foothill Boulevard I Santa Rosa Special Planning Area, an extension of the
commercial/retail hours and the use of mechanical parking lifts for the proposed project at 790
Foothill Blvd; 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 in support of the project approval that includes a use permit for a mixed-use project in the
Foothill Boulevard I Santa Rosa Special Planning Area, an extension of the commercial/retail
hours, and the use of mechanical parking lifts:
1. That, in light of the protections afforded by the State Housing Accountability Act and
Density Bonus Law, the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare
of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity .
2. As proposed, the project is consistent with the Foothill Boulevard I Santa Rosa Special
Planning Area of the Land Use Element (Policy 8.2.1) and Zoning Regulations because the
project includes a vertical mixed-use project with commercial space of the first floor and
high density residential on the upper floors.
3. The project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy 2.3.6 "Housing and Businesses"
and 3.8.5 (Mixed Uses) because the project provides residential dwellings within a
commercial district near neighborhood commercial centers, major activity nodes and
transit opportunities. Housing at this location is compatible with proposed and existing
commercial and residential uses on adjacent properties.
Packet Pg. 180
Item 9
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-1013-18
USE-1187-2017 (790 Foothill Blvd.)
Page2
4. The project is consistent with Zoning Regulations Section 17 .08.072.F(2) and Table 9
because:
I. Community Commercial (C-C) zone allows mixed-use projects;
II. The project's design protects public health, safety, and welfare; and
iii. The mixed-use project provides greater public benefits than a single-use
development of the site because it provides needed housing, it is located along
a major transit, bike , and pedestrian corridor, and is in close proximity of
workplaces , schools, health facilities, and services.
5. As conditioned, the proposed mechanical parking lifts are consistent with Zoning
regulations Section 17. l 6.060(D) because:
I. The use of mechanical lift parking results in a superior design and implements
City goals and policies for infill development by providing the required parking;
II. The lifts are adequately screened;
ni. Mechanical lift parking systems complies with all development standards
including but not limited to height and setback requirements, and Parking and
Driveway Standards and provides spaces for vehicles that do not fit in the lifts;
iv. As conditioned, the mechanical parking systems will be safely operated and
maintained in continual operation with the exception of limited periods of
maintenance; and
v. There are no circumstances of the development or model of mechanical lift
system which could result in significant impacts to those living or working on
the site or in the vicinity.
6. The project is consistent with the Conservation and Open Space Element policy 4.4.3
because the project promotes higher-density, compact housing to achieve more efficient
use of public facilities and services and to improve the jobs/housing balance.
7. Commercial and retail uses on site will not negatively impact the residential uses in the
development because the proposed commercial activity is consistent with adjacent
businesses that have similar hours of operation , consistent with the LUE Policy 8.2.1, and
the businesses must adhere to the City's Noise Ordinance.
8. The proposed extended hours of operation are consistent with LUE Policy 8.2.1 because
the project will provide services that serve the residences of the project and the nearby
neighborhoods.
9. As conditioned, the proposed uses on site will not negatively impact the residential uses
in the development because the proposed commercial activity will be limited to hours of
operation consistent with specific thresholds established within the Noise Ordinance for
noise-sensitive uses, noise levels created by the uses during business hours will be within
allowable limits as described in the Municipal Code.
Packet Pg. 181
Item 9
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-1013-18
USE-1187-2017 (790 Foothill Blvd.)
Page 3
Section 2. Environmenta l Review. The project is categorically exempt under Class 32, In-Fill
Development Projects, Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project is consistent
with General Plan policies for the land use designation and is consistent with the applicable zoning
designation and regulations. Specifically, the project site is located in the Foothill Boulevard/Santa
Rosa Special Planning Area, as described in Section 8.2.1 of the City's General Plan Land Use
and Circulation Element ("LUCE"), and complies with the guidelines and objectives applicable to
the project site as a result of its inclusion within the Special Planning Area. Furthermore, the
project-site is zoned C-C-SF (Community Commercial), a designation that permits high-density,
mi.xed-use residential and commercial development, such as the project. After applying the density
bonus provided for under California Government Code Section 65915 (discussed below), the
project complies with all density limitations in the C-C-SF zone.
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915, the project proponent has requested two
density bonus incentives -to exceed the height limit in the C-C-SF zone by 8 feet, and to exceed
the maximum lot coverage by 15%. California Government Code Section 65915( e )( 1) requires the
City to grant these incentives and prohibits an agency from applying any development standard
that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the residential units at the
densities authorized by California Government Code Section 65915, and Section 8.2.1 of the
LUCE specifically refers to such incentives as being a desirable mechanism for facilitating
redevelopment of the area. Pursuant to Wollmer v. City of Berkeley, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1329, 1338
(2011), inclusion of the height and lot coverage incentives and/or required relaxation of
development standards does not make the project inconsistent with applicable general plan
policies and zoning regulations.
The project site occurs on a property of no more than five acres. In fact, the project site is
approximately 1.34 acres large and the site is surrounded on all sides by urban uses, including high
density residential and commercial uses. The site is substantially surrounded by urban uses that
has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species as the site is located on an existing
developed property and is served by required utilities and public services.
Approval of the project would not result in any significant impacts relating to traffic, noise, air
quality or water quality. With respect to traffic, a study was conducted confirming that the project
will have no significant effects. A copy of that study is available for review at the City of San Luis
Obispo via the Lead Agency Contact Person. The project will be compatible with the existing
urban environment and high-density residential and commercial surrounding uses and thus will
not present any noise issues. The project will follow all applicable air and water quality regulations.
Accordingly, there is no evidence that the project will result in any significant effects related to
noise, air quality, or water quality.
In accordance with the Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. the City of Berkeley, 60 Cal.4th 1086
(2015) case, there are no unusual circumstances surrounding the project which would otherwise
except the project from the infill exemption. The project site is surrounded on all sides by urban
uses, including high density residential and commercial uses.
Section 3. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby approve the use permit
Packet Pg. 182
Item 9
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-1013-18
USE-1187-2017 (790 Foothill Blvd.)
Page4
application USE-1187-2017 for a mixed-use project in the Foothill Boulevard I Santa Rosa Special
Planning Area, an extension of the commercial/retail hours of operation and the use of mechanical
parking lifts for the proposed project at 790 Foothill Blvd subject to the following conditions:
1. The proposed use shall operate consistent with the project description, approved plans, and
other supporting documentation submitted with this application unless otherwise
conditioned herein.
2. Hours of operation for the commercial component of the project shall be limited to 7:00
AM to 10:00 PM, unless otherwise approved by the Community Development Director
through a separate application for extended hours for specific businesses.
3. Prior to building plan approval, the applicant shall record an agreement in a form subject
to the approval of the City Attorney that runs with the land that mechanical parking systems
will be safely operated and maintained in continual operation with the exception oflimited
periods of maintenance.
4. All regular (non-mechanical lift) parking spaces shall be available for residential tenants,
employees and customers free from restrictions. No regular parking spaces shall be
individually labeled or allocated.
5. All mechanical lift parking spaces shall be available for all residential tenants, included in
each tenant's lease agreement without additional rent or consideration, and free from
restrictions, unless otherwise specified in a trip reduction plan.
6. The property owner shall prepare a trip reduction plan, prior to building permit approval,
to include a monitoring program to evaluate the use of parking by the commercial tenants,
car ownership by residents, overall project parking demand, and the use oflifts as approved
to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and Public Works Director.
7. The Planning Commission's determination regarding the project is conditioned upon the
City Council's approval of the 35% density bonus and two affordable housing incentives
including the construction of a 43-foot tall structure where 35 feet is normally allowed and
an increase in allowable lot coverage from 75% to 90%, which is subject to review by the
City Council under a separate application (AFFH-1518-2018).
8. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay 100% of the total estimated
cost of a new 60-foot radio tower located at Fire Station No. 2 and relocation and, if needed,
replacement of any antenna and appurtenances (the "tower project"). The applicant shall
be responsible if the actual costs of construction of the tower project is greater than any
estimate. Building permits and/or certificates of occupancy may be withheld for lack of
timely payment.
9. Prior to excavation, grading operators will be informed of the previous gas station
remediation work completed. During excavation, should operators encounter any
Packet Pg. 183
Item 9
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-1013-18
USE-1187-2017 (790 Foothill Blvd.)
Page 5
hazardous spills or 'stains' not previously remediated, work will stop in the immediate area.
The following agencies shall be contacted immediately to determine the appropriate course
of action: City of San Luis Obispo, County Environmental Health Division (CUPA
contact). Work may resume only upon the written approval of the appropriate regulatory
agencies.
10. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record a deed restriction, in a
form subject to the approval of the City Attorney, ensuring that 12 studios in the project
are only rented to very-low income households for a period of 55 years.
11. The project shall substantially comply with conditions established under Architectural
Review Commission Resolution No. ARC-1013-2018 (Application No. ARCH-1186-
2017).
12. The project shall limit the maximum number of occupants to 2 people in a studio and in a
one bedroom and no more than 4 people in a 2-bedroom unit.
13. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and/or its agents,
officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City and/or its
agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval by the City
of this project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental
review ("Indemnified Claims"). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any
Indemnified Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim, and City shall fully
cooperate in the defense against an Indemnified Claim.
On motion by Commissioner Jorgenson, seconded by Commissioner McKenzie, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioner Jorgenson, McKenzie, Dandekar, Wulkan, and Chair Fowler
NOES: Vice Chair Stephenson
ABSENT: None
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of adopted this 25th day of July, 2018.
Doug Davids , Secretary
Planning Commission
Packet Pg. 184
Item 9
'DWH
6FDOH
6KHHW
$
6
$5&+,7(&76
-2+1621$9(18(
6$1/8,62%,632&$
3 )
7+20$6(-(66$5&+,7(&7&
[
[
5 5 ,6
7 8 ',2
$
)RRWKLOO 176
/55($/(67$7(,19(670(17*5283 176
&29(56+((7
)RRWKLOO )RRWKLOO )RRWKLOO )RRWKLOO
)227+,//%/9'6$1/8,62%,632&$
Packet Pg. 185
Item 9
352-(&7
6,7(
+
,
*
+
:
$
<
)227+,//%/9'
0(,1(&.($9(
&+
2
5
5
2
6
7
%5
2
$
'
6
7
5$021$'5
1
&
+
2
5
5
2
6
7
'DWH
6FDOH
6KHHW
$
6
$5&+,7(&76
-2+1621$9(18(
6$1/8,62%,632&$
3 )
7+20$6(-(66$5&+,7(&7&
[
[
5 5 ,6
7 8 ',2
$
)RRWKLOO 176
/55($/(67$7(,19(670(17*5283 176
352-(&7'$7$
352-(&7'(6&5,37,21
6+((7,1'(;
352-(&7'$7$
352-(&7',5(&725<
9,&,1,7<0$3
$5&+,7(&785$/
$ &29(56+((7
$ &2'($1$/<6,6
$ (;,67,1*6,7(3/$1
$ &21&(378$/6,7(3/$1
$ *5281')/2253/$1
$ 6(&21')/2253/$1
$ 7+,5')/2253/$1
$ )2857+)/2253/$1
$ 522)3/$1
$ 3$5.,1*/,)76
$ )227+,//($673(563(&7,9(
$ )227+,//5(7$,/3(563(&7,9(
$ %52$' )227+,//3(563(&7,9(
$ )227+,//3(563(&7,9(
$ )227+,//6287+:(673(563(&7,9(
$ )227+,//:(673(563(&7,9(
$ &+25525(6,'(17,$/(175<3(563(&7,9(
$ &+2552($673(563(&7,9(
$ &+25521257+($673(563(&7,9(
$ 29(5$//(/(9$7,216
$ (1/$5*('(/(9$7,216
$ (1/$5*('(/(9$7,216
$ (1/$5*('(/(9$7,216
$ (1/$5*('(/(9$7,216
$ 6(&7,216
$ 6(&7,216
$ &2/256 0$7(5,$/6
$ &2/256 0$7(5,$/6
&,9,/
& *5$',1*$1''5$,1$*(3/$1
& 87,/,7<3/$1
/$1'6&$3(
/ &21&(378$//$1'6&$3(6,7(3/$1
/ &21&(378$//$1'6&$3(1')/2253/$1
(/(&75,&$/
( 6,7(/,*+7,1*3/$1
$''5(66 ()227+,// ()227+,// 1&+2552 1&+2552
6$1/8,62%,632&$
$31
6,7($5($
*5266 $&5(6 6)
1(7 $&5(6 6)
)/225$5($5$7,2 )$5
$//2:('
352326(' 6)6)
=21,1* &&6) &20081,7<&200(5&,$/
86(
(;,67,1*86( 5(7$,/5(6,'(17,$/
352326('86( 5(7$,/5(6,'(17,$/
7<3(2)&216758&7,21 7<3(,7<3(9$
635,1./(56 <(6 1)3$
2&&83$1&,(6 %65
6((6+((7$)25&2'($1$/<6,6
*5266%8,/',1*$5($
67)/225
5(7$,/ 6)
5(6,'(17,$//2%%<%,.(6725 6)
87,/,7<%$&.2)+286( 6)
&29(5('3$5.,1* 6)
727$/ 6)
1')/225 6)
5')/225 6)
7+)/225 6)
727$/6)
180%(52)81,76
678',2 6)($
%('5220 6)($
%('5220 6)($
727$/
'(16,7<$//2:$%/(
&&6)=21( '8 '8$&5(;$&5(6
'(16,7<%2186 '8 '8;
727$/ '8
7+(352-(&7352326(672&216758&72)7+(727$/81,76)259(5</2:,1&20(
+286(+2/'63(5&$*29(510(17&2'( T ($&+&20321(172)$1<'(16,7<&$/&8/$7,21
,1&/8',1*%$6('(16,7<$1'%2186'(16,7<5(68/7,1*,1)5$&7,21$/81,766+$//%(6(3$5$7(/<
5281'('83727+(1(;7:+2/(180%(5
'(16,7<352326('
678',281,76 '8 ;'8
%('522081,76 '8 ;'8
%('522081,76 '8 ;'8
727$/81,76 '8
%8,/',1*+(,*+7
$//2:$%/(
352326('
3(56/2081,&,3$/&2'(6(&7,21 $ $1'&216,67(17:,7+/$1'86((/(0(176(&7,21
7+,6352-(&76((.6$1,1&5($6(,1$//2:$%/(+(,*+7$6'(6&5,%(',17+(352-(&7'(6&5,37,21
/27&29(5$*(
$//2:('
352326('
3(56/2081,&,3$/&2'(6(&7,21 $ $1'&216,67(17:,7+/$1'86((/(0(176(&7,21
7+,6352-(&76((.6$1,1&5($6(,1$//2:$%/(/27&29(5$*($6'(6&5,%(',17+(352-(&7
'(6&5,37,21
3$5.,1*5(48,5('
5(7$,/ 3(56) 63$&(6
678',2 3(581,7 63$&(6
%('5220 3(581,7 63$&(6
%('5220 3(581,7 63$&(6
727$/5(48,5(' 63$&(6
3(56/2081,&,3$/&2'(6(&7,21 - 7+('(9(/23(5,65(48(67,1*7+$77+(3$5.,1*
5$7,26,1&/86,9(2)7+($&&(66,%/($1'*8(673$5.,1*%($6)2//2:6
678',2$1'21(%('522081,76 216,7(3$5.,1*63$&(
7:2727+5((%('522081,76 216,7(3$5.,1*63$&(6
3$5.,1*3529,'('
685)$&( 63$&(6
/,)76 5(6,'(17,$/21/< 63$&(6
727$/ 63$&(6
02725&<&/(3$5.,1*5(48,5(' 63$&(6
02725&<&/(3$5.,1*3529,'(' 63$&(6
%,&<&/(3$5.,1*5(48,5('
&& $87263$&(6[ %,.(6 0,16+2577(50LH6+257
7(5063$&(6
5(6,'(17,$/ 3(581,7 %,.(6
727$/5(48,5('%,&<&/(3$5.,1* %,.(6
%,&<&/(3$5.,1*3529,'('
/21*7(50 %,.(6
6+2577(50 %,.(6
727$/%,&<&/(3$5.,1*3529,'(' %,.(6
352-(&7$33/,&$17
/55($/(67$7(,19(670(17*5283//&
&217,1(17$/%/9'
(/6(*81'2&$
$771 /25(15,(+/
3+21(
(0$,/ /5#/5'(9(/230(17*5283&20
$5&+,7(&7
$55,6678',2$5&+,7(&76
-2+1621$9(18(
6$1/8,62%,632&$
$771 7+20-(66
3+21(
(0$,/ 7-(66#$55,6678',2&20
&,9,/(1*,1((5
$6+/(< 9$1&((1*,1((5,1*
0217(5(<675((7
6$1/8,62%,632&$
$771 758,779$1&(
3+21(
(0$,/ 758,77#$6+/(<9$1&(&20
/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&7
603(19,5210(17$/'(6,*1
262667687(%
6$1/8,62%,632&$
$771 -,0%8552:6
3+21(
(0$,/ -%8552:6#603,1&1(7
7+,6352-(&7352326(67+('(02/,7,212)(;,67,1*%8,/',1*6$1'&216758&7,21
2)$1(:0,;('86( 5(7$,/$1'5(6,'(17,$/ %8,/',1*21$/27/2&$7('217+(
&251(52))227+,//$1'&+2552,17+($5($'(6,*1$7('%<7+(&,7< $67+(
)227+,//%28/(9$5'6$17$526$63(&,$/)2&86$5($
7+(*5281')/2252)7+(%8,/',1*:,//&216,672)$3$5.,1**$5$*(5(7$,/
)/225$5($%,&<&/(3$5.,1*5(6,'(17,$//2%%<$1'&(57$,187,/,7<0$,17(1$1&(
63$&(7+(3$5.,1**$5$*(:,//)($785($3$5.,1*/,)76<67(0)257+(5(6,'(17,$/
3$5.,1*&20321(17$1'685)$&(3$5.,1*)255(7$,/86($//3$5.,1*,6
&217$,1(':,7+,1$1(1&/26('3$5.,1**$5$*(720$;,0,=(7+(()),&,(1&<2)
7+(3523(57<$1'0,1,0,=($1<816,*+7/<3$5.,1*/2767+(08/7,)$0,/<3257,21
2)7+(352-(&7,6217+(6(&21'7+,5'$1')2857+)/22562)7+(%8,/',1*7+(
352-(&7,635,9$7(/<)81'('
2)7+($//2:$%/(':(//,1*81,76$5(5(175(675,&7(')259(5</2:,1&20(
+286(+2/'6,1$&&25'$1&(:,7+&$/,)251,$*29(510(17&2'(6(&7,21
$&&25',1*/<678',26 25'(16,7<(48,9$/(1781,76 +$9(%((13529,'(')25
68&+385326(3(5&$*297&2'(6(&7,21 $'(16,7<%2186+$6%((1
,1&/8'(',1'(7(50,1,1*7+($//2:$%/('(16,7<2)7+(352-(&7
3(56/2081,&,3$/&2'(6(&7,21 $ $1'&$*297&2'(6(&7,21
' % 7+,6352-(&7,6(17,7/('725(&(,9(7:2,1&(17,9(625&21&(66,216
%(&$86($7/($677(13(5&(172)7+(727$/81,76$5(3529,'(')259(5</2:
,1&20(+286(+2/'67+,6352-(&7352326(67:2&21&(66,216 , $+(,*+7
&21&(66,212))((7$%29(7+(67$1'$5'$//2:$%/(+(,*+7,17+(&&=21(2)
·$1' ,, $1,1&5($6(,1$//2:$%/(/27&29(5$*()52072 %27+2)
7+(6(,1&(17,9(6$5(&216,67(17:,7+7+((;35(66/<'(),1(',1&(17,9(681'(5
6(&7,21 % 2)7+(6/2081,&,3$/&2'($1'&$*297&2'(6(&7,21
. :+,&+($&+5(48,5($5('8&7,21,16,7('(9(/230(1767$1'$5'6,)
5(48(67('%<7+($33/,&$177+(6(,1&(17,9(6$5($/62&216,67(17:,7+7+(
63(&,$/)2&86$5($:+(5(7+(3523(57<,6/2&$7('$67+(6)$(1&285$*(6
*5($7(5'(16,7<$1'63(&,),&$//<0(17,216+(,*+7&21&(66,21672
$&&2002'$7(68&+,1&5($6(''(16,7<)857+(5025(%27+2)7+()25(*2,1*
&21&(66,216$5(5(48,5('81'(5&$*29(510(17&2'(6(&7,21 (
:+,&+5(48,5(67+$7$&,7<0$<127´$33/<$1<'(9(/230(1767$1'$5'7+$7:,//
+$9(7+(())(&72)3+<6,&$//<35(&/8',1*7+(&216758&7,212)$'(9(/230(17µ
0((7,1*7+(&5,7(5,$6(7)257+7+(5(,1:,7+2877+(7:25(48(67('&21&(66,216
,7:28/'%(3+<6,&$//<,03266,%/(72&216758&77+(352-(&7:,7+7+('(16,7<
%2186$65(48,5('%<67$7(/$:
:+,/(3$5.,1*&21&(66,216:28/'%(&216,67(17:,7+7+(63(&,$/)2&86$5($
'(6,*1$7,217+,6352-(&7'2(6127&855(17/<6((.$1<3$5.,1*&21&(66,216
7+(352-(&7,6'(6,*1('72&203/<:,7+7+(&$/,)251,$*5((1%8,/',1*&2'(
$1':,//,1&25325$7(6(9(5$/*5((1%8,/',1*0($685(67+(6(0($685(6
,1&/8'(/2:)/2:3/80%,1*),;785(6/('/,*+7),;785(6$03/(,168/$7,21
(1(5*<()),&,(17:,1'2:6$1''22563529,6,21)25)8785(62/$53$1(/6$1'
'528*+772/(5$17/$1'6&$3,1*
7+,6352-(&7,6&$7(*25,&$//<(;(037)520&(4$3(5&(4$*8,'(/,1($6
7+(352-(&7&/$66,),(6$6$&/$66,1),//'(9(/230(17352-(&7
,1$&&25'$1&(:,7+6(&7,21 2)7+(6/2081,&,3$/&2'(7+,6 352-(&7:,//
3$<$1$57,1/,(8)((,1&211(&7,21:,7+7+(1215(6,'(17,$/3257,212)7+(
352-(&7 ,(6)2)5(7$,/63$&(/2&$7('217+(*5281')/225 68&+)((
:,//%(&$/&8/$7(',1$&&25'$1&(:,7+6(&7,21
7+(352-(&7352326(6722))6(7$1<,1&5($6(,1:$67(:$7(5)/2:&$86('%<7+(
352-(&7%<,03/(0(17,1*2))6,7(6(:(55(+$%,/,7$7,217+$75(68/76,1,1)/2:$1'
,1),/75$7,215('8&7,21,17+(&,7<·6:$67(:$7(5&2//(&7,216<67(0 68&+2))6(7
6+$//%($&&203/,6+('%<21(2)7+()2//2:,1*0(7+2'6 68)),&,(17
5('8&7,21,1:$67(:$7(5)/2:&200(1685$7(:,7+7+($'',7,21$/:$67(:$7(5
)/2:&2175,%87('%<7+(352-(&772%($&+,(9('%<7+(9(5,),('5(3/$&(0(172)
&203520,6('35,9$7(6(:(5/$7(5$/62538%/,&6(:(50$,16(,7+(5%<7+(
'(9(/23(57+(&,7<25$1<3523(57<2:1(5 3$57,&,3$7,21,1$ 6(:(5/$7(5$/
5(3/$&(0(17352*5$0256,0,/$5,1)/2:$1',1),/75$7,215('8&7,21352*5$0
72%('(9(/23('%<7+(&,7< 25 $1<27+(52))6,7(6(:(55(+$%,/,7$7,21
352326('%<7+('(9(/23(5$1'$33529('%<7+(87,/,7,(6',5(&725:+,&+:,//
$&+,(9($5('8&7,21,1:$67(:$7(5)/2:&200(1685$7(:,7+7+($'',7,21$/
:$67(:$7(5)/2:&2175,%87('%<7+(352-(&7
7+(3523(57<&855(17/<&216,6762))2856(3$5$7(3$5&(/68321$33529$/2)
7+(352-(&77+((;,67,1*/276:,//%(0(5*('
)RRWKLOO )RRWKLOO )RRWKLOO )RRWKLOO
)227+,//%/9'6$1/8,62%,632&$
81,7&2817
)/225/(9(/
6(&21')/225
678',2
%('5220 %('5220 727$/
7+,5')/225
)2857+)/225
727$/
81,77<3(
Packet Pg. 186
Item 9
29(5$//%8,/',1*67$7,67,&6
2&&83$1&<*5283 &%&6(&7,21 $0 56
$&&(6625<86(" 12 12 12 12
635,1./(5('" <(6 <(6 <(6 <(6
&216758&7,217<3( 9$9$9$9$
$//2:$%/(+(,*+7 &%&7$%/( )7 )7 )7 )7
$&78$/+(,*+7 )7 )7 )7 )7
$//2:$%/(6725,(6 &%&7$%/( 6725<6725<6725<6725<
$&78$/6725,(6 6725<6725<6725<6725<
$//2:$%/($5($ &%&7$%/( 6)6)6)6)
%8,/',1*$5($02',),&$7,216
16$//2:$%/($5($ 16 &%& 6)6)6)6)
)5217$*(,1&5($6( ,I &%&
$//2:$%/($5($ $D &%&(4 6) 6)6) 6)
$&78$/$5($3(5)/225 727$/6)
*5281')/225 6)6)6) 6)6)
6(&21')/225 6)6)6)6) 6)
7+,5')/225 6)6) 6)6)6)
)2857+)/225 6)6)6)6)6)
%8,/',1*727$/6 6)6) 6) 6)6)
0,;('2&&83$1&<$5($5$7,2
*5281')/225 6)6)6) 6)
6) 6)6) 6)
6(&21')/225 6)6)6)6)
6) 6)6) 6)
7+,5')/225 6)6) 6)6)
6) 6)6) 6)
)2857+)/225 6)6)6)6)
6) 6)6) 6)
727$/
727$/ $ 52&&83$1&,(6
127( 3(5&%&7+($**5(*$7(6802)7+(5$7,262)7+($&78$/$5($2)($&+6725<',9,'('%<7+($//2:$%/(
$5($2)68&+6725,(6'(7(50,1(',1$&&25'$1&(:,7+(48$7,216+$//127(;&(('7+5((3529,'('7+($**5($7(
6802)7+(5$7,26)253257,2162)08/7,6725<%8,/',1*6&217$,1,1*$(+,/$1'52&&83$1&,(66+$//127(;&(('
7:2
0$;,080$5($2)23(1,1*6%$6('21),5(6(3$5$7,21 &%&7$%/(
),5(6(3$5$7,21',67$1&(3527(&7('$//2:$%/($5($
272/(667+$1
<(6121273(50,77('
72/(667+$1
12
72/(667+$1
<(6
72/(667+$1
12
72/(667+$1
<(6
72/(667+$1
12
72/(667+$1
<(6
72/(667+$1
12
72/(667+$1
<(6
25*5($7(5 <(612 12/,0,7
%8,/',1*&20321(173527(&7,21 &%&7$%/(6
127( ,1&,'(17$/$&&(6625<2&&83$1&,(63(5&%& $5(0,7,*$7('%<352326('
$8720$7,&),5((;7,1*8,6+,1*6<67(0
7<3(9$&216758&7,21
35,0$5<6758&785$/)5$0( +285
%($5,1*:$//6(;7(5,25 +285
%($5,1*:$//6,17(5,25 +285
121%($5,1*:$//6(;7(5,25
6(3$5$7,21 +285
!
6(3$5$7,21 +285
121%($5,1*:$//6,17(5,25 *(1(5$/ 1215$7('
67$,5(;,7(1&/2685(:$//6 +285),5(%$55,(5121&20%867,%/(
6+$)7(1&/2685(:$//6 +285),5(%$55,(5121&20%867,%/(
/$81'5<5220:$//6 1215$7('
)/225&/*$66(0%/,(6 +285
522)&/*$66(0%/< 1215$7('
$&&(66,%/(3$5.,1*
3$5.,1*3529,'('
/,)763$&(6 $66,*1('5(6,'(17621/< 63$&(6
685)$&(3$5.,1*63$&(6 38%/,& 63$&(6
727$/3529,'(' 63$&(6
$&&(66,%/(3$5.,1*5(48,5('
$66,*1(' &%& $ 63$&(6 2)63$&(6
38%/,& &%&7$%/(% 63$&(6
727$/5(48,5(' 63$&(6
$&&(66,%/(3$5.,1*3529,'('
9$1 63$&(
67$1'$5'$&&(66,%/( 63$&(6
727$/ 63$&(6
2&
6)
*$5$*(
6
2&
6)
5(7$,/
0
2&
6)
5(7$,/
0
2&
6)
/2%%</($6,1*
$
67$,5(;,7
67$,5(;,7
67$,5$&&(6672
/2%%<
$
0
6
&DOFXODWLQJ
67$,5$&&(66
7238%/,&:$<
67$,5$&&(6672
38%/,&:$<
67$,5$&&(6672
/2%%<
7<3
&2857<$5'
%('
%('
%('678',2
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('678',2
%('%('%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
2&
6)
%('
5
2&
6)
%('
5
2&
6)
$0(1,7<
$
7<3
7<3
&2857<$5'
$
5
&DOFXODWLQJ
678',2
678',2
2&
6)
678',2
5
2&
6)
%('
5
2&
6)
%('
5
2&
6)
$0(1,7<
$
67$,5$&&(6672
38%/,&:$<
67$,5$&&(6672
38%/,&:$<
67$,5$&&(6672
/2%%<
7<3
(;7(5,25
:$/.:$<
(;7(5,25
:$/.:$<
7<3
7<3
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
678',2
%('
%('
%('
%('
678',2
%('
%('
678',2
%('
%('
%('
%('
%(' %('
%('
%('
$
5
&DOFXODWLQJ
&2857<$5'
%(/2:
2&
6)
522)'(&.
5
2&
6)
%('
5
2&
6)
%('
5
67$,5$&&(6672
38%/,&:$<
67$,5$&&(6672
38%/,&:$<
67$,5$&&(6672
/2%%<
7<3
7<3
7<3
%('
%('
%('678',2
%('
%('
%('
%('
678',2
%('
%('
%('
678',2
%(' %(' %('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
(;7(5,25
:$/.:$<
(;7(5,25
:$/.:$<
&2857<$5'
%(/2:
5
&DOFXODWLQJ
%$/&21,(6352-(&7
0$;29(538%/,&:$<
(;7(5,25
:$/.:$<
2&
6)
678',2
5
%('
'DWH
6FDOH
6KHHW
$
6
$5&+,7(&76
-2+1621$9(18(
6$1/8,62%,632&$
3 )
7+20$6(-(66$5&+,7(&7&
[
[
5 5 ,6
7 8 ',2
$
)RRWKLOO 176
/55($/(67$7(,19(670(17*5283 176
&2'($1$/<6,6
&2'($1$/<6,6
*5281')/225&2'($1$/<6,6
6(&21')/225&2'($1$/<6,6
7+,5')/225&2'($1$/<6,6
)2857+)/225&2'($1$/<6,6
Packet Pg. 187
Item 9
)/
$'-$&(173$5&(/
&&6)=21(
86( &200(5&,$/
$'-$&(173$5&(/
5=21(
86( 5(6,'(17,$/$'-$&(173$5&(/
5=21(
86( 5(6,'(17,$/
$'-$&(173$5&(/
3)=21(
86( ),5(67$7,21
$'-$&(173$5&(/
&56=21(
86( &200(5&,$/
$%%
%
%
&
/
0
0
0
*
(
(
((
'
*
+
,
,
+
.
.
.
-
-
1
2
)227+,//%28/(9$5'
1
&
+
2
5
5
2
6
7
5
(
(
7
1 Ý
(
0
1
Ý
:
0
1
Ý
(
0
1 Ý
(
0 1 Ý
(
0
1Ý
:
0
Ʀ Ý
5
/
'DWH
6FDOH
6KHHW
$
6
$5&+,7(&76
-2+1621$9(18(
6$1/8,62%,632&$
3 )
7+20$6(-(66$5&+,7(&7&
[
[
5 5 ,6
7 8 ',2
$
)RRWKLOO
/55($/(67$7(,19(670(17*5283
(;,67,1*6,7(3/$1
758(
1257+
352-(&7
1257+
(;,67,1*6,7(3/$1
(;,67,1*75((/(*(1'
75((6352326('725(0$,1
675((775((6 ,152:
$ 3/$7$186$&(5,)2/,$/21'213/$1(75((
75((6352326('72%(5(029('
675((775((6 ,152:
% 3<586.$:$.$0,(9(5*5((13($5
& 6(482,$6(03(59,5(16&2$675(':22' 6+58%
216,7(75((6
' (8&$/<378658',6'(6(57*80
( 32'2&$5386*5$&,/,25<(:3,1(
) &$//,67(0219,0,1$/,6:((3,1*%277/(%586+
* 3,1863,1($,7$/,$16721(3,1(
+ 75,67$1,$&21)(57$%5,6%$1(%2;
, *(,-(5$3$59,)/25$$8675$/,$1:,//2:
- ),&8658%,*,126$5867</($)),*
. /<2127+$0186)/25,%81'86$63/(1,)2/,86&$7$/,1$,521:22'
/ 6(482,$6(03(59,5(16&2$675(':22'
0 $&$&,$/21*,)2/,$*2/'(1:$77/(
1 $,/$17+86$/7,66,0$75((2)+($9(1
2 (8*(1,$0<57,)2/,$%586+&+(55< +('*(
5()(5(1&(127(6
3523(57</,1(
(;,67,1*3$5.,1*/2772%('(02/,6+('
(;,67,1*%8,/',1*72%('(02/,6+('
(;,67,1*/$1'6&$3($5($72%('(02/,6+('
;
3*(87,/,7<($6(0(17
Packet Pg. 188
Item 9
&
+
2
5
5
2
6
7
5
(
(
7
)227+,//%28/(9$5'
*
5
2
8
1
'
)
/
2
2
5
<
$
5
'
$'-$&(173$5&(/
&&6)=21(
86( &200(5&,$/
$'-$&(173$5&(/
5=21(
86( 5(6,'(17,$/$'-$&(173$5&(/
5=21(
86( 5(6,'(17,$/
$'-$&(173$5&(/
3)=21(
86( ),5(67$7,21
$'-$&(173$5&(/
&56=21(
86( &200(5&,$/
))
))
))
))
))
))
))
6/
2
3
(
75$6+
'DWH
6FDOH
6KHHW
$
6
$5&+,7(&76
-2+1621$9(18(
6$1/8,62%,632&$
3 )
7+20$6(-(66$5&+,7(&7&
[
[
5 5 ,6
7 8 ',2
$
)RRWKLOO
/55($/(67$7(,19(670(17*5283
&21&(378$/6,7(3/$1
758(
1257+
352-(&7
1257+
$5&+,7(&785$/6,7(3/$1
5()(5(1&(127(6
3523(57</,1(
/$1'6&$3('$5($
&21&5(7(6,'(:$/.
5$,6('3/$17(5
&21&5(7(3$9,1*
),5(5,6(5
75$6+/2$',1*=21(
&85%5$03
9(+,&8/$5'5,9($3521
%,.(5$&.
;
3*(87,/,7<($6(0(17
62/,':$67(127(6
7+(352-(&7+$6$6+$5('75$6+5220/2&$7('$77+(6287+:(67(51&251(52)
7+(%8,/',1*63$&(+$6%((13529,'(')25 <'*$5%$*($1' <'
5(&<&/('80367(567+(5(6,'(176+$9($&&(6672$75$6+&+87(217+(833(5
/(9(/62)7+(352-(&77+$7/($'6727+(75$6+52207+(&200(5&,$/7(1$176
&$1$&&(667+(75$6+5220)5207+(3$5.,1**$5$*(25)5207+(:(676,'(2)
7+(%8,/',1*21$6&+('8/(''$<7,0(%8,/',1*67$)):,//%5,1*2877+(
'80367(56727+(75$6+/2$',1*=21($77+(6287+:(673257,212)7+(6,7(
3,&.83)5(48(1&<:,//%($'-867('$61(&(66$5<'(3(1',1*217+(1(('62)7+(
7(1$176
Packet Pg. 189
Item 9
$
$
$
$
&
+
2
5
5
2
6
7
5
(
(
7
$
$
$
5(7$,/
/2%%</($6,1*
75$6+
%,.(6
67$,5
685)$&( 63$&(6
/,)76 63$&(6
727$/ 63$&(6
*$5$*(
))
))
))
5 $0 3
))
(430
5 $0 3
$
$
*$5$*(
%,.(6
87,/,7<
5(7$,/
%,.(6
%,.(6
87,/,7<
))
))
))
67$,5
5$03
)5
$
'DWH
6FDOH
6KHHW
$
6
$5&+,7(&76
-2+1621$9(18(
6$1/8,62%,632&$
3 )
7+20$6(-(66$5&+,7(&7&
[
[
5 5 ,6
7 8 ',2
$
)RRWKLOO
/55($/(67$7(,19(670(17*5283
*5281')/2253/$1
758(
1257+
352-(&7
1257+
352326('*5281')/2253/$1
5()(5(1&(127(6
3$5.,1*675,3,1*
$&&(66,%/(3$5.,1*67$//6 127$66,*1('
02725&<&/(3$5.,1*
3$5.,1*/,)76./$8675(19$5,2Z3,7%(/2:)255(6,'(17,$/86(21/<
$66,*1('7263(&,),&7(1$176
685)$&(63$&(6$5()255($7,/86('85,1*%86,1(66+2856 5(6,'(17,$/
27+(5:,6(
&21&5(7(&2/80166'
3523(57</,1(
),5(5,6(5
%,.(5$&.
3$5.,1*127(6
7+(3$5.,1*)257+(352-(&7&216,6762)685)$&(3$5.,1*63$&(6$1'$
0(&+$1,&$//<$66,67('3$5.,1*/,)76<67(0&217$,1(':,7+,17+(3$5.,1*
*$5$*($&&(66(')520)227+,//%/9'7+(3$5.,1*/,)76<67(0:,//3529,'(
3$5.,1*)25$//2)7+(5(6,'(176(;&(37)25$1<$&&(66,%/(63$&(6:+,&+$5(
6+$5(':,7+7+(5(7$,/7(1$1767+(5($5($727$/2)3$5.,1* /,)76:+,&+0((76
7+(5(48,5('180%(52)3$5.,1*63$&(67+(685)$&(3$5.,1*63$&(6$5(
'(',&$7('727+(5(7$,/&86720(56$1'(03/2<((67+(5($5($727$/2)
685)$&(3$5.,1*63$&(62)7+(0%(,1*$&&(66,%/(7+(685)$&(3$5.,1*63$&(6
:,//%(6+$5('%(7:((17+(5(6,'(176$1'5(7$,/$)7(5+2856:,7+$335235,$7(
6,*1$*(675,3,1*127,1*7+(+28565(6,'(1765(48(67,1*3$5.,1*:,//%(
$66,*1('$1$&&(66&2'()257+(3$5.,1*/,)76<67(0
Packet Pg. 190
Item 9
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$0(1,7<
%('
67$,5
(/(9
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
678',2
678',2
67$,5
23(172
$%29(
$
$
$
67$,5
&+87(
&2857<$5'
&2857<$5'
<
$
5
'
<$5'
$
678',2
678',2
'DWH
6FDOH
6KHHW
$
6
$5&+,7(&76
-2+1621$9(18(
6$1/8,62%,632&$
3 )
7+20$6(-(66$5&+,7(&7&
[
[
5 5 ,6
7 8 ',2
$
)RRWKLOO
/55($/(67$7(,19(670(17*5283
6(&21')/2253/$1
758(
1257+
352-(&7
1257+
352326('6(&21')/2253/$1
678',2
%('5220
%('5220
727$/
81,7&2817
5()(5(1&(127(6
5$,6('3/$17(5
:$/.:$<$%29(
&2857<$5'$5($6((/$1'6&$3(3/$16
Packet Pg. 191
Item 9
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
%('
67$,5
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
678',2
678',2
678',2
67$,5
23(172
%(/2:
$
$
$
$0(1,7<
&2857<$5'
%(/2:
&2857<$5'
%(/2:
&+87(
67$,5
(/(9
$
678',2
'DWH
6FDOH
6KHHW
$
6
$5&+,7(&76
-2+1621$9(18(
6$1/8,62%,632&$
3 )
7+20$6(-(66$5&+,7(&7&
[
[
5 5 ,6
7 8 ',2
$
)RRWKLOO
/55($/(67$7(,19(670(17*5283
7+,5')/2253/$1
758(
1257+
352-(&7
1257+
352326('7+,5')/2253/$1
678',2
%('5220
%('5220
727$/
81,7&2817
5()(5(1&(127(6
3523(57</,1(
23(1:$/.:$<
'(&25$7,9(121&20%867,%/(-8/,(77(%$/&21<
35,9$7(%$/&21<
Packet Pg. 192
Item 9
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
%('
67$,5
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
67$,5
)2857+)/225
'(&.
$
$
$
&2857<$5'
%(/2:
&2857<$5'
%(/2:
67$,5
&+87(
678',2
678',2
678',2
$
678',2
%('
'DWH
6FDOH
6KHHW
$
6
$5&+,7(&76
-2+1621$9(18(
6$1/8,62%,632&$
3 )
7+20$6(-(66$5&+,7(&7&
[
[
5 5 ,6
7 8 ',2
$
)RRWKLOO
/55($/(67$7(,19(670(17*5283
)2857+)/2253/$1
758(
1257+
352-(&7
1257+
352326(')2857+)/2253/$1
678',2
%('5220
%('5220
727$/
81,7&2817
5()(5(1&(127(6
3523(57</,1(
23(1:$/.:$<
5$,6('3/$17(5
3/$17(5
35()$%5,&$7('-8/,(77(%$/&21<3$,17('
35,9$7(%$/&21<
Packet Pg. 193
Item 9
$
$
$
$
'(&.
%(/2:
$
$
$
$
$
$
)/$7
522)
&2857<$5'
%(/2:
&2857<$5'
%(/2:
)/$7
522)
)/$7
522)
)/$7
522)
6 /2 3 (
6 /2 3 (
6/
2
3
(
6/23(
)/$7
522)
6/23(
)/$7
522)
6 /2 3 (
)/$7
522)
)/$7
522)
)/$7
522)
6
/
2
3
(
$
6/23(
'DWH
6FDOH
6KHHW
$
6
$5&+,7(&76
-2+1621$9(18(
6$1/8,62%,632&$
3 )
7+20$6(-(66$5&+,7(&7&
[
[
5 5 ,6
7 8 ',2
$
)RRWKLOO
/55($/(67$7(,19(670(17*5283
522)3/$1
758(
1257+
352-(&7
1257+
352326('522)3/$1
5()(5(1&(127(6
732522),1*
522)$&&(66+$7&+
0(&+$1,&$/$5($
Packet Pg. 194
Item 9
'DWH
6FDOH
6KHHW
$
6
$5&+,7(&76
-2+1621$9(18(
6$1/8,62%,632&$
3 )
7+20$6(-(66$5&+,7(&7&
[
[
5 5 ,6
7 8 ',2
$
)RRWKLOO 176
/55($/(67$7(,19(670(17*5283 176
3$5.,1*/,)76
Packet Pg. 195
Item 9
352-(&7
6,7(
)227+,//%/9'
1
&
+
2
5
5
2
6
7
%5
2
$
'
6
7
'DWH
6FDOH
6KHHW
$
6
$5&+,7(&76
-2+1621$9(18(
6$1/8,62%,632&$
3 )
7+20$6(-(66$5&+,7(&7&
[
[
5 5 ,6
7 8 ',2
$
)RRWKLOO 176
/55($/(67$7(,19(670(17*5283 176
)227+,//($67
3(563(&7,9(
Packet Pg. 196
Item 9
352-(&7
6,7(
)227+,//%/9'
1
&
+
2
5
5
2
6
7
%5
2
$
'
6
7
'DWH
6FDOH
6KHHW
$
6
$5&+,7(&76
-2+1621$9(18(
6$1/8,62%,632&$
3 )
7+20$6(-(66$5&+,7(&7&
[
[
5 5 ,6
7 8 ',2
$
)RRWKLOO 176
/55($/(67$7(,19(670(17*5283 176
&251(55(7$,/
3(563(&7,9(
Packet Pg. 197
Item 9
352-(&7
6,7(
)227+,//%/9'
1
&
+
2
5
5
2
6
7
%5
2
$
'
6
7
'DWH
6FDOH
6KHHW
$
6
$5&+,7(&76
-2+1621$9(18(
6$1/8,62%,632&$
3 )
7+20$6(-(66$5&+,7(&7&
[
[
5 5 ,6
7 8 ',2
$
)RRWKLOO 176
/55($/(67$7(,19(670(17*5283 176
)227+,//5(7$,/
3(563(&7,9(
Packet Pg. 198
Item 9
352-(&7
6,7(
)227+,//%/9'
1
&
+
2
5
5
2
6
7
%5
2
$
'
6
7
'DWH
6FDOH
6KHHW
$
6
$5&+,7(&76
-2+1621$9(18(
6$1/8,62%,632&$
3 )
7+20$6(-(66$5&+,7(&7&
[
[
5 5 ,6
7 8 ',2
$
)RRWKLOO
/55($/(67$7(,19(670(17*5283
%52$' )227+,//
3(563(&7,9(
Packet Pg. 199
Item 9
352-(&7
6,7(
)227+,//%/9'
1
&
+
2
5
5
2
6
7
%5
2
$
'
6
7
'DWH
6FDOH
6KHHW
$
6
$5&+,7(&76
-2+1621$9(18(
6$1/8,62%,632&$
3 )
7+20$6(-(66$5&+,7(&7&
[
[
5 5 ,6
7 8 ',2
$
)RRWKLOO 176
/55($/(67$7(,19(670(17*5283 176
)227+,//3(563(&7,9(
Packet Pg. 200
Item 9
352-(&7
6,7(
)227+,//%/9'
1
&
+
2
5
5
2
6
7
%5
2
$
'
6
7
'DWH
6FDOH
6KHHW
$
6
$5&+,7(&76
-2+1621$9(18(
6$1/8,62%,632&$
3 )
7+20$6(-(66$5&+,7(&7&
[
[
5 5 ,6
7 8 ',2
$
)RRWKLOO 176
/55($/(67$7(,19(670(17*5283 176
)227+,//6287+:(67
3(563(&7,9(
Packet Pg. 201
Item 9
352-(&7
6,7(
)227+,//%/9'
1
&
+
2
5
5
2
6
7
%5
2
$
'
6
7
'DWH
6FDOH
6KHHW
$
6
$5&+,7(&76
-2+1621$9(18(
6$1/8,62%,632&$
3 )
7+20$6(-(66$5&+,7(&7&
[
[
5 5 ,6
7 8 ',2
$
)RRWKLOO 176
/55($/(67$7(,19(670(17*5283 176
)227+,//:(67
3(563(&7,9(
Packet Pg. 202
Item 9
352-(&7
6,7(
)227+,//%/9'
1
&
+
2
5
5
2
6
7
%5
2
$
'
6
7
'DWH
6FDOH
6KHHW
$
6
$5&+,7(&76
-2+1621$9(18(
6$1/8,62%,632&$
3 )
7+20$6(-(66$5&+,7(&7&
[
[
5 5 ,6
7 8 ',2
$
)RRWKLOO
/55($/(67$7(,19(670(17*5283
&+25525(6,'(17,$/
(175<3(563(&7,9(
Packet Pg. 203
Item 9
352-(&7
6,7(
)227+,//%/9'
1
&
+
2
5
5
2
6
7
%5
2
$
'
6
7
'DWH
6FDOH
6KHHW
$
6
$5&+,7(&76
-2+1621$9(18(
6$1/8,62%,632&$
3 )
7+20$6(-(66$5&+,7(&7&
[
[
5 5 ,6
7 8 ',2
$
)RRWKLOO 176
/55($/(67$7(,19(670(17*5283 176
&+2552($67
3(563(&7,9(
Packet Pg. 204
Item 9
352-(&7
6,7(
)227+,//%/9'
1
&
+
2
5
5
2
6
7
%5
2
$
'
6
7
'DWH
6FDOH
6KHHW
$
6
$5&+,7(&76
-2+1621$9(18(
6$1/8,62%,632&$
3 )
7+20$6(-(66$5&+,7(&7&
[
[
5 5 ,6
7 8 ',2
$
)RRWKLOO 176
/55($/(67$7(,19(670(17*5283 176
&+25521257+($67
3(563(&7,9(
Packet Pg. 205
Item 9
$
$
$
( /2:*5$'(
$9(5$*(1$785$/*5$'(
( +,*+*5$'(
0$;%8,/',1*+(,*+7
$%
2
9
(
(
1
$
7
8
5
$
/
*
5
$
'
(
$
$
$
$
0$;%8,/',1*+(,*+7
( +,*+*5$'(
$9(5$*(1$785$/*5$'(
( /2:*5$'(
$%
2
9
(
(
1
$
7
8
5
$
/
*
5
$
'
(
'DWH
6FDOH
6KHHW
$
6
$5&+,7(&76
-2+1621$9(18(
6$1/8,62%,632&$
3 )
7+20$6(-(66$5&+,7(&7&
[
[
5 5 ,6
7 8 ',2
$
)RRWKLOO
/55($/(67$7(,19(670(17*5283
29(5$//(/(9$7,216
1257+(/(9$7,2129(5$//
:(67(/(9$7,2129(5$//
6287+(/(9$7,2129(5$// )227+,//%/9'
($67(/(9$7,2129(5$// &+255267
5()(5(1&(127(6
(/(9$72572:(5
3523(57</,1(
Packet Pg. 206
Item 9
*5281')/225
522)
6(&21')/225
7+,5')/225
)2857+)/225
72+,*+3$5$3(7
*$5$*(
$9
(
5
$
*
(
1
$
7
8
5
$
/
*
5
$
'
(
72/2:3$5$3(7
*5281')/225
522)
6(&21')/225
7+,5')/225
)2857+)/225
72+,*+3$5$3(7
.
$
*$5$*(
$
72/2:3$5$3(7
'DWH
6FDOH
6KHHW
$
6
$5&+,7(&76
-2+1621$9(18(
6$1/8,62%,632&$
3 )
7+20$6(-(66$5&+,7(&7&
[
[
5 5 ,6
7 8 ',2
$
)RRWKLOO
/55($/(67$7(,19(670(17*5283
(1/$5*('(/(9$7,216
3$57,$/6287+(/(9$7,21 ($673257,21
3$57,$/6287+(/(9$7,21 :(673257,21
5()(5(1&(127(6
60227+&(0(173/$67(5678&&2
+25,=$17$/),%(5&(0(17/$36,',1*(;32685(
9(57,&$/),%(5&(0(17%2$5'$1'%$77(1%$77(1663$&('2&
9,1</:,1'2:
6(&7,21$/*/$66'225
0(7$/&$123<
6725()52176<67(0$12',=('
325&(/$,1:$//7,/(
35()$%5,&$7('-8/,(77(%$/&21<3$,17('
%2$5')250('&21&5(7(:$//
6<17+(7,&:$//3$1(/6
67((/5$,/,1*3$,17('
7(1$176,*1$*(3(5'()(55('6,*1$*(352*5$0
352-(&7(':,1'2:75,0
&21752/-2,17
35(&$67&21&5(7(:$//%$6(
Packet Pg. 207
Item 9
*5281')/225
522)
6(&21')/225
7+,5')/225
)2857+)/225
72+,*+3$5$3(7
$
72/2:3$5$3(7
3257,212))2857+)/22581,767(33('%$&.
*$3,1%8,/',1*
*5281')/225
522)
6(&21')/225
7+,5')/225
)2857+)/225
72+,*+3$5$3(7
*$5$*(
$9(5$*(1$785$/*
5$'(
$
$
72/2:3$5$3(7
*$3,1%8,/',1*
3257,212))2857+)/225
81,767(33('%$&.
3257,212))2857+)/225
81,767(33('%$&.
'DWH
6FDOH
6KHHW
$
6
$5&+,7(&76
-2+1621$9(18(
6$1/8,62%,632&$
3 )
7+20$6(-(66$5&+,7(&7&
[
[
5 5 ,6
7 8 ',2
$
)RRWKLOO
/55($/(67$7(,19(670(17*5283
(1/$5*('(/(9$7,216
3$57,$/($67(/(9$7,21 6287+3257,21
3$57,$/($67(/(9$7,21 1257+3257,21
5()(5(1&(127(6
60227+&(0(173/$67(5678&&2
+25,=$17$/),%(5&(0(17/$36,',1*(;32685(
(;326(';%5$&.(763$,17('
9,1</:,1'2:
6725()52176<67(0$12',=('
6(&7,21$/*/$66'225
325&(/$,1:$//7,/(
$/80,180/289(53$,17('
'(&25$7,9(0(6+6&5((1:0(7$/)5$0(3$,17('
352-(&7(':,1'2:75,0
$/80,1805$,/,1*3$,17('
0(7$/&$123<
%2$5')250('&21&5(7(:$//
%/$'(6,*1
67$1',1*6($00(7$/522),1*
35(&$67&21&5(7(:$//%$6(
6<17+(7,&:$//3$1(/6
Packet Pg. 208
Item 9
*5281')/225
522)
6(&21')/225
7+,5')/225
)2857+)/225
72+,*+3$5$3(7
*$5$*(
$9(5$*(1$785$/*
5$'(
72/2:3$5$3(7
$
'DWH
6FDOH
6KHHW
$
6
$5&+,7(&76
-2+1621$9(18(
6$1/8,62%,632&$
3 )
7+20$6(-(66$5&+,7(&7&
[
[
5 5 ,6
7 8 ',2
$
)RRWKLOO
/55($/(67$7(,19(670(17*5283
(1/$5*('(/(9$7,216
1257+(/(9$7,2129(5$//
5()(5(1&(127(6
60227+&(0(173/$67(5678&&2
+25,=$17$/),%(5&(0(17/$36,',1*(;32685(
9,1</:,1'2:
9(57,&$/),%(5&(0(17%2$5'$1'%$77(1%$77(1663$&('2&
3523(57</,1(
'(&25$7,9(0(6+6&5((1:0(7$/)5$0(3$,17('
352-(&7(':,1'2:75,0
Packet Pg. 209
Item 9
*5281')/225
522)
6(&21')/225
7+,5')/225
)2857+)/225
72+,*+3$5$3(7
*$5$*(
$9(5$*(1
$785$/*
5$'(
$
72/2:3$5$3(7
*$3,1%8,/',1*
3257,212))2857+)/22581,7
67(33('%$&.
*5281')/225
522)
6(&21')/225
7+,5')/225
)2857+)/225
72+,*+3$5$3(7
$
*$5$*(
$9(5$*(1
$785$/*
5$'(
72/2:3$5$3(7
,1%/'*
*$3
3257,212))2857+)/225
81,767(33('%$&.
'DWH
6FDOH
6KHHW
$
6
$5&+,7(&76
-2+1621$9(18(
6$1/8,62%,632&$
3 )
7+20$6(-(66$5&+,7(&7&
[
[
5 5 ,6
7 8 ',2
$
)RRWKLOO
/55($/(67$7(,19(670(17*5283
(1/$5*('(/(9$7,216
:(67(/(9$7,2129(5$//
:(67(/(9$7,2129(5$//
5()(5(1&(127(6
60227+&(0(173/$67(5678&&2
+25,=$17$/),%(5&(0(17/$36,',1*(;32685(
9,1</:,1'2:
3523(57</,1(
35()$%5,&$7('-8/,(77(%$/&21<3$,17('
$/80,180/289(53$,17('
%/$'(6,*1
(;326(';%5$&.(763$,17('
'(&25$7,9(0(6+6&5((1:0(7$/)5$0(3$,17('
$/80,1805$,/,1*3$,17('
67$1',1*6($00(7$/522),1*
Packet Pg. 210
Item 9
*5281')/225
522)
6(&21')/225
7+,5')/225
)2857+)/225
72+,*+3$5$3(7
(;,67,1**5$'(
*$5$*(
5(7$,/
$0(1,7<
%('
%('
%('
75$6+
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
72/2:3$5$3(7
)2857+)/225
'(&.
%('
5(7$,/
%('
%('
&2857<$5'
:$
/
.
:
$
<
:
$
/
.
:
$
<
&2857<$5'
*$5$*(
%('
:$/.:$<2121(6,'(2)&2857<$5'%5,'*(6
7281,7(175,(62123326,7(6,'(2)&2857<$5'
*5281')/225
522)
6(&21')/225
7+,5')/225
)2857+)/225
72+,*+3$5$3(7
*$5$*(
%('
%('
%('
72/2:3$5$3(7
&2857<$5'
:$
/
.
:
$
<
:
$
/
.
:
$
<
$9(5$*(1$785$/*
5$'(
(;,67,1**5$'(
%('
%('
%('
*$5$*(
81,767(33('%$&.
)2857+)/225:$/.:$<2121(6,'(2)&2857<$5'%5,'*(6
7281,7(175,(62123326,7(6,'(2)&2857<$5'
'DWH
6FDOH
6KHHW
$
6
$5&+,7(&76
-2+1621$9(18(
6$1/8,62%,632&$
3 )
7+20$6(-(66$5&+,7(&7&
[
[
5 5 ,6
7 8 ',2
$
)RRWKLOO
/55($/(67$7(,19(670(17*5283
6(&7,216
6287+6(&7,21*$5$*(
%8,/',1*6(&7,21
5()(5(1&(127(6
3523(57</,1(
Packet Pg. 211
Item 9
*5281')/225
522)
6(&21')/225
7+,5')/225
)2857+)/225
72+,*+3$5$3(7
*$5$*(
$9(5$*(1
$785$/*
5$'(
72/2:3$5$3(7
%('
%('
678',2
678',2
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
5(7$,/
*$5$*(
%('
678',2
*$5$*(
$'-$&(17
5(6,'(17,$/
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
%('
(;,67,1**5$'(*$5$*(
:$/.:$<2121(6,'(2)&2857<$5'%5,'*(6
7281,7(175,(62123326,7(6,'(2)&2857<$5'
:$
/
.
:
$
<
:$
/
.
:
$
<
*5281')/225
522)
6(&21')/225
7+,5')/225
)2857+)/225
72+,*+3$5$3(7
*$5$*(
72/2:3$5$3(7
%('
%('
%('
:$
/
.
:
$
<
:
$
/
.
:
$
<
522)
6(&21')/225
7+,5')/225
)2857+)/225
72+,*+3$5$3(7
*$5$*(
*$5$*(
%('
%('
%('
3/
'DWH
6FDOH
6KHHW
$
6
$5&+,7(&76
-2+1621$9(18(
6$1/8,62%,632&$
3 )
7+20$6(-(66$5&+,7(&7&
[
[
5 5 ,6
7 8 ',2
$
)RRWKLOO
/55($/(67$7(,19(670(17*5283
6(&7,216
%8,/',1*6(&7,21
%8,/',1*6(&7,21
%8,/',1*6(&7,21#$'-$&(175(6,'(17,$/
Packet Pg. 212
Item 9
$3$6%3
$3
$3%3$6$3
$3$3$3%3$3
$3$6
%3%6
%3
%3%3
%6
%6
%3
$3$3&
6&+(0($6&+(0(%
&&&
'DWH
6FDOH
6KHHW
$
6
$5&+,7(&76
-2+1621$9(18(
6$1/8,62%,632&$
3 )
7+20$6(-(66$5&+,7(&7&
[
[
5 5 ,6
7 8 ',2
$
)RRWKLOO 176
/55($/(67$7(,19(670(17*5283 176
&2/256 0$7(5,$/6
&2/256 0$7(5,$/6
5(6,'(17,$/:,1'2:6
9,1</
0,/*$5'67</(/,1(
)2*
$3 3$,17
%(1-$0,10225(
',67$17*5$<
$3 3$,17
%(1-$0,10225(
6,/9(5)2;
$3 3$,17
%(1-$0,10225(
0,1.
5 7326,1*/(3/<
7$1
$ $/80,1806725()5217
$12',=('
&/($5
&(0(173/$67(5678&&260227+752:(/('
522),1* 0,6&(//$1(286
:,1'2:6$1'*/$=,1*
0 0(7$/5$,/,1*
'$5.*5(<
$6 9(57,&$/%2$5'
$1'%$77(13$,17('
+$5',3$1(/60227+
&2/25
%(1-$0,10225(
:22'$&5(6
),%(5&(0(176,',1*
& 325&(/$,17,/(
'$/7,/(3257)2/,2
3)'29(*5$<
5811,1*%21'3$77(51
7,/(
& 325&(/$,17,/(
'$/7,/(3257)2/,2
3),521*5$<
5811,1*%21'3$77(51
%3 3$,17
%(1-$0,10225(
+&&$/':(//*5((1
%3 3$,17
%(1-$0,10225(
6721(
%3 3$,17
%(1-$0,10225(
',67$17*5$<
%6 /$36,',1*3$,17('
+$5',3/$1.&('$50,//
&2/25
%(1-$0,10225(
$0$=2162,/
%6 9(57,&$/%2$5'$1'
%$77(13$,17('
+$5',3$1(/60227+
&2/25
%(1-$0,10225(
67250<021'$<
%6 /$36,',1*3$,17('
+$5',3/$1.&('$50,//
&2/25
%(1-$0,10225(
*266$0(5%/8(
$6 +25,=$17$//$3
6,',1*3$,17('
+$5',3/$1.&('$50,//
&2/25
%(1-$0,10225(
:22'$&5(6
&3 3$,17
%(1-$0,10225(
$/0267%/$&.
&3 3$,17
%(1-$0,10225(
&5($0)/((&(
&6 /$36,',1*3$,17('
+$5',3/$1.&('$50,//
&2/25
%(1-$0,10225(
:22'$&5(6
)227+,//%28/(9$5'(/(9$7,21
6&
+
(
0
(
$
7,/(
6&
+
(
0
(
%
6&
+
(
0
(
&
&(0(173/$67(5678&&260227+752:(/(' ),%(5&(0(176,',1*
&(0(173/$67(5678&&260227+752:(/(' ),%(5&(0(176,',1*
&3 3$,17
%(1-$0,10225(
',67$17*5$<
&6 9(57,&$/%2$5'
$1'%$77(13$,17('
+$5',3$1(/60227+
&2/25
%(1-$0,10225(
67250<021'$<
%6 +25,=217$/6,',1*
75(63$385$1)&)/86+
&2/25
520$17,&:$/187
0$77(),1,6+
& 35(&$67&21&5(7(
3$&,),&6721('(6,*1,1&
/,0(6721(*(129$
35(&$67:$//3$1(/6
Packet Pg. 213
Item 9
%6
%3%3$3$3
&3
%3
&3&6%6&3&3%3&6
&3
6&+(0(&6&+(0(%
%3%3%3%3%6%6
%3%6%6
'DWH
6FDOH
6KHHW
$
6
$5&+,7(&76
-2+1621$9(18(
6$1/8,62%,632&$
3 )
7+20$6(-(66$5&+,7(&7&
[
[
5 5 ,6
7 8 ',2
$
)RRWKLOO 176
/55($/(67$7(,19(670(17*5283 176
&2/256 0$7(5,$/6
'DWH
6FDOH
6KHHW
$
6
$5&+,7(&76
-2+1621$9(18(
6$1/8,62%,632&$
3 )
7+20$6(-(66$5&+,7(&7&
[
[
5 5 ,6
7 8 ',2
$
)RRWKLOO 176
/55($/(67$7(,19(670(17*5283 176
&2/256 0$7(5,$/6
&2/256 0$7(5,$/6
5(6,'(17,$/:,1'2:6
9,1</
0,/*$5'67</(/,1(
)2*
$3 3$,17
%(1-$0,10225(
',67$17*5$<
$3 3$,17
%(1-$0,10225(
6,/9(5)2;
$3 3$,17
%(1-$0,10225(
0,1.
5 7326,1*/(3/<
7$1
$ $/80,1806725()5217
$12',=('
&/($5
&(0(173/$67(5678&&260227+752:(/('
522),1* 0,6&(//$1(286
:,1'2:6$1'*/$=,1*
0 0(7$/5$,/,1*
'$5.*5(<
$6 9(57,&$/%2$5'
$1'%$77(13$,17('
+$5',3$1(/60227+
&2/25
%(1-$0,10225(
:22'$&5(6
),%(5&(0(176,',1*
& 325&(/$,17,/(
'$/7,/(3257)2/,2
3)'29(*5$<
5811,1*%21'3$77(51
7,/(
& 325&(/$,17,/(
'$/7,/(3257)2/,2
3),521*5$<
5811,1*%21'3$77(51
%3 3$,17
%(1-$0,10225(
+&&$/':(//*5((1
%3 3$,17
%(1-$0,10225(
6721(
%3 3$,17
%(1-$0,10225(
',67$17*5$<
%6 /$36,',1*3$,17('
+$5',3/$1.&('$50,//
&2/25
%(1-$0,10225(
$0$=2162,/
%6 9(57,&$/%2$5'$1'
%$77(13$,17('
+$5',3$1(/60227+
&2/25
%(1-$0,10225(
67250<021'$<
%6 /$36,',1*3$,17('
+$5',3/$1.&('$50,//
&2/25
%(1-$0,10225(
*266$0(5%/8(
$6 +25,=$17$//$3
6,',1*3$,17('
+$5',3/$1.&('$50,//
&2/25
%(1-$0,10225(
:22'$&5(6
&3 3$,17
%(1-$0,10225(
$/0267%/$&.
&3 3$,17
%(1-$0,10225(
&5($0)/((&(
&6 /$36,',1*3$,17('
+$5',3/$1.&('$50,//
&2/25
%(1-$0,10225(
:22'$&5(6
&+2552675((7(/(9$7,21
6&
+
(
0
(
$
7,/(
6&
+
(
0
(
%
6&
+
(
0
(
&
&(0(173/$67(5678&&260227+752:(/(' ),%(5&(0(176,',1*
&(0(173/$67(5678&&260227+752:(/(' ),%(5&(0(176,',1*
&3 3$,17
%(1-$0,10225(
',67$17*5$<
&6 9(57,&$/%2$5'
$1'%$77(13$,17('
+$5',3$1(/60227+
&2/25
%(1-$0,10225(
67250<021'$<
%6 +25,=217$/6,',1*
75(63$385$1)&)/86+
&2/25
520$17,&:$/187
0$77(),1,6+
& 35(&$67&21&5(7(
3$&,),&6721('(6,*1,1&
/,0(6721(*(129$
35(&$67:$//3$1(/6
Packet Pg. 214
Item 9
Packet Pg. 215
Item 9
Packet Pg. 216
Item 9
Packet Pg. 217
Item 9
Packet Pg. 218
Item 9
%2//$5'3267
:$//02817('/,*+7
',5(&7,21$/%2//$5'
685)$&(02817('/,1($5/,*+7
5(&(66('&$1/,*+7
&
+
2
5
5
2
6
7
5
(
(
7
5(7$,/
/2%%</($6,1*
%,.(6
67$,5
*$5$*(
5$03
(430
5 $0 3
5(7$,/
75$6+
'DWH
6FDOH
6KHHW
$
6
$5&+,7(&76
-2+1621$9(18(
6$1/8,62%,632&$
3 )
7+20$6(-(66$5&+,7(&7&
[
[
5 5 ,6
7 8 ',2
(
)RRWKLOO
/55($/(67$7(,19(670(17*5283
6,7(/,*+7,1*3/$1
/(*(1'
),;785(7<3(6
9(66(/'2:1/,*+7
/2&$7(' %8,/',1*(;7(5,25
02'(/ :6: /(''$5.%521=(
:$776 :/80(16
%(*$//,1($5/,*+7
/2&$7(' &200(5&,$/
'2256
02'(/ /('%521=(
:$776 /80(16
%(*$',5(&7,21$/%2//$5'
/2&$7(' 1($53523(57</,1(
02'(/ 3/('%521=(
:$776 /80(16
/,1($5&(,/,1*/,*+7:$//02817('/,*+7
%2//$5'%2//$5'
6&+(0$7,&6,7(/,*+7,1*3/$1
%(*$',5(&7,21$/%2//$5'
/2&$7(' 21:$/.:$<
02'(/ 3/('%521=(
:$776 /80(16
127( $///,*+7),;785(672%(1,*+76.<&203/,$173(5&,7<2)
6$1/8,62%,6325(48,50(176
Packet Pg. 219
Item 9
Date Rccei ved Filing Fee
•
J2( Non-applicant $ &2300 RECEIVED D Applicant: $1,557°0
AUG 0 6 2018 D Tree Appeal: s 11300
For Office Use Received by: __
II
SLO CITY CLERK
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION
fbdh ,'U f?J(11d Civie-1xzf;K;e<
Name Mailing Address and Zip Code
Phone Fax
Od;/e.. , . A Y.-flza t
Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code
Cooll.dikabk 13~5' -59-:)-:Z-?;}fl/
Title Phone Fax
SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAL
1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the:
(Name of Offi r. Committee or Commission decision being appealed)
2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: (7 ~~ ~~
3. The applO:ation or project was entiUed: f/o Fo,,./ ~;-J: =: :J Yf-.2.0!J
4. I discussed the matter with the following City staff member:
Rack£f fvkeu ft,th aeR Gx:/tu 2LA.. on <11,111 £,orl '-'(s=--tal<.-'ff"-"M ..... e""'"m ..... b-er'_s..._.N,....aLLm ..... e_,_.a-nd_De_p ..... artm ........... e...r.nt ....... )........,....__~........,"'""'-"'-"'----0 (f{oate)
5. Has this matter been the subject of a ·previous appeal? If so, when was it heard and by whom:
SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL
Explain specifically what action/s you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider
your appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional
pages, if necessary. This form continues on the other side.
07/17 update Page 1 of3 Packet Pg. 220
Item 9
Reason for Appeal continued
S(lo aJd:a ch HAR u fs
SECTION 4. APPELLANT'S RESPONSIBILJTY
The San Luis Obispo City Council values public participation in local government and
encourages all fonns of citizen involvement. However, due to real costs associated with City
Council consideration of an appeal, includ ing public notification , all appeals pertaining to a
planning application or project are subject to the following filing fee, which must accompany
the appeal form: Applicant=$ 1,557, Non-applicant=$ 623, Tree Appeal=$ 113.
Your right to exercise an appeal comes with certain responsibilities. If you file an appeal,
please understand that it must be heard within 45 days from filing this fonn, except for matters
arising under Chapter 17 .66 of the zoning code which shall be governed by that Chapter. You
will be notified in writing of the exact date your appeal will be heard before the Council. You or
your representative will be expected to attend the public hearing, and to be prepared to make
your case . Your testimony is limited to 10 minutes.
A continuance may be granted under certain and unusual circumstances. If you feel you
need to request a continuance, you must submit your request in writing to the City Clerk . Please be
advised that if your request for continuance is received after the appeal is noticed to the public , the
Council may not be able to grant the request for continuance . Submitting a request for continuance
does not guarantee that it will be granted; that action is at the discretion of the City Council.
I hereby agree to appear and/or send a representative to appear on my behalf when
said appeal is scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council.
@!; {h:a~ ~~~ -lo1Y
(iQOatUreot pettant ate)
This item is hereby calendared for ____________________ _
cc: City Attorney
City Manager
Department Head
Advisory Body Chairperson
Advisory Body Liaison
City Clerk (original)
11/17 update Page 2 of3 Packet Pg. 221
Item 9
Foothill Blvd Civic Defense
August 6, 2018
City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of a Conditional Use Permit
for 790 Foothill; File Number USE-1187-2017
Dear Members of the City Council:
This appeal is filed with the hope that your Council will use your discretion to correct the staffs and
Planning Commission's incorrect interpretations of State and City law, inattention to this organization's
public testimony, and the Planning Commission's approval of the above-referenced use permit for the
applicant, LR Development Group.
We request that the City Council continue this appeal hearing until corrections are made to
respond satisfactorily to City General Plan and Zoning policies and standards, to State law and to
maintain public health and safety.
This letter incorporates and expands upon the attached letter from the law firm of
Wittwer/Parkin, dated July 23, 2018, which represents Foothill Blvd Civic Defense. Where that letter
was addressed to the Planning Commission, please consider it to be addressed to your Council. Please
refer the application and this appeal back to the Planning Commission to give you some expert opinion
before you act upon this appeal. The following sections constitute the main points of this appeal:
1. The claimed CEQA exemptions from environmental review do not apply because the Project does
not meet the threshold criteria required for the exemptions, and environmental review is
required (Please refer to the Wittwer/Parkin letter of July 23, 2018, section 1).
a. The project does not meet the qualifications for a Categorical Exemption because the
project design is not consistent with several sections of the Circulation Element and the
Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan (COSE) (Ref. CEQA Guidelines
15192(a)(l)-(2); 15195 and 15332, attached). The July 23, 2018 Wittwer/Parkin letter
explains these requirements in greater detail. All of the claimed exemptions by staff and
Planning Commission are only applicable where a project is consistent with the General Plan
and with Zoning.
b. The City instead is required by the CEQA Guidelines to conduct an "Initial Study" to
determine the significance of specific impacts on the public view at and near the site. The
full list of CEQA topics should be addressed in the Initial Study, as applicable. The City
should have prepared an independent Initial Study and a resulting Mitigated Negative
Declaration or Environmental Impact Report. (Reference Wittwer/Parkin letter of July 23,
2018)
1
Packet Pg. 222
Item 9
2. The project is inconsistent with the Circulation Element and the Conservation and Open Space
Element of the General Plan (COSE).
The City did not require the project to be designed to be consistent with the scenic view protection
policies in the Circulation Element and the COSE (See attached policies). The staff and Planning
Commission neglected to utilize these General Plan policies to reduce the project's obstruction of
public views of Bishop Peak and San Luis Mountain, and to reduce these obstructions' impacts to
insignificance.
a. The City staff erred in claiming that the Final EIR for the Land Use and Circulation Element
(LUCE) update included adequate analysis and mitigations of impacts by potential
development on public views of Bishop Peak and San Luis Mountain. The staff claim is not
supported by the Final EIR text.
i. The LUCE Final EIR states that a visual impact is considered significant if the
proposed development, "Would have a substantial adverse effect on an identified
visual resource or scenic vista from a public viewing area (roadways and public
parks); ... (P. 4-7, Draft EIR; June 2014). The level of significance is also set by the
General Plan. The COSE states that the potential view blockage on a scenic roadway
is considered a "significant impact" (COSE Program 9.3.6). The proposed project is
located at a major gateway intersection, from which many public views are provided
of Bishop Peak and San Luis Mountain. The proposed project rendering shows
almost total view blockage by the height of part of the project.
ii. The LUCE Final EIR makes particular note of the Foothill/Santa Rosa Area, "Foothill
/Santa Rosa Area: This part of the city supports views of the surrounding hillsides
and natural open space. This portion of the city also serves as a gateway to the city
urban core for southbound travelers along Highway 1. Future development has the
potential to obstruct or block scenic views."
iii. A verbal staff claim was incorrect at Planning Commission, that the project is at an
insignificant location along the long length of the Foothill Boulevard corridor, and
therefore the blockage of views of Bishop Peak and San Luis Mountain is
insignificant. This analysis and claim was made without any visual impact study,
which Is required by the COSE and by CEQA to provide factual data or evidence.
iv. The LUCE Final EIR states that the mitigations for reducing view blockage are those
measures within the COSE and the Circulation Element, such as, "The City will
preserve and improve views of import;mt scenic resources from streets and roads ...
by applying the Community Design Guidelines, height restrictions .. ;and the
California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines (see Attachment 2)."
b. The lack of any written or factual analysis concerning blockage of this iconic view disqualifies
the project from being approved with a finding that the project is consistent with the
General Plan (Reference Wittwer/Parking July 23, 2018 letter, section 1).
2
Packet Pg. 223
Item 9
3. The project is also inconsistent with the zoning of the property, which is the C-C-SF (Community
Commercial with a Special Focus Overlay) zone.
Within districts having a special focus overlay, the special focus zoning overlay requires that all
"development within the special planning areas shall adhere to the requirements of the underlying
zone district and the provisions for each of the respective special planning areas." (City Code sec .
17.53.020).
a. Without a project financial analysis (pro form a), it is assumed that the project unnecessarily
exceeds the underlying zoning density limitation, the 35-foot height limit and the 75 percent
maximum site coverage limit. As discussed in section l.b of the letter from Wittwer/Parkin,
July 23, 2018, the applicant has not provided any information to demonstrate that without
the alternative concessions, the twelve (12) affordable studios cannot be built. The staff
and Planning Commission did not require a proforma financial analysis to show thatthe
applicant needs the requested bonus and incentives to develop 12 affordable studios.
b. These exceedances are not consistent with the zoning of the property, and the project does
not qua I ify forthe CEQA Categorical Exemption, or qualify for a findingfor approval.
4. The City cannot bifurcate or divide approval ofthe housing incentives which result in reduction of
site development standards from the rest of the project review.
The City staff erred in bifurcating the project into three decisions, and then advising each body
incorrectly and in violation of State CEQA law, concerningtheir respective purview and duties. The
staffincorrectly scheduled a decision by the City Council last in the project review process, to grant
the full requested density bonus and housing incentives, thereby depriving the Architectural Review
Commission and the Planning Commission of valuable information whether their prerogatives in
their review are unnecessarily and unfairly constrained by the applicant's proposal to use the
concessions . (Refer to Item II in the Wittwer/Parkin letter)
a. The staff told the Architectural Review Commission (ARC), and then the Planning
Commission, that they co u ld not reduce density in order to make reductions in building
height and bulk, in order to preserve significant views of Bishop Peak, or to reduce the
parking demand, or provide more floor area for more parking. Yet, the City is enabled to
require a proforma financial analysis to determine if~ of the proposed density is necessary
to provide 12 affordable studios. The Planning Commission erred in not responding to
pub I ic testi many which identified the fact that such a study is enabled and warranted.
b. The staff told the Planning Commission that it could not require a financial analysis which
would be the City Co u ncil p urv ie w in determiningwhetherto approve the proposed density
bonus and incentives, although that purview and decision would be last in the process,
thereby preventing them full use of the commission's authority and discretion.
c. The staff have scheduled a City Council decision to consider granting the applicant a density
bonus and two zoning concessions.
d. This study is necessary for the Architectural Review Commission and the Planning
Commission to use their discretion accordingly to consider appropriate reductions in density
3 Packet Pg. 224
Item 9
to enable achieving consistency with the General Plan and Zoning, and compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act {CEQA}.
5. There is no indication that the project requires a density bonus and two housing concessions to
provide twelve affordable studios.
The City did not fulfill its obligation to obtain a pro form a financial analysis of the project's
costs/revenues, to determine the need for a density bonus and housing i nee ntives, and ide ntifythe
infeasibility threshold to economically construct and operate 12 affordable studios .
a. The staff did not provide full, factual information about the contents and intent of the
Density Bonus Law. The law allows the City to reject a request for a density bonus and
reduction of site development standards, upon a finding that the "concession or incentive
does not result in identifiable and actual cost reduction ... to provide for affordable housing
costs." Please refer to sections Ill and IV in the July 23, 2018 Wittwer/Parkin letter. These
sections of the letter also point out required information that is lacking.
b. The City staff incorrectly guided the Architectural Review Commission and Planning
Commission by ignoring public testimony and insisting that the proposed density of /8 units
may not be lowered at all. Other cities such i:IS San La Cruz, Berkeley, San Carlos and Los
Angeles require proforma information in order to respond to density/incentive proposals.
6. A new Multi modal Transportation Impact Study is necessary to determine if health and safety
would be adversely impacted by the proposed project.
The Staff and Planning Commission erred in not requiring a current Traffic Impact Analysis, using
2018 or very recent traffic counts, signal wait ti mes, and coll is ion incidents reports, and detailed,
consistent estimates of traffic at cumulative build-out of the area. They did not require detailed and
correct estimates of traffic at cumulative build-out of the area, based on Zoning and General Plan
policies. A new Traffic Study should be prepared to respond to the following issues:
a. The Study relied on traffic counted in a previous 2016 study. The traffic study is looking at
data that is anywhere between 2-4years old when over the past 4 years Cal Poly
enrollments have increased by 1,970 students (2.5% per year growth rate: Fall 2014: 20,186
to Fall 2018: 22,156}, the population has increased by 1,143 (0.82% per year growth rate:
2014: 46,573 to Fall 2018: 47, 716} and the workforce population has increased by 2,870
{3.24% per year growth rate: Fall 2014: 21,238 to Fall 2018: 24,108). This traffic study is
based on traffic counts that were taken when Cal Poly may have been out of session and
when the Foothill Hill and University Square shoppi ng centers were notfullyoccupied or
operational.
i. The exact time of traffic counts for the 2016 Traffic Study does not appear to be
indicated in the report. This is very important because traffic varies tremendously
when Cal Poly is in session and when it is not.
ii. Staff did not take into consideration the possible impacts of22 Chorro, the new
overbuilt and underparked development being presently built across the street. Its
impact upon the intersection remains unclear until the building is occupied.
4 Packet Pg. 225
Item 9
b. This segment of Foothill Boulevard is currently experiencing a large volume of car ( 18, 858
daily volume), pedestrian (526 daily volume) and bicycle (642 daily volume) traffic due to
proximity to California Polytechnic University. According to "Trip Generation Rates from the
8th Edition ITE Trip Generation Report" a low-rise residential development comprised of 78
units will generate 534daily trips and 46 peak hour trips (these are more than reported in
the study for general residential rates). This, in combination with 22 Chorro (23) and 71
Palomar (20), should trigger a project traffic study per the Multi modal Transportation
Impact Study Guidelines when a project (or projects) is/are anticipated to approach 100 or
more peak hour trips.
c. The traffic study incorrectly used general family apartmenttrafficgeneration information,
instead of unrelated adult occupancies. This general basis fortrafficgeneration is false as it
considers an apartment occupied by a family unit. Trip generation by an apartment
occupied by4 or more (8 for two-bedroom units) independent individuals is likely to be
considerably different. Studies atthe University of California at Davis have shown that a
student housing unit of 3000 students will generate a peak hour of traffic of 700 trips. If the
78 units may have an average of 4 students each, then the same ratio applied to this project
would mean at least 73 peak hour trips would be generated, not the 32 shown in the report
(Table 9). The report should recognize and address the issue of trafficgeneration by student
housing, at the maxi mum anticipated at worst case densities.
(Source: From 2003 Long Range Development Plan Final EIR UC Davis Vol 3 Page 2-106)
d. The collision rate (2. 73 APMVM) for this segment of Foothill Blvd is above average forthe
State of California Cal trans District 5, and the County of San Luis Obispo. A Transportation
Impact Study is called for at this intersection because it is a high crash location and has a
large volume of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. This roadway is already operating be low the
established MMLOS standards and any further degradation to the MMLOs score should be
considered a significant Impact underCEQA. On page 3-24 the Circulation Element states
"Redevelopment of University Square shall incorporate a detailed circulation, safety &
access management analysis forthe intersections of Boysen & Santa Rosa (Potential Grade
Separated Crossing I Restriction), Foothi II & Chorro, and Foothill & Broad as well as
driveway access points along adjacent roadways; and recommend improvements, if any ."
This traffic study does not fulfill this requirement.
e. Accardi ng to the Central CoastTransportation Consulting re port, northbound traffic at the
Foothill Blvd./Chorro Street intersection is operating at an LOS score of D both during the
mid-day peak hours and PM peak hours. Yet, the northbound LOS score implausibly remains
the same for both the Cumulative and the Cumulative Plus Project for these two peak hours.
f. The Multi modal Transportation Impact Study did not reveal the planned extent of
cumulative building in the Foothill Special Focus Area, which staff incorrectly stated as just
shopping centers. The staff separately stated thatthe focus area is intended for intense,
dense mixed use projects. The extent of traffic generated by large-scale mixed-use
residential projects was not identified and apparently not included. The report's omission of
data which estimates the potential cumulative build-out of the Special Focus Area leaves it
unknown what level of traffic to anticipate.
g. Staff and Planning Commission did not respond adequately to the residents who described
the difficulties of this intersection, and how everyone's safety is going to be adversely
impacted. In a recent Fremont case (Protect Niles v. City of Fremont, 7/16/2018), the judge
5 Packet Pg. 226
Item 9
sided with the residents when he wrote: "These fact-based comments by residents support
a fair argument that the Project would have a significant adverse impact on traffic
congestion on Niles Boulevard in the vicinity of the Project. Residents' personal
observations of traffic conditions where they live and commute may constitute substantial
evidence ifthey contradict the conclusions of a professional traffic study. (See Keep Our
Mountains Quietv. County of Santa Clara (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 714, 735-736 & fn.13.)
This is especially true there, as here, residents cite specificfacts that call into question the
underlying assumptions of a traffic study." (emphasis added)
7. The extent of parking demand, occupancy in the mechanical lift system, and potential for traffic
and on-street parking demand were not quantitatively analyzed.
a. Surveys of parking demand and associated traffic and traffic safety impacts should have
been prepared, similarto the Shattuck and University Mixed Use Project Traffic and Parking
study conducted in Berkeley by Abrams Associated:
https ://www .city of be rkeley. info/uploaded Fil es/Planning_and_Development/Leve 1_3 _ -
_Land_Use_Division/2011-06-23%20Traffic%20and%20Parking%20Study.pdf
b. The Chorro /Foothill area is already bumper to bumper parking every day ofthe week when
Cal Poly is in session, especially on North Chorro and Boysen (and this, before the
completion of22 Chorro,) and both shopping centers have had to hire companies to help
monitor parking on their lots.
c. The so-called 2 bedroom apartments at 22 Chorro are now brashly advertised as4
bedrooms on several websites. Consequently, the numberof tenants is twice as important
as foreseen, and required parking is significantly be tow what itshoutd have been. The same
statement is valid for790 Foothill. In view of the developer's acknowledgementthatthese
are truly 4 bedroom apartments, it is within the City's purview to require additional parking
for 790 Foothill.
d. In the worst case scenario, if all tenants have cars, there will be a shortfall of 313 on-site
parking spaces. These cars will be vying with the 44 students residing atThe Academy (those
who will also be lacking on site parking spaces) for on-street parking spaces in the
surrounding neighborhoods. By approving this project as submitted you will be reducing
public safety by increasing congestion on public streets and depleting available on-street
parking. Un-accommodated tenants, guests, retail customers and service personnel will be
forced to find parking in the adjacent neighborhoods and in private parking lots already
impacted by spill-over pi:!rking. Several adjacent businesses already post parking guards and
have aggressive towing programs .
(PDF) On-street parking: Effects on traffic .... Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46212892_0n-
street_parking_Effects_on_traffic_congestion [accessed Aug 03 2018].
e . It is clear that this infill project will be adversely impacted by the surrounding environment
because of the potential overflow parking problem and because of the unsafe
transportation patterns that presently occur nearthe Chorro/Foothill intersection. To be
clear, creating an An ho Im Residential Permit Parking District and expanding the Ferrini
Residential Parking Permit District will protect these neighborhoods from spill-over parking,
but it is also clear that doing so will adversely impactthis infill project by further depleting
on-street parking for those tenants lacking on-site parking spaces.
6 Packet Pg. 227
Item 9
f. It was incumbent on the traffic consultant to cite in its report the following passage in our
Circulation Element -14.1.2. Neighborhood Protection: "The City shall facilitate strategies to
protect neighborhoods from spill-over parking from adjacent high intensity uses" and to cite
the following passage in our Land Use Element -2.3.9. Compatible Development: "The City
shall require that new housing built within an existing neighborhood be sited and designed
to be compatible with the character of the neighborhood. Compatibility for all development
shall be evaluated using the following criteria: I. Parking "New Development"; (a) Outside of
the Downtown in-lieu parking fee area, new development will be required to provide
adequate off-street parking to match the intended use."
g. This traffic study is remiss in that it ignored the vehicle maneuvers required when entering
or leaving on-street parking. These should have been included in the traffic management
overall evaluation. These vehicle maneuvers can contribute to the cause of congestion
especially when traffic volumes are high. Two types of on-street parking behavior have been
observed. These include legal and illegal on-street parking. On-street parking maneuvers
often start temporary bottlenecks, potentially affecting some following vehicles, which
might have to endure an extra delay. When close to signalized intersections, such delay can
sometimes linger over multiple cycles, affecting vehicles that arrive much later. The
shortage of on-street parking can increase traffic congestion by forcing drivers to circle
blocks multiple times before an on-street parking space is freed up. Moreover, previous
studies have taken into account the reduction in road width to accommodate on-street
parking and its effect on reduction in road capacity. Hobbs[3] reported the influence of the
physical use of road space, parking maneuvers and opening of car doors on increasing delay
(see: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46212892_0n-
street_parking_Effects_on_traffic_congestion &
https:// onlinelibra ry. wiley .com/ doi/fu 11/10.1002/atr.1329).
h. This traffic study should have included on-street parking occupancy surveys conducted on
both weekdays and weekends while Cal Poly is in session and while both shopping centers
are up and running. Similar to the Shattuck and University Mixed Use Project Traffic and
Parking Study conducted by Abrams Associated, over 20 block faces in the vicinity of the
project site should have been surveyed.
(see: https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploaded Files/Pian ning_ a nd_Development/Level_3 _ -
_Land_Use_Division/2011-06-23%20Traffic%20and%20Parking%20Study.pdf)
i. This project creates an unacceptable safety risk to the residents who have vehicles that will
not fit into the mechanical lift, to the residents who do not have parking privileges in the
mechanical lifts, to the tenants' guests, to the commercial/retail customers, to handicapped
drivers when the two handicapped spaces are filled, to staff and employees, to the
landscapers, maintenance and cleaning personnel and to the commercial delivery workers.
8. Affordable Housing Units.
We believe that the low proportion and of only one type of low-income affordable units in the
project, and the expensive prices of remaining luxury student apartments, does not meet the intent
of the City's Mixed Income Housing Policy 4.2, "Include both market-rate and affordable units in
apartment and residential condominium projects and intermix the types of units. Affordable units
should be comparable in size, appearance and basic quality to market-rate units."
7
Packet Pg. 228
Item 9
The area near this intersection includes Pacheco Elementary School with a large number of
struggling families, two shopping centers with many minimum wage employees, and Sierra Vista
Hospital with a wide range of salaries. This location is therefore perfect for real workforce housing
that would include one and two bedroom low-income apartments with parking. We can only
deplore that the City chose to build luxury apartments for well-to-do students instead, with very low
income units unfit for working families, who even if they resigned themselves to live in a small
studio, could hardly conceive living among privileged students. We do not believe that the type of
development proposed for 790 Foothill was the intent of the new affordable housing law.
We therefore request that the City Council continue this appeal hearing until a new unbiased traffic
study, based upon student housing, not family apartments, and complete with precise dates as well as
on-street occupancy survey, is done when Cal Poly is in session and 22 Chorro is up and running. We ask
that all the requested corrections are made regarding General Plan and Zoning consistency, CEQA
exemptions, bifurcation of approval of the Housing Incentives, proforma information to make design
decisions and to respond satisfactorily to State and City law and City General Plan and Zoning policies.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Odile Ayral and James Lopes
For Foothill Blvd Civic Defense
Attachments:
1. General Plan policies referenced in item 2
2. Municipal Requirements for project proformas referenced in Item Sb
3 . July 23, 2018 letter from Wittwer/ Parkin; by Pearl Kan
8
Packet Pg. 229
Item 9
ATTACHMENT 1
General Plan policies referenced in item 2, 790 Foothill Appeal Letter Foothill Blvd Civic Defense
a. Reference: Circulation Element policies listed in the LUCE Final EIR, which apply to the
project:
"15.0.2 Development Along Scenic Routes. The City will preserve and improve views of
important scenic resources from streets and roads. Development along scenic roadways
should not block views or detract from the quality of views ...
B. Development projects should not wall off scenic roadways and block views.
C. As part of the City's environmental review process, blocking of views along scenic
roadways should be considered a significant environmental impact."
b. Reference: Conservation and Open Space Element policies listed in the LUCE Final EIR
applicable to the project:
i. "9.1.5 View protection in new development. The City will include all environmental
review and carefully consider effects of new development, streets and road
construction on views and visual quality by applying the Community Design
Guidelines, height restrictions, hillside standards, Historical Preservation Program
Guidelines and the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines."
ii. "9.2.1 Views to and from public places, including scenic roadways. The City will
preserve and improve views of important scenic resources from public places, and
encourage other agencies with jurisdiction to do so. Public places include parks,
plazas, the grounds of civic buildings, streets and roads, and publicly accessible open
space.
A. Development projects shall not wall off scenic roadways and block views.
B. Where important vistas of distant landscape features occur along streets, street
trees shall be clustered to facilitate viewing of the distant features.
C. Development projects, including signs, in the viewshed of a scenic roadway shall
be considered "sensitive" and require architectural review."
iii. 9.2.2 Views to and from private development. Projects should incorporate as amenities
views from and within private development sites. Private development designs should
cause the least view blockage for neighboring property that allows project objectives to
be met.
iv. 9.3.4 Environmental and architectural review. Conduct environmental review and
architectural review consistent with General Plan goals and policies regarding visual
impacts and quality.
v. 9.3.5 Visual assessments. Require evaluations (accurate visual simulations) for projects
affecting important scenic resources and views from public places.
vi. 9.3.6 View blockage along scenic highways. Determine that view blockage along scenic
roadways is a significant impact.
9
Packet Pg. 230
Item 9
Attachment 2
References to Municipal Requirements for Project Pro Formas, Item Sb Foothill Blvd Civic Defense
City of Santa Cruz
3. Tier 2 Concessions -Planning Commission Approval and Financial Pro Forma Required. The following
concessions and incentives may be approved by the planning commission, unless the housing
development or other concessions otherwise require approval by the city council. The applicant shall
provide a proforma demonstrating to the city that the requested concession or incentive results in
identifiable and actual cost reductions to the project to provide for affordable ownership costs or
affordable rents.
a. Greater increases in lot coverage than included in Tier 1;
b. Greater reductions in front, side, or rear setbacks than included in Tier 1;
c. Greater reductions in required landscape area than included in Tier 1;
4. Tier 3 Concessions -City Council Approval and Financial Pro Forma Required. The following
concessions and incentives may be approved by the r.:ity council. The applicant shall provide a proforma
demonstrating to the city that the requested concessio;; c~ ir...:c;-.~;·;..: ;..::;;~,::.: ::·. :~: :·.:·~::. '.: '.~ :. ··.-.:. ::.::· .:· '.
cost reductions to the project to provide for affordable ownership costs or affordable rents:
a. Deferring collection of impact fees on market rate units until issuance of certificate of occupancy;
b. Reduction in the minimum requirements for lot area; lot width; or distance between residential
structures;
c. Increases in the maximum permitted building height; percentage of compact parking spaces; floor
area ratio for non-residential housing development in mixed use project; fence height; or sign area or
dimensions;
d. Reduced parking space dimensions; driveway width; parking aisle width; garage and carport
dimensions; or bicycle parking requirements;
e. Parking spaces located within required setback areas;
f. Reduction of off-street parking ratios below those permitted by Government Code Section 65915 (p)
and Section 24.16.260(5);
g. Approval of mixed use buildings or uses as part of the residential housing development, if non-
residential land uses will reduce the cost of the residential housing development, and if the city finds
that the proposed non-residential uses are compatible with the residential housing development and
with existing and planned development in the area where the proposed residential housing
development will be located;
h. Any direct financial assistance, including that for purchasers of affordable units;
i. Any additional regulatory incentives or concessions not included in Tier 1 or Tier 2.
City of Berkeley
Procedure for Evaluating Density Bonus Applications
Applicant submits "pencil out proforma," using the following scenarios:
A. Base Project, 100% market rate (pays City's affordable housing impact fee) B. Base Project, with
proposed BMR units
C. Density Bonus Project, with BMR units and density bonus units
D. Proposed Project, with requested concessions/incentives
Proforma Is peer-reviewed by a qualified consultant (at a rate of $180/hour)
Determination whether the concession is necessary pursuant to 65915(d)(l)(A)
Review written request for waivers
10
Packet Pg. 231
Item 9
City of Santa Cruz
The City's 2006 ordinance was adopted reluctantly as density bonus was perceived to undermine the
local zoning ordinance and its provisions to ensure compatibility with existing neighborhoods. To limit
excessive deviations from design review standards established in local code, the City applied a tiered
process to review concessions that made it onerous for applicants and limited predictability in the
process. Concessions that were deemed to have heightened sensitivity were subject to Planning
Commission or Council review (e.g. increases in height, bulk, and floor area), which stalled praje-::!
processing and effectively deterred applicants. The City also required de-.-:~:;~:;·:;;:;:;:;;,;~;:·;;~ ~;:.:.;;;:;:.J ;;.. ;,,
formas to justify requested incentives, concessions, waivers, or reductions.
City of San Carlos
D. Concessions Requiring Financial Pro Forma from Applicant. All other concessions and incentives
shall require the builder to demonstrate to the City Council through the provision of a proforma that
the requested concession or incentive results in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost
reductions to the residential development. The proforma shall include:
1. The actual cost reduction achieved through the concession or incentive;
2. Evidence that the cost reduction allows the builder to provide affordable rents or affordable sales
prices; and
3. All other information as may be requested by the Administrator to ensure that the required findings
can be made
City of Los Angeles
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS I PRO-FORMA
Pursuant to the Affordable Housing Incentive Density Bonus provisions of the LAMC (Section 12.22
A.25), proposed projects that involve on-menu incentives are required to complete the Department's
Master Land Use Permit Application form, and no supplemental financial data is required. The City
typically has the discretion to request additional information when it is needed to help make required
findings. However, the City has determined that the level of detail provided in a proforma is not
necessary to make the findings for on-menu incentives. This is primarily because each of the City's eight
on-menu incentives provides additional buildable area, which, if requested by a developer, can be
assumed to provide additional project income and therefore provide for affordable housing costs. When
the menu of incentives was adopted by ordinance, the impacts of each were assessed in proportion to
the benefits gained with a set-aside of affordable housing units. Therefore, a pro-forma illustrating
construction costs and operating income and expenses is not a submittal requirement when filing a
request for on-menu incentives. The City's Density Bonus Ordinance requires "a proforma or other
documentation" with requests for off-menu incentives but has no such requirement for on-menu
requests.
11
Packet Pg. 232
Item 9
0 a:: a:
0
I u
Q z
<'.(
.....J
.....J
I
t-o
0
LL.
~
0 a::
LL.
~
<'.( w a..
a..
0 :c
V') -al
LL.
0 s w ->
Packet Pg. 233
Item 9
SENT VIA EMAIL
Planning Commission
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
advisorybod i es@sl oci ty. org
July 23, 2018
Re: July 25, 2018 Planning Commission Hearing
Agenda Item Number 1: 790 Foothill Blvd (File Number USE-1187-2017)
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
This law firm represents Foothill Blvd Civic Defense and submits this letter on its behalf.
The Planning Commission should continue this item until proper environmental review is
conducted for 790 Foothill Boulevard (Project). Environmental review is required because the
Project violates General Plan policies under the City's Conservation and Open Space Element
rendering the claimed exemptions inapplicable. In addition, the City may not bifurcate the issue
regarding the housing incentives for separate City Council consideration from the rest of the
Project in violation of CEQA.
Similarly, the Planning Commission should also continue this item until the applicant can
demonstrate that the two housing incentives requested, increased height allowance from 35 to 43
feet and increased building coverage from 75% to 90%, are both necessary for the construction
of the twelve (12) purported affordable studios. Finally, the applicant has made no indication
whether the purported very low-income studios will be offered for sale or for rent or the
proposed factors which will make the twelve studios affordable to very-low income households,
as required under City Code§ l 7.90 .030(B).
I. Claimed CEQA Exemptions Do Not Apply Because the Project Does Not Meet the
Threshold Criteria Required for the Exemptions and Environmental Review is
Required
a. The Project is Inconsistent with Several General Plan Policies Set Forth in
the City's Conservation and Open Space Element
The City claims that environmental review is not required because the Project qualifies
WITTWER PARKIN LLP / 147 s. RIVER ST., STE. :221 I SANTA CRUZ, CA/ 95060 / 831.429.4055
www. WITTWERPARKIN.COM I LAWOFFICE@WITTWERPARKIN.COM
Packet Pg. 234
Item 9
July 23, 2018
Planning Commission Meeting
Agenda Item Number I: 790 Foothill Boulevard
Page 2
for (1) the residential infill exemption as well as (2) the in-fill exemption pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines sections 15195 and 15332. As a threshold matter, "[i]n order to qualify for an
exemption set forth in sections 15193, 15194, or 15195, a housing project must meet all of the
threshold criteria set forth [under CEQA Guidelines§ 15192]. The project must be consistent
with: (1) any applicable general plan •... and (2) any applicable zoning ordinance." (CEQA
Guidelines§ 15192(a)(l)-(2), emphasis added .) Similarly, the alternative exemption claimed
under CEQA Guidelines section 15332 is only applicable where a project "is consistent with the
applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with
applicable zoning designation and regulations." (CEQA Guidelines§ 15332(a).) As explained
below, because the Project is inconsistent with General Plan Policies set forth under the City's
Conservation and Open Space Element, these exemptions do not apply and environmental
ri::vii::w is re4uired.
The Project is wholly inconsistent with several policies under the City's Conservation
and Open Space Element of the General Plan (COSE). The COSE protects views to and from
public places, including scenic roadways . (COSE Policy 9.2.1.) Specifically, the General Plan
prohibits development that will wall off scenic roadways and block views: "Development
prujt:l:ls shall uot wall off scenic roadways and block views." (COSE Policy 9.2.l(A).)
Foothill Boulevard and Chorro Street are each expressly identified as scenic roadways in
Figure 11 of the COSE and the Project is proposed on the very comer of Foothill Boulevard and
Chorro Street. The proposed project is 43 feet, which is 8 feet higher than what is allowed under
Community Commercial zoning. As such, the Project will wall off both Foothill Boulevard and
Chorro Street, and block views of Bishop Peak, one of the famous Morros, explicitly identified
as worthy of visual protection in the COSE. The proposed Project violates the express policies
identified in the COSE which prohibits development that will wall off scenic roadways and block
views.
In addition, the Project is inconsislt:nl with all of the below COSE policies (emphasis
added).
9.1.2 .. Urban development. The Cily will implement the following principle and will
encourage other agencies with jurisdiction to do so: urban development should reflect its
architectural context. This does not necessarily prescribe a specific style, but requires
deliberate design choices that acknowledge human scale, natural site features, and
neighboring urban development, and that are compatible with historical and
architectural resources. Plans for sub-areas of the city may require certain architectural
styles .
Packet Pg. 235
Item 9
July 23, 2018
Planning Commission Meeting
Agenda Item Number 1: 790 Foothill Boulevard
Page 3
9.1.5. View protection in new development. The City will include in all environmental
review and carefully consider effects of new development, streets and road construction
on views and visual quality by applying the Community Design Guidelines, height
restrictions, hillside standards, Historical Preservation Program Guidelines and the
California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines.
9.2.1. Views to and from public places, including scenic roadways. The City will
preserve and improve views of important scenic resources from public places, and
encourage other agencies with jurisdiction to do so. Public places include parks, plazas,
the grounds of civic buildings, streets and roads, and publicly accessible open space. In
particular, the route segments shown in Figure 11 are designated as scenic roadways.
A. Development projects shall not wall off scenic roadways and block views.
B. Utilities, traffic signals, and public and private signs and lights shall not intrude
on or clutter views, consistent with safety needs.
C. Where important vistas of distant landscape features occur along streets, street
trees shall be clustered to facilitate viewing of the distant features.
9.3. Programs
The City shall do the following to protect and enhance views, and will encourage others
to do so, as appropriate:
9.3.4. Environmental and architectural review. Conduct environmental review and
architectural review consistent with General Plan goals and policies regarding visual
impacts and quality.
COSE Policy 9.3.4 sets forth the mandatory obligation for the City to "[c]onduct
environmental review and architectural review consistent with General Plan goals and policies
regarding visual impacts and quality." Policy 9.3.4 is prefaced by the obligation set forth under
Policy 9.3, "The City shall. .. " The COSE expressly requires environmental review for projects
that implicate the visual setting, as this Project does. The claimed exemptions do not apply.
b. The Project is Inconsistent with Applicable Zoning Designation and
Regulations
Separately, the Project does not qualify for either exemption under CEQA because it is
inconsistent with applicable zoning. The Project's underlying zoning is C-C-SF (Community
Commercial with a Special Focus Overlay). For districts with a special focus overlay, the
special focus overlay requires all "development within the special planning areas shall adhere to
Packet Pg. 236
Item 9
July 23, 2018
Planning Commission Meeting
Agenda Item Number 1: 790 Foothill Boulevard
Page 4
the requirements of the underlying zone district and the provisions for each of the respective
special planning areas." (City Code§ 17.53.020.) The underlying zone, C-C, or Community
Commercial specifies the following relevant zoning requirements:
• Maximum height: Thirty-five feet
• Maximum coverage: Seventy-five percent
The proposed Project exceeds the height standard which will increase by eight (8) feet to
43 feet, and the coverage will increase by 15 percent for a total of 90% building coverage. This
makes this Project ineligible for the CEQA exemptions claimed. The applicant may argue that
the alternative concessions render the Project consistent with zoning pursuant to the Density
Bonus Law. But as discussed below, the applicant has not provided any information to
demonstrate that without the alternative concessions, the twelve (12) affordable studios cannot
be built. And, the Project is still inconsistent with the General Plan policies identified above.
The City's claim of exemption from environmental review is wholly improper and it
would constitute an abuse of discretion to proceed with the Project without proper environmental
review.
II. The City Cannot Bifurcate Approval of the Housing Incentives Which Result in
Reduction of Site Development Standards from the Rest of the Project
The draft resolution sets forth that the "Planning Commission's determination regarding
the project is contingent upon the City Council's approval of the 35% density bonus and two
affordable housing incentives ... which is subject to review by the City Council under a separate
application (AFFH-1518-2018.)" (Packet Page 16, Draft Resolution Section 2, No. 7.) This
procedure improperly bifurcates the whole of the Project from the purview of the City Council
and places the City in an untenable situation wherein the City would possibly bind themselves to
a decision regarding the approval of reduction of site development standards before considering
the legitimacy of the rest of the Project. Project review should not be separated in this manner
and if in fact the City approves application AFFH-1518-2018 prior to considering, inter a/ia,
environmental review, the City would have committed itself to a project without first considering
the environmental impacts in violation of CEQA. Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008)
45 Cal.4th 116, 134.
III. There is No Indication that the Project Requires Two Housing Concessions to
Provide Twelve Affordable Studios
The Density Bonus Law allows the City to reject a reduction in site development
standards upon a finding that the "concession or incentive does not result in identifiable and
actual cost reductions ... to provide for affordable housing costs." (Gov. Code§ 65915(d)(l)(A).)
Packet Pg. 237
Item 9
July 23, 2018
Planning Commission Meeting
Agenda Item Number 1: 790 Foothill Boulevard
Page 5
There is simply no showing made by the applicant that the concessions or incentives result in
identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for the twelve affordable studios.
The City Code requires the following information to be included in a request for a density
bonus: "Whether the dwellings will be offered for sale or for rent" and "The proposed sale price,
financing terms, rental rates or other factors which will make the dwellings affordable to very-
low, lower and moderate income households." (City Code § 17.90.030(B)(5)-(6).) This required
information is wholly lacking. Similarly, there is no condition of approval that restricts the
twelve affordable studios to very-low income households, upon which the applicant received the
35% density bonus.
IV. The City Will Not Violate the Housing Accountability Act if it Requires the
Applicant to Demonstrate Why the Housing Incentives are Necessary for Economic
Feasibility
The Planning Commission need not make a final decision on the Project at this meeting.
In fact, the Planning Commission should continue the item until there is sufficient information
available to make a reasoned decision, which there currently is not.
As argued in this letter, the applicant has made no showing that the housing incentives in
the form of height exception and increased building coverage are necessary for the feasibility of
this affordable housing project. The Planning Commission is well within its authority to request
the applicant make this threshold showing as well as for the applicant to attempt a building
design that is more aligned with community designed standards prior to considering the merits of
the Project.
It should be emphasized that ifthe Planning Commission requires the applicant to
demonstrate why the housing incentives are required for the economic feasibility of the Project
or requires additional design alternatives that can accommodate affordable housing, the
admonitions under the Housing Accountability Act are not implicated. This is because request
of this highly relevant information does not result in project denial. Nor does it result in the City
conditioning approval in a manner that renders the Project infeasible for development for the use
of very-low income households in violation of the Housing Accountability Act. The pertinent
section of the Housing Accountability Act is provided below:
A local agency shall not disapprove a housing development project. ... for very low
[households], or condition approval in a manner that renders the housing development
project infeasible for development for the use of very low [households], including
through the use of design review standards, unless it makes written findings, based upon
a preponderance of the evidence in the record ... (Gov. Code§ 65589.5(d)(l).)
Packet Pg. 238
Item 9
July 23, 2018
Planning Commission Meeting
Agenda Item Number 1: 790 Foothill Boulevard
Page 6
Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, there is currently insufficient information in the record and
the Planning Commission should continue the item and require the applicant (1) to demonstrate
that the housing incentives are necessary to make the twelve affordable units economically
feasible, (2) to show the mechanism by which the dwellings will be made available to very-low
income households, (3) to consider design alternatives that can accommodate both affordable
housing and community design standards, and separately, require environmental review for the
Project.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
cc (via email):
Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner
Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
Jon Ansolabehere, Assistant City Attorney
Very truly yours,
WITTWER PARKIN LLP
~
Pearl Kan
Packet Pg. 239
Item 9
CALIFORNA GOVERNMENT CODE
TITLE 7. PLANNING AND LAND USE [65000 - 66499.58]
( Heading of Title 7 amended by Stats. 1974, Ch. 1536. )
DIVISION 1. PLANNING AND ZONING [65000 - 66210]
( Heading of Division 1 added by Stats. 1974, Ch. 1536. )
CHAPTER 4.3. Density Bonuses and Other Incentives [65915 - 65918]
( Chapter 4.3 added by Stats. 1979, Ch. 1207. )
65915.
(a) (1) When an applicant seeks a density bonus for a housing development within, or for the
donation of land for housing within, the jurisdiction of a city, county, or city and county, that local
government shall comply with this section. A city, county, or city and county shall adopt an
ordinance that specifies how compliance with this section will be implemented. Failure to adopt
an ordinance shall not relieve a city, county, or city and county from complying with this section.
(2) A local government shall not condition the submission, review, or approval of an application
pursuant to this chapter on the preparation of an additional report or study that is not otherwise
required by state law, including this section. This subdivision does not prohibit a local government
from requiring an applicant to provide reasonable documentation to establish eligibility for a
requested density bonus, incentives or concessions, as described in subdivision (d), waivers or
reductions of development standards, as described in subdivision (e), and parking ratios, as
described in subdivision (p).
(3) In order to provide for the expeditious processing of a density bonus application, the local
government shall do all of the following:
(A) Adopt procedures and timelines for processing a density bonus application.
(B) Provide a list of all documents and information required to be submitted with the density bonus
application in order for the density bonus application to be deemed complete. This list shall be
consistent with this chapter.
(C) Notify the applicant for a density bonus whether the application is complete in a manner
consistent with the timelines specified in Section 65943.
(D) (i) If the local government notifies the applicant that the application is deemed complete
pursuant to subparagraph (C), provide the applicant with a determination as to the following
matters:
(I) The amount of density bonus, calculated pursuant to subdivision (f), for which the applicant is
eligible.
(II) If the applicant requests a parking ratio pursuant to subdivision (p), the parking ratio for which
the applicant is eligible.
Packet Pg. 240
Item 9
(III) If the applicant requests incentives or concessions pursuant to subdivision (d) or waivers or
reductions of development standards pursuant to subdivision (e), whether the applicant has
provided adequate information for the local government to make a determination as to those
incentives, concessions, or waivers or reductions of development standards.
(ii) Any determination required by this subparagraph shall be based on the development project at
the time the application is deemed complete. The local government shall adjust the amount of
density bonus and parking ratios awarded pursuant to this section based on any changes to the
project during the course of development.
(b) (1) A city, county, or city and county shall grant one density bonus, the amount of which shall
be as specified in subdivision (f), and, if requested by the applicant and consistent with the
applicable requirements of this section, incentives or concessions, as described in subdivision (d),
waivers or reductions of development standards, as described in subdivision (e), and parking ratios,
as described in subdivision (p), when an applicant for a housing development seeks and agrees to
construct a housing development, excluding any units permitted by the density bonus awarded
pursuant to this section, that will contain at least any one of the following:
(A) Ten percent of the total units of a housing development for lower income households, as
defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
(B) Five percent of the total units of a housing development for very low income households, as
defined in Section 50105 of the Health and Safety Code.
(C) A senior citizen housing development, as defined in Sections 51.3 and 51.12 of the Civil Code,
or a mobilehome park that limits residency based on age requirements for housing for older persons
pursuant to Section 798.76 or 799.5 of the Civil Code.
(D) Ten percent of the total dwelling units in a common interest development, as defined in Section
4100 of the Civil Code, for persons and families of moderate income, as defined in Section 50093
of the Health and Safety Code, provided that all units in the development are offered to the public
for purchase.
(E) Ten percent of the total units of a housing development for transitional foster youth, as defined
in Section 66025.9 of the Education Code, disabled veterans, as defined in Section 18541, or
homeless persons, as defined in the federal McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.
Sec. 11301 et seq.). The units described in this subparagraph shall be subject to a recorded
affordability restriction of 55 years and shall be provided at the same affordability level as very
low income units.
(F) (i) Twenty percent of the total units for lower income students in a student housing
development that meets the following requirements:
(I) All units in the student housing development will be used exclusively for undergraduate,
graduate, or professional students enrolled full time at an institution of higher education accredited
by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges or the Accrediting Commission for
Community and Junior Colleges. In order to be eligible under this subclause, the developer shall,
as a condition of receiving a certificate of occupancy, provide evidence to the city, county, or city
or county that the developer has entered into an operating agreement or master lease with one or
more institutions of higher education for the institution or institutions to occupy all units of the
student housing development with students from that institution or institutions. An operating
agreement or master lease entered into pursuant to this subclause is not violated or breached if, in
Packet Pg. 241
Item 9
any subsequent year, there are not sufficient students enrolled in an institution of higher education
to fill all units in the student housing development.
(II) The applicable 20-percent units will be used for lower income students. For purposes of this
clause, “lower income students” means students who have a household income and asset level that
does not exceed the level for Cal Grant A or Cal Grant B award recipients as set forth in paragraph
(1) of subdivision (k) of Section 69432.7 of the Education Code. The eligibility of a student under
this clause shall be verified by an affidavit, award letter, or letter of eligibility provided by the
institution of higher education that the student is enrolled in, as described in subclause (I), or by
the California Student Aid Commission that the student receives or is eligible for financial aid,
including an institutional grant or fee waiver, from the college or university, the California Student
Aid Commission, or the federal government shall be sufficient to satisfy this subclause.
(III) The rent provided in the applicable units of the development for lower income students shall
be calculated at 30 percent of 65 percent of the area median income for a single-room occupancy
unit type.
(IV) The development will provide priority for the applicable affordable units for lower income
students experiencing homelessness. A homeless service provider, as defined in paragraph (3) of
subdivision (d) of Section 103577 of the Health and Safety Code, or institution of higher education
that has knowledge of a person’s homeless status may verify a person’s status as homeless for
purposes of this subclause.
(ii) For purposes of calculating a density bonus granted pursuant to this subparagraph, the term
“unit” as used in this section means one rental bed and its pro rata share of associated common
area facilities. The units described in this subparagraph shall be subject to a recorded affordability
restriction of 55 years.
(2) For purposes of calculating the amount of the density bonus pursuant to subdivision (f), an
applicant who requests a density bonus pursuant to this subdivision shall elect whether the bonus
shall be awarded on the basis of subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), or (F) of paragraph (1).
(3) For the purposes of this section, “total units,” “total dwelling units,” or “total rental beds” does
not include units added by a density bonus awarded pursuant to this section or any local law
granting a greater density bonus.
(c) (1) An applicant shall agree to, and the city, county, or city and county shall ensure, the
continued affordability of all very low and low-income rental units that qualified the applicant for
the award of the density bonus for 55 years or a longer period of time if required by the construction
or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or rental subsidy
program. Rents for the lower income density bonus units shall be set at an affordable rent as
defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2) An applicant shall agree to, and the city, county, or city and county shall ensure that, the initial
occupant of all for-sale units that qualified the applicant for the award of the density bonus are
persons and families of very low, low, or moderate income, as required, and that the units are
offered at an affordable housing cost, as that cost is defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and
Safety Code. The local government shall enforce an equity sharing agreement, unless it is in
conflict with the requirements of another public funding source or law. The following apply to the
equity sharing agreement:
Packet Pg. 242
Item 9
(A) Upon resale, the seller of the unit shall retain the value of any improvements, the
downpayment, and the seller’s proportionate share of appreciation. The local government shall
recapture any initial subsidy, as defined in subparagraph (B), and its proportionate share of
appreciation, as defined in subparagraph (C), which amount shall be used within five years for any
of the purposes described in subdivision (e) of Section 33334.2 of the Health and Safety Code that
promote home ownership.
(B) For purposes of this subdivision, the local government’s initial subsidy shall be equal to the
fair market value of the home at the time of initial sale minus the initial sale price to the moderate-
income household, plus the amount of any downpayment assistance or mortgage assistance. If
upon resale the market value is lower than the initial market value, then the value at the time of
the resale shall be used as the initial market value.
(C) For purposes of this subdivision, the local government’s proportionate share of appreciation
shall be equal to the ratio of the local government’s initial subsidy to the fair market value of the
home at the time of initial sale.
(3) (A) An applicant shall be ineligible for a density bonus or any other incentives or concessions
under this section if the housing development is proposed on any property that includes a parcel
or parcels on which rental dwelling units are or, if the dwelling units have been vacated or
demolished in the five-year period preceding the application, have been subject to a recorded
covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of lower
or very low income; subject to any other form of rent or price control through a public entity’s
valid exercise of its police power; or occupied by lower or very low income households, unless
the proposed housing development replaces those units, and either of the following applies:
(i) The proposed housing development, inclusive of the units replaced pursuant to this paragraph,
contains affordable units at the percentages set forth in subdivision (b).
(ii) Each unit in the development, exclusive of a manager’s unit or units, is affordable to, and
occupied by, either a lower or very low income household.
(B) For the purposes of this paragraph, “replace” shall mean either of the following:
(i) If any dwelling units described in subparagraph (A) are occupied on the date of application, the
proposed housing development shall provide at least the same number of units of equivalent size
to be made available at affordable rent or affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, persons and
families in the same or lower income category as those households in occupancy. If the income
category of the household in occupancy is not known, it shall be rebuttably presumed that lower
income renter households occupied these units in the same proportion of lower income renter
households to all renter households within the jurisdiction, as determined by the most recently
available data from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development’s
Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy database. For unoccupied dwelling units described
in subparagraph (A) in a development with occupied units, the proposed housing development
shall provide units of equivalent size to be made available at affordable rent or affordable housing
cost to, and occupied by, persons and families in the same or lower income category as the last
household in occupancy. If the income category of the last household in occupancy is not known,
it shall be rebuttably presumed that lower income renter households occupied these units in the
same proportion of lower income renter households to all renter households within the jurisdiction,
as determined by the most recently available data from the United States Department of Housing
Packet Pg. 243
Item 9
and Urban Development’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy database. All
replacement calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number.
If the replacement units will be rental dwelling units, these units shall be subject to a recorded
affordability restriction for at least 55 years. If the proposed development is for-sale units, the units
replaced shall be subject to paragraph (2).
(ii) If all dwelling units described in subparagraph (A) have been vacated or demolished within the
five-year period preceding the application, the proposed housing development shall provide at
least the same number of units of equivalent size as existed at the highpoint of those units in the
five-year period preceding the application to be made available at affordable rent or affordable
housing cost to, and occupied by, persons and families in the same or lower income category as
those persons and families in occupancy at that time, if known. If the incomes of the persons and
families in occupancy at the highpoint is not known, it shall be rebuttably presumed that low-
income and very low income renter households occupied these units in the same proportion of
low-income and very low income renter households to all renter households within the jurisdiction,
as determined by the most recently available data from the United States Department of Housing
and Urban Development’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy database. All
replacement calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number.
If the replacement units will be rental dwelling units, these units shall be subject to a recorded
affordability restriction for at least 55 years. If the proposed development is for-sale units, the units
replaced shall be subject to paragraph (2).
(C) Notwithstanding subparagraph (B), for any dwelling unit described in subparagraph (A) that
is or was, within the five-year period preceding the application, subject to a form of rent or price
control through a local government’s valid exercise of its police power and that is or was occupied
by persons or families above lower income, the city, county, or city and county may do either of
the following:
(i) Require that the replacement units be made available at affordable rent or affordable housing
cost to, and occupied by, low-income persons or families. If the replacement units will be rental
dwelling units, these units shall be subject to a recorded affordability restriction for at least 55
years. If the proposed development is for-sale units, the units replaced shall be subject to paragraph
(2).
(ii) Require that the units be replaced in compliance with the jurisdiction’s rent or price control
ordinance, provided that each unit described in subparagraph (A) is replaced. Unless otherwise
required by the jurisdiction’s rent or price control ordinance, these units shall not be subject to a
recorded affordability restriction.
(D) For purposes of this paragraph, “equivalent size” means that the replacement units contain at
least the same total number of bedrooms as the units being replaced.
(E) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to an applicant seeking a density bonus for a proposed
housing development if his or her application was submitted to, or processed by, a city, county, or
city and county before January 1, 2015.
(d) (1) An applicant for a density bonus pursuant to subdivision (b) may submit to a city, county,
or city and county a proposal for the specific incentives or concessions that the applicant requests
pursuant to this section, and may request a meeting with the city, county, or city and county. The
city, county, or city and county shall grant the concession or incentive requested by the applicant
Packet Pg. 244
Item 9
unless the city, county, or city and county makes a written finding, based upon substantial
evidence, of any of the following:
(A) The concession or incentive does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions,
consistent with subdivision (k), to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Section
50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in
subdivision (c).
(B) The concession or incentive would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph
(2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety or the physical
environment or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources
and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse
impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low-income and moderate-income
households.
(C) The concession or incentive would be contrary to state or federal law.
(2) The applicant shall receive the following number of incentives or concessions:
(A) One incentive or concession for projects that include at least 10 percent of the total units for
lower income households, at least 5 percent for very low income households, or at least 10 percent
for persons and families of moderate income in a common interest development.
(B) Two incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 20 percent of the total units for
lower income households, at least 10 percent for very low income households, or at least 20 percent
for persons and families of moderate income in a common interest development.
(C) Three incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 30 percent of the total units
for lower income households, at least 15 percent for very low income households, or at least 30
percent for persons and families of moderate income in a common interest development.
(3) The applicant may initiate judicial proceedings if the city, county, or city and county refuses
to grant a requested density bonus, incentive, or concession. If a court finds that the refusal to grant
a requested density bonus, incentive, or concession is in violation of this section, the court shall
award the plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit. Nothing in this subdivision shall
be interpreted to require a local government to grant an incentive or concession that has a specific,
adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon health,
safety, or the physical environment, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily
mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. Nothing in this subdivision shall be interpreted to
require a local government to grant an incentive or concession that would have an adverse impact
on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. The city,
county, or city and county shall establish procedures for carrying out this section, that shall include
legislative body approval of the means of compliance with this section.
(4) The city, county, or city and county shall bear the burden of proof for the denial of a requested
concession or incentive.
(e) (1) In no case may a city, county, or city and county apply any development standard that will
have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria of
subdivision (b) at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by this section. An
applicant may submit to a city, county, or city and county a proposal for the waiver or reduction
of development standards that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a
Packet Pg. 245
Item 9
development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b) at the densities or with the concessions or
incentives permitted under this section, and may request a meeting with the city, county, or city
and county. If a court finds that the refusal to grant a waiver or reduction of development standards
is in violation of this section, the court shall award the plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees and costs
of suit. Nothing in this subdivision shall be interpreted to require a local government to waive or
reduce development standards if the waiver or reduction would have a specific, adverse impact, as
defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon health, safety, or the physical
environment, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the
specific adverse impact. Nothing in this subdivision shall be interpreted to require a local
government to waive or reduce development standards that would have an adverse impact on any
real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, or to grant any waiver
or reduction that would be contrary to state or federal law.
(2) A proposal for the waiver or reduction of development standards pursuant to this subdivision
shall neither reduce nor increase the number of incentives or concessions to which the applicant is
entitled pursuant to subdivision (d).
(f) For the purposes of this chapter, “density bonus” means a density increase over the otherwise
maximum allowable gross residential density as of the date of application by the applicant to the
city, county, or city and county, or, if elected by the applicant, a lesser percentage of density
increase, including, but not limited to, no increase in density. The amount of density increase to
which the applicant is entitled shall vary according to the amount by which the percentage of
affordable housing units exceeds the percentage established in subdivision (b).
(1) For housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of
subdivision (b), the density bonus shall be calculated as follows:
Percentage Low-Income Units
Percentage Density
Bonus
10 20
11 21.5
12 23
13 24.5
14 26
15 27.5
17 30.5
18 32
19 33.5
20 35
Packet Pg. 246
Item 9
(2) For housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of
subdivision (b), the density bonus shall be calculated as follows:
Percentage Very Low Income Units Percentage Density Bonus
5 20
6 22.5
7 25
8 27.5
9 30
10 32.5
11 35
(3) (A) For housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of
subdivision (b), the density bonus shall be 20 percent of the number of senior housing units.
(B) For housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph (E) of paragraph (1) of
subdivision (b), the density bonus shall be 20 percent of the number of the type of units giving rise
to a density bonus under that subparagraph.
(C) For housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph (F) of paragraph (1) of
subdivision (b), the density bonus shall be 35 percent of the student housing units.
(4) For housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph (D) of paragraph (1) of
subdivision (b), the density bonus shall be calculated as follows:
Percentage Moderate-Income Units Percentage Density Bonus
10 5
11 6
12 7
13 8
14 9
15 10
16 11
17 12
Packet Pg. 247
Item 9
18 13
19 14
20 15
21 16
22 17
23 18
24 19
25 20
26 21
27 22
28 23
29 24
30 25
31 26
32 27
33 28
34 29
35 30
36 31
37 32
38 33
39 34
40 35
(5) All density calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole
number. The granting of a density bonus shall not require, or be interpreted, in and of itself, to
Packet Pg. 248
Item 9
require a general plan amendment, local coastal plan amendment, zoning change, or other
discretionary approval.
(g) (1) When an applicant for a tentative subdivision map, parcel map, or other residential
development approval donates land to a city, county, or city and county in accordance with this
subdivision, the applicant shall be entitled to a 15-percent increase above the otherwise maximum
allowable residential density for the entire development, as follows:
Percentage Very Low Income Percentage Density Bonus
10 15
11 16
12 17
13 18
14 19
15 20
16 21
17 22
18 23
19 24
20 25
21 26
22 27
23 28
24 29
25 30
26 31
27 32
28 33
Packet Pg. 249
Item 9
29 34
30 35
(2) This increase shall be in addition to any increase in density mandated by subdivision (b), up to
a maximum combined mandated density increase of 35 percent if an applicant seeks an increase
pursuant to both this subdivision and subdivision (b). All density calculations resulting in
fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number. Nothing in this subdivision shall be
construed to enlarge or diminish the authority of a city, county, or city and county to require a
developer to donate land as a condition of development. An applicant shall be eligible for the
increased density bonus described in this subdivision if all of the following conditions are met:
(A) The applicant donates and transfers the land no later than the date of approval of the final
subdivision map, parcel map, or residential development application.
(B) The developable acreage and zoning classification of the land being transferred are sufficient
to permit construction of units affordable to very low income households in an amount not less
than 10 percent of the number of residential units of the proposed development.
(C) The transferred land is at least one acre in size or of sufficient size to permit development of
at least 40 units, has the appropriate general plan designation, is appropriately zoned with
appropriate development standards for development at the density described in paragraph (3) of
subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2, and is or will be served by adequate public facilities and
infrastructure.
(D) The transferred land shall have all of the permits and approvals, other than building permits,
necessary for the development of the very low income housing units on the transferred land, not
later than the date of approval of the final subdivision map, parcel map, or residential development
application, except that the local government may subject the proposed development to subsequent
design review to the extent authorized by subdivision (i) of Section 65583.2 if the design is not
reviewed by the local government before the time of transfer.
(E) The transferred land and the affordable units shall be subject to a deed restriction ensuring
continued affordability of the units consistent with paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (c), which
shall be recorded on the property at the time of the transfer.
(F) The land is transferred to the local agency or to a housing developer approved by the local
agency. The local agency may require the applicant to identify and transfer the land to the
developer.
(G) The transferred land shall be within the boundary of the proposed development or, if the local
agency agrees, within one-quarter mile of the boundary of the proposed development.
(H) A proposed source of funding for the very low income units shall be identified not later than
the date of approval of the final subdivision map, parcel map, or residential development
application.
(h) (1) When an applicant proposes to construct a housing development that conforms to the
requirements of subdivision (b) and includes a child care facility that will be located on the
premises of, as part of, or adjacent to, the project, the city, county, or city and county shall grant
either of the following:
Packet Pg. 250
Item 9
(A) An additional density bonus that is an amount of square feet of residential space that is equal
to or greater than the amount of square feet in the child care facility.
(B) An additional concession or incentive that contributes significantly to the economic feasibility
of the construction of the child care facility.
(2) The city, county, or city and county shall require, as a condition of approving the housing
development, that the following occur:
(A) The child care facility shall remain in operation for a period of time that is as long as or longer
than the period of time during which the density bonus units are required to remain affordable
pursuant to subdivision (c).
(B) Of the children who attend the child care facility, the children of very low income households,
lower income households, or families of moderate income shall equal a percentage that is equal to
or greater than the percentage of dwelling units that are required for very low income households,
lower income households, or families of moderate income pursuant to subdivision (b).
(3) Notwithstanding any requirement of this subdivision, a city, county, or city and county shall
not be required to provide a density bonus or concession for a child care facility if it finds, based
upon substantial evidence, that the community has adequate child care facilities.
(4) “Child care facility,” as used in this section, means a child day care facility other than a family
day care home, including, but not limited to, infant centers, preschools, extended day care
facilities, and schoolage child care centers.
(i) “Housing development,” as used in this section, means a development project for five or more
residential units, including mixed-use developments. For the purposes of this section, “housing
development” also includes a subdivision or common interest development, as defined in Section
4100 of the Civil Code, approved by a city, county, or city and county and consists of residential
units or unimproved residential lots and either a project to substantially rehabilitate and convert an
existing commercial building to residential use or the substantial rehabilitation of an existing
multifamily dwelling, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 65863.4, where the result of the
rehabilitation would be a net increase in available residential units. For the purpose of calculating
a density bonus, the residential units shall be on contiguous sites that are the subject of one
development application, but do not have to be based upon individual subdivision maps or parcels.
The density bonus shall be permitted in geographic areas of the housing development other than
the areas where the units for the lower income households are located.
(j) (1) The granting of a concession or incentive shall not require or be interpreted, in and of itself,
to require a general plan amendment, local coastal plan amendment, zoning change, study, or other
discretionary approval. For purposes of this subdivision, “study” does not include reasonable
documentation to establish eligibility for the concession or incentive or to demonstrate that the
incentive or concession meets the definition set forth in subdivision (k). This provision is
declaratory of existing law.
(2) Except as provided in subdivisions (d) and (e), the granting of a density bonus shall not require
or be interpreted to require the waiver of a local ordinance or provisions of a local ordinance
unrelated to development standards.
(k) For the purposes of this chapter, concession or incentive means any of the following:
Packet Pg. 251
Item 9
(1) A reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code requirements or
architectural design requirements that exceed the minimum building standards approved by the
California Building Standards Commission as provided in Part 2.5 (commencing with Section
18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code, including, but not limited to, a reduction in
setback and square footage requirements and in the ratio of vehicular parking spaces that would
otherwise be required that results in identifiable and actual cost reductions, to provide for
affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or for rents
for the targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c).
(2) Approval of mixed-use zoning in conjunction with the housing project if commercial, office,
industrial, or other land uses will reduce the cost of the housing development and if the
commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses are compatible with the housing project and the
existing or planned development in the area where the proposed housing project will be located.
(3) Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the developer or the city, county, or
city and county that result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable
housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or for rents for the
targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c).
(l) Subdivision (k) does not limit or require the provision of direct financial incentives for the
housing development, including the provision of publicly owned land, by the city, county, or city
and county, or the waiver of fees or dedication requirements.
(m) This section does not supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the
California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public
Resources Code). Any density bonus, concessions, incentives, waivers or reductions of
development standards, and parking ratios to which the applicant is entitled under this section shall
be permitted in a manner that is consistent with this section and Division 20 (commencing with
Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code.
(n) If permitted by local ordinance, nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a city,
county, or city and county from granting a density bonus greater than what is described in this
section for a development that meets the requirements of this section or from granting a
proportionately lower density bonus than what is required by this section for developments that do
not meet the requirements of this section.
(o) For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) “Development standard” includes a site or construction condition, including, but not limited
to, a height limitation, a setback requirement, a floor area ratio, an onsite open-space requirement,
or a parking ratio that applies to a residential development pursuant to any ordinance, general plan
element, specific plan, charter, or other local condition, law, policy, resolution, or regulation.
(2) “Maximum allowable residential density” means the density allowed under the zoning
ordinance and land use element of the general plan, or, if a range of density is permitted, means
the maximum allowable density for the specific zoning range and land use element of the general
plan applicable to the project. If the density allowed under the zoning ordinance is inconsistent
with the density allowed under the land use element of the general plan, the general plan density
shall prevail.
(p) (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) upon the request of the developer, a city,
county, or city and county shall not require a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of handicapped and
Packet Pg. 252
Item 9
guest parking, of a development meeting the criteria of subdivisions (b) and (c), that exceeds the
following ratios:
(A) Zero to one bedroom: one onsite parking space.
(B) Two to three bedrooms: two onsite parking spaces.
(C) Four and more bedrooms: two and one-half parking spaces.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), if a development includes the maximum percentage of low-
income or very low income units provided for in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (f) and is
located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155
of the Public Resources Code, and there is unobstructed access to the major transit stop from the
development, then, upon the request of the developer, a city, county, or city and county shall not
impose a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of handicapped and guest parking, that exceeds 0.5
spaces per bedroom. For purposes of this subdivision, a development shall have unobstructed
access to a major transit stop if a resident is able to access the major transit stop without
encountering natural or constructed impediments.
(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), if a development consists solely of rental units, exclusive of a
manager’s unit or units, with an affordable housing cost to lower income families, as provided in
Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, then, upon the request of the developer, a city,
county, or city and county shall not impose a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of handicapped and
guest parking, that exceeds the following ratios:
(A) If the development is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, as defined in
subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, and there is unobstructed access
to the major transit stop from the development, the ratio shall not exceed 0.5 spaces per unit.
(B) If the development is a for-rent housing development for individuals who are 62 years of age
or older that complies with Sections 51.2 and 51.3 of the Civil Code, the ratio shall not exceed 0.5
spaces per unit. The development shall have either paratransit service or unobstructed access,
within one-half mile, to fixed bus route service that operates at least eight times per day.
(C) If the development is a special needs housing development, as defined in Section 51312 of the
Health and Safety Code, the ratio shall not exceed 0.3 spaces per unit. The development shall have
either paratransit service or unobstructed access, within one-half mile, to fixed bus route service
that operates at least eight times per day.
(4) If the total number of parking spaces required for a development is other than a whole number,
the number shall be rounded up to the next whole number. For purposes of this subdivision, a
development may provide onsite parking through tandem parking or uncovered parking, but not
through onstreet parking.
(5) This subdivision shall apply to a development that meets the requirements of subdivisions (b)
and (c), but only at the request of the applicant. An applicant may request parking incentives or
concessions beyond those provided in this subdivision pursuant to subdivision (d).
(6) This subdivision does not preclude a city, county, or city and county from reducing or
eliminating a parking requirement for development projects of any type in any location.
(7) Notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (3), if a city, county, city and county, or an independent
consultant has conducted an areawide or jurisdictionwide parking study in the last seven years,
Packet Pg. 253
Item 9
then the city, county, or city and county may impose a higher vehicular parking ratio not to exceed
the ratio described in paragraph (1), based upon substantial evidence found in the parking study,
that includes, but is not limited to, an analysis of parking availability, differing levels of transit
access, walkability access to transit services, the potential for shared parking, the effect of parking
requirements on the cost of market-rate and subsidized developments, and the lower rates of car
ownership for low-income and very low income individuals, including seniors and special needs
individuals. The city, county, or city and county shall pay the costs of any new study. The city,
county, or city and county shall make findings, based on a parking study completed in conformity
with this paragraph, supporting the need for the higher parking ratio.
(8) A request pursuant to this subdivision shall neither reduce nor increase the number of
incentives or concessions to which the applicant is entitled pursuant to subdivision (d).
(q) Each component of any density calculation, including base density and bonus density, resulting
in fractional units shall be separately rounded up to the next whole number. The Legislature finds
and declares that this provision is declaratory of existing law.
(r) This chapter shall be interpreted liberally in favor of producing the maximum number of total
housing units.
(Amended by Stats. 2018, Ch. 937, Sec. 1.3. (SB 1227) Effective January 1, 2019.)
Packet Pg. 254
Item 9
GOVERNMENT CODE - GOV
TITLE 7. PLANNING AND LAND USE [65000 - 66499.58]
( Heading of Title 7 amended by Stats. 1974, Ch. 1536. )
DIVISION 1. PLANNING AND ZONING [65000 - 66210]
( Heading of Division 1 added by Stats. 1974, Ch. 1536. )
CHAPTER 3. Local Planning [65100 - 65763]
( Chapter 3 repealed and added by Stats. 1965, Ch. 1880. )
ARTICLE 10.6. Housing Elements [65580 - 65589.8]
( Article 10.6 added by Stats. 1980, Ch. 1143. )
65589.5.
(a) (1) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(A) The lack of housing, including emergency shelters, is a critical problem that threatens the
economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California.
(B) California housing has become the most expensive in the nation. The excessive cost of the
state’s housing supply is partially caused by activities and policies of many local governments that
limit the approval of housing, increase the cost of land for housing, and require that high fees and
exactions be paid by producers of housing.
(C) Among the consequences of those actions are discrimination against low-income and minority
households, lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing,
reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration.
(D) Many local governments do not give adequate attention to the economic, environmental, and
social costs of decisions that result in disapproval of housing development projects, reduction in
density of housing projects, and excessive standards for housing development projects.
(2) In enacting the amendments made to this section by the act adding this paragraph, the
Legislature further finds and declares the following:
(A) California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The
consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of
Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic
opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining
the state’s environmental and climate objectives.
(B) While the causes of this crisis are multiple and complex, the absence of meaningful and
effective policy reforms to significantly enhance the approval and supply of housing affordable to
Californians of all income levels is a key factor.
(C) The crisis has grown so acute in California that supply, demand, and affordability
fundamentals are characterized in the negative: underserved demands, constrained supply, and
protracted unaffordability.
Packet Pg. 255
Item 9
(D) According to reports and data, California has accumulated an unmet housing backlog of nearly
2,000,000 units and must provide for at least 180,000 new units annually to keep pace with growth
through 2025.
(E) California’s overall homeownership rate is at its lowest level since the 1940s. The state ranks
49th out of the 50 states in homeownership rates as well as in the supply of housing per capita.
Only one-half of California’s households are able to afford the cost of housing in their local
regions.
(F) Lack of supply and rising costs are compounding inequality and limiting advancement
opportunities for many Californians.
(G) The majority of California renters, more than 3,000,000 households, pay more than 30 percent
of their income toward rent and nearly one-third, more than 1,500,000 households, pay more than
50 percent of their income toward rent.
(H) When Californians have access to safe and affordable housing, they have more money for food
and health care; they are less likely to become homeless and in need of government-subsidized
services; their children do better in school; and businesses have an easier time recruiting and
retaining employees.
(I) An additional consequence of the state’s cumulative housing shortage is a significant increase
in greenhouse gas emissions caused by the displacement and redirection of populations to states
with greater housing opportunities, particularly working- and middle-class households.
California’s cumulative housing shortfall therefore has not only national but international
environmental consequences.
(J) California’s housing picture has reached a crisis of historic proportions despite the fact that, for
decades, the Legislature has enacted numerous statutes intended to significantly increase the
approval, development, and affordability of housing for all income levels, including this section.
(K) The Legislature’s intent in enacting this section in 1982 and in expanding its provisions since
then was to significantly increase the approval and construction of new housing for all economic
segments of California’s communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of
local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development
projects and emergency shelters. That intent has not been fulfilled.
(L) It is the policy of the state that this section should be interpreted and implemented in a manner
to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.
(3) It is the intent of the Legislature that the conditions that would have a specific, adverse impact
upon the public health and safety, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) and paragraph
(1) of subdivision (j), arise infrequently.
(b) It is the policy of the state that a local government not reject or make infeasible housing
development projects, including emergency shelters, that contribute to meeting the need
determined pursuant to this article without a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and
environmental effects of the action and without complying with subdivision (d).
(c) The Legislature also recognizes that premature and unnecessary development of agricultural
lands for urban uses continues to have adverse effects on the availability of those lands for food
and fiber production and on the economy of the state. Furthermore, it is the policy of the state that
development should be guided away from prime agricultural lands; therefore, in implementing this
Packet Pg. 256
Item 9
section, local jurisdictions should encourage, to the maximum extent practicable, in filling existing
urban areas.
(d) A local agency shall not disapprove a housing development project, including farmworker
housing as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 50199.7 of the Health and Safety Code, for very
low, low-, or moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, or condition approval in a
manner that renders the housing development project infeasible for development for the use of
very low, low-, or moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, including through the
use of design review standards, unless it makes written findings, based upon a preponderance of
the evidence in the record, as to one of the following:
(1) The jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to this article that has been revised in
accordance with Section 65588, is in substantial compliance with this article, and the jurisdiction
has met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need allocation pursuant to Section 65584
for the planning period for the income category proposed for the housing development project,
provided that any disapproval or conditional approval shall not be based on any of the reasons
prohibited by Section 65008. If the housing development project includes a mix of income
categories, and the jurisdiction has not met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need for
one or more of those categories, then this paragraph shall not be used to disapprove or conditionally
approve the housing development project. The share of the regional housing need met by the
jurisdiction shall be calculated consistently with the forms and definitions that may be adopted by
the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 65400. In the case
of an emergency shelter, the jurisdiction shall have met or exceeded the need for emergency
shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. Any
disapproval or conditional approval pursuant to this paragraph shall be in accordance with
applicable law, rule, or standards.
(2) The housing development project or emergency shelter as proposed would have a specific,
adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily
mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to
low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter
financially infeasible. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant,
quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health
or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed
complete. Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation shall not
constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.
(3) The denial of the housing development project or imposition of conditions is required in order
to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without
rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the
development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible.
(4) The housing development project or emergency shelter is proposed on land zoned for
agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for
agricultural or resource preservation purposes, or which does not have adequate water or
wastewater facilities to serve the project.
(5) The housing development project or emergency shelter is inconsistent with both the
jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element
of the general plan as it existed on the date the application was deemed complete, and the
Packet Pg. 257
Item 9
jurisdiction has adopted a revised housing element in accordance with Section 65588 that is in
substantial compliance with this article. For purposes of this section, a change to the zoning
ordinance or general plan land use designation subsequent to the date the application was deemed
complete shall not constitute a valid basis to disapprove or condition approval of the housing
development project or emergency shelter.
(A) This paragraph cannot be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve a housing
development project if the housing development project is proposed on a site that is identified as
suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderate-income households in the jurisdiction’s
housing element, and consistent with the density specified in the housing element, even though it
is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation.
(B) If the local agency has failed to identify in the inventory of land in its housing element sites
that can be developed for housing within the planning period and are sufficient to provide for the
jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need for all income levels pursuant to Section 65584,
then this paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve a housing
development project proposed for a site designated in any element of the general plan for
residential uses or designated in any element of the general plan for commercial uses if residential
uses are permitted or conditionally permitted within commercial designations. In any action in
court, the burden of proof shall be on the local agency to show that its housing element does
identify adequate sites with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and
facilities to accommodate the local agency’s share of the regional housing need for the very low,
low-, and moderate-income categories.
(C) If the local agency has failed to identify a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed
as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit, has failed to demonstrate
that the identified zone or zones include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for
emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, or has failed to
demonstrate that the identified zone or zones can accommodate at least one emergency shelter, as
required by paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, then this paragraph shall not be
utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve an emergency shelter proposed for a site designated
in any element of the general plan for industrial, commercial, or multifamily residential uses. In
any action in court, the burden of proof shall be on the local agency to show that its housing
element does satisfy the requirements of paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583.
(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with the
congestion management program required by Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section 65088) of
Division 1 of Title 7 or the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section
30000) of the Public Resources Code). Neither shall anything in this section be construed to relieve
the local agency from making one or more of the findings required pursuant to Section 21081 of
the Public Resources Code or otherwise complying with the California Environmental Quality Act
(Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).
(f) (1) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from requiring the
housing development project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development
standards, conditions, and policies appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdiction’s
share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584. However, the development
standards, conditions, and policies shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at
the density permitted on the site and proposed by the development.
Packet Pg. 258
Item 9
(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from requiring an
emergency shelter project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards,
conditions, and policies that are consistent with paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583
and appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdiction’s need for emergency shelter, as
identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. However, the
development standards, conditions, and policies shall be applied by the local agency to facilitate
and accommodate the development of the emergency shelter project.
(3) This section does not prohibit a local agency from imposing fees and other exactions otherwise
authorized by law that are essential to provide necessary public services and facilities to the
housing development project or emergency shelter.
(4) For purposes of this section, a housing development project or emergency shelter shall be
deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy,
ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision if there is substantial evidence that
would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency
shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity.
(g) This section shall be applicable to charter cities because the Legislature finds that the lack of
housing, including emergency shelter, is a critical statewide problem.
(h) The following definitions apply for the purposes of this section:
(1) “Feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable
period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.
(2) “Housing development project” means a use consisting of any of the following:
(A) Residential units only.
(B) Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with at least two-
thirds of the square footage designated for residential use.
(C) Transitional housing or supportive housing.
(3) “Housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households” means that either (A) at least
20 percent of the total units shall be sold or rented to lower income households, as defined in
Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or (B) 100 percent of the units shall be sold or
rented to persons and families of moderate income as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and
Safety Code, or persons and families of middle income, as defined in Section 65008 of this code.
Housing units targeted for lower income households shall be made available at a monthly housing
cost that does not exceed 30 percent of 60 percent of area median income with adjustments for
household size made in accordance with the adjustment factors on which the lower income
eligibility limits are based. Housing units targeted for persons and families of moderate income
shall be made available at a monthly housing cost that does not exceed 30 percent of 100 percent
of area median income with adjustments for household size made in accordance with the
adjustment factors on which the moderate-income eligibility limits are based.
(4) “Area median income” means area median income as periodically established by the
Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 50093 of the Health
and Safety Code. The developer shall provide sufficient legal commitments to ensure continued
availability of units for very low or low-income households in accordance with the provisions of
this subdivision for 30 years.
Packet Pg. 259
Item 9
(5) “Disapprove the housing development project” includes any instance in which a local agency
does either of the following:
(A) Votes on a proposed housing development project application and the application is
disapproved, including any required land use approvals or entitlements necessary for the issuance
of a building permit.
(B) Fails to comply with the time periods specified in subdivision (a) of Section 65950. An
extension of time pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section 65950) shall be deemed to be
an extension of time pursuant to this paragraph.
(i) If any city, county, or city and county denies approval or imposes conditions, including design
changes, lower density, or a reduction of the percentage of a lot that may be occupied by a building
or structure under the applicable planning and zoning in force at the time the application is deemed
complete pursuant to Section 65943, that have a substantial adverse effect on the viability or
affordability of a housing development for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, and
the denial of the development or the imposition of conditions on the development is the subject of
a court action which challenges the denial or the imposition of conditions, then the burden of proof
shall be on the local legislative body to show that its decision is consistent with the findings as
described in subdivision (d) and that the findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence
in the record. For purposes of this section, “lower density” includes any conditions that have the
same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.
(j) (1) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general
plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect
at the time that the housing development project’s application is determined to be complete, but
the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be
developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed
housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence
on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
(A) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health
or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be
developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a
significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written
public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application
was deemed complete.
(B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified
pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the
approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density.
(2) (A) If the local agency considers a proposed housing development project to be inconsistent,
not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance,
standard, requirement, or other similar provision as specified in this subdivision, it shall provide
the applicant with written documentation identifying the provision or provisions, and an
explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the housing development to be inconsistent, not
in compliance, or not in conformity as follows:
Packet Pg. 260
Item 9
(i) Within 30 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is
determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains 150 or fewer housing
units.
(ii) Within 60 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is
determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains more than 150 units.
(B) If the local agency fails to provide the required documentation pursuant to subparagraph (A),
the housing development project shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with
the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision.
(3) For purposes of this section, the receipt of a density bonus pursuant to Section 65915 shall not
constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is inconsistent,
not in compliance, or not in conformity, with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance,
standard, requirement, or other similar provision specified in this subdivision.
(4) For purposes of this section, a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with
the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing
development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the
zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan. If the local agency has complied
with paragraph (2), the local agency may require the proposed housing development project to
comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zoning which is consistent with the general
plan, however, the standards and criteria shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate
development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the proposed
housing development project.
(5) For purposes of this section, “lower density” includes any conditions that have the same effect
or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.
(k) (1) (A) The applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the
development or emergency shelter, or a housing organization may bring an action to enforce this
section. If, in any action brought to enforce this section, a court finds that either (i) the local agency,
in violation of subdivision (d), disapproved a housing development project or conditioned its
approval in a manner rendering it infeasible for the development of an emergency shelter, or
housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, including farmworker housing,
without making the findings required by this section or without making findings supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, or (ii) the local agency, in violation of subdivision (j), disapproved
a housing development project complying with applicable, objective general plan and zoning
standards and criteria, or imposed a condition that the project be developed at a lower density,
without making the findings required by this section or without making findings supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, the court shall issue an order or judgment compelling compliance
with this section within 60 days, including, but not limited to, an order that the local agency take
action on the housing development project or emergency shelter. The court may issue an order or
judgment directing the local agency to approve the housing development project or emergency
shelter if the court finds that the local agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved or
conditionally approved the housing development or emergency shelter in violation of this section.
The court shall retain jurisdiction to ensure that its order or judgment is carried out and shall award
reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit to the plaintiff or petitioner, except under extraordinary
circumstances in which the court finds that awarding fees would not further the purposes of this
Packet Pg. 261
Item 9
section. For purposes of this section, “lower density” includes conditions that have the same effect
or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.
(B) (i) Upon a determination that the local agency has failed to comply with the order or judgment
compelling compliance with this section within 60 days issued pursuant to subparagraph (A), the
court shall impose fines on a local agency that has violated this section and require the local agency
to deposit any fine levied pursuant to this subdivision into a local housing trust fund. The local
agency may elect to instead deposit the fine into the Building Homes and Jobs Fund, if Senate Bill
2 of the 2017–18 Regular Session is enacted, or otherwise in the Housing Rehabilitation Loan
Fund. The fine shall be in a minimum amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per housing unit
in the housing development project on the date the application was deemed complete pursuant to
Section 65943. In determining the amount of fine to impose, the court shall consider the local
agency’s progress in attaining its target allocation of the regional housing need pursuant to Section
65584 and any prior violations of this section. Fines shall not be paid out of funds already dedicated
to affordable housing, including, but not limited to, Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset
Funds, funds dedicated to housing for very low, low-, and moderate-income households, and
federal HOME Investment Partnerships Program and Community Development Block Grant
Program funds. The local agency shall commit and expend the money in the local housing trust
fund within five years for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable
to extremely low, very low, or low-income households. After five years, if the funds have not been
expended, the money shall revert to the state and be deposited in the Building Homes and Jobs
Fund, if Senate Bill 2 of the 2017–18 Regular Session is enacted, or otherwise in the Housing
Rehabilitation Loan Fund, for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units
affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households.
(ii) If any money derived from a fine imposed pursuant to this subparagraph is deposited in the
Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund, then, notwithstanding Section 50661 of the Health and Safety
Code, that money shall be available only upon appropriation by the Legislature.
(C) If the court determines that its order or judgment has not been carried out within 60 days, the
court may issue further orders as provided by law to ensure that the purposes and policies of this
section are fulfilled, including, but not limited to, an order to vacate the decision of the local agency
and to approve the housing development project, in which case the application for the housing
development project, as proposed by the applicant at the time the local agency took the initial
action determined to be in violation of this section, along with any standard conditions determined
by the court to be generally imposed by the local agency on similar projects, shall be deemed to
be approved unless the applicant consents to a different decision or action by the local agency.
(2) For purposes of this subdivision, “housing organization” means a trade or industry group whose
local members are primarily engaged in the construction or management of housing units or a
nonprofit organization whose mission includes providing or advocating for increased access to
housing for low-income households and have filed written or oral comments with the local agency
prior to action on the housing development project. A housing organization may only file an action
pursuant to this section to challenge the disapproval of a housing development by a local agency.
A housing organization shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs if it is the prevailing
party in an action to enforce this section.
(l) If the court finds that the local agency (1) acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally
approved the housing development or emergency shelter in violation of this section and (2) failed
Packet Pg. 262
Item 9
to carry out the court’s order or judgment within 60 days as described in subdivision (k), the court,
in addition to any other remedies provided by this section, shall multiply the fine determined
pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (k) by a factor of five. For purposes
of this section, “bad faith” includes, but is not limited to, an action that is frivolous or otherwise
entirely without merit.
(m) Any action brought to enforce the provisions of this section shall be brought pursuant to
Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the local agency shall prepare and certify the
record of proceedings in accordance with subdivision (c) of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil
Procedure no later than 30 days after the petition is served, provided that the cost of preparation of
the record shall be borne by the local agency, unless the petitioner elects to prepare the record as
provided in subdivision (n) of this section. A petition to enforce the provisions of this section shall
be filed and served no later than 90 days from the later of (1) the effective date of a decision of the
local agency imposing conditions on, disapproving, or any other final action on a housing
development project or (2) the expiration of the time periods specified in subparagraph (B) of
paragraph (5) of subdivision (h). Upon entry of the trial court’s order, a party may, in order to
obtain appellate review of the order, file a petition within 20 days after service upon it of a written
notice of the entry of the order, or within such further time not exceeding an additional 20 days as
the trial court may for good cause allow, or may appeal the judgment or order of the trial court
under Section 904.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the local agency appeals the judgment of
the trial court, the local agency shall post a bond, in an amount to be determined by the court, to
the benefit of the plaintiff if the plaintiff is the project applicant.
(n) In any action, the record of the proceedings before the local agency shall be filed as
expeditiously as possible and, notwithstanding Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure or
subdivision (m) of this section, all or part of the record may be prepared (1) by the petitioner with
the petition or petitioner’s points and authorities, (2) by the respondent with respondent’s points
and authorities, (3) after payment of costs by the petitioner, or (4) as otherwise directed by the
court. If the expense of preparing the record has been borne by the petitioner and the petitioner is
the prevailing party, the expense shall be taxable as costs.
(o) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Housing Accountability Act.
(Amended by Stats. 2018, Ch. 243, Sec. 1. (AB 3194) Effective January 1, 2019.)
Packet Pg. 263
Item 9
City of San Luis Obispo
March 2015 Zoning Regulations
Page 231
Chapter 17.90: Affordable Housing Incentives
Sections:
17.90.010 Purpose.
17.90.020 Definitions.
17.90.030 Application process for incentives
17.90.040 Standard incentives for housing projects.
17.90.050 Standard incentives for conversion of apartments to condominium
projects.
17.90.060 Alternative or additional incentives.
17.90.070 Relationship to other city procedures.
17.90.080 Agreements for affordable housing.
17.90.090 Fees.
17.90.100 Affordability standards.
17.90.110 Occupant screening.
17.90.010 Purpose.
The purpose and intent of this chapter is to encourage housing projects which incorporate
units affordable to very-low, lower, and moderate income households, and qualifying
seniors or the donation of land for affordable housing within the city, and which conform to
city development policies and standards, by providing density bonuses, or other equivalent
incentives, as required by California Government Code Section 65915, et seq. (Ord. 1282 §
2, 1995; Ord. 1035 § 1 (part), 1985) This chapter is a summary of California Government
Code Section 65915-65918. Where there is a conflict between the State density bonus law
and the zoning regulations, the State density bonus law shall prevail.
17.90.20 Definitions.
A. “Affordable" shall mean residential rent costs or sales prices which conform to the
standards issued by the director and updated periodically to reflect state and/or federal
housing cost indices. (Ord. 1282 § 2, 1995; Ord. 1035 § 1 (part), 1985)
B. “Common interest development” means any of the following: a community apartment
project, a condominium project, a planned development, a stock cooperative set forth in
Civil Code Section 1351.
C. "Density" means residential density as defined in Section 17.16.010 of this code. As an
example, a two-bedroom dwelling = 1.00 density units.
D. "Density bonus" means a density increase over the maximum density otherwise
allowable under the Zoning Regulations and Land Use Element of the General Plan.
E. "Director" means the community development director or his or her authorized
representative.
F. “Housing development” means a development project for five (5) or more residential
units, also includes a subdivision or common interest development.
Packet Pg. 264
Item 9
City of San Luis Obispo
Zoning Regulations March 2015
Page 232
G. "Lower income households" shall have the meaning set forth in California Health and
Safety Code, Section 50079.5; provided the income of such persons and families whose
incomes exceed fifty (50) percent but are less than or equal to eighty (80) percent of the
median income within the county.
H. “Maximum allowable residential density” means the maximum density allowed under the
Zoning Regulations and Land Use Element of the General Plan.
I. "Moderate income households" shall have the meaning set for in California Health and
Safety Code Section 50093; provided the income of such persons and families whose
incomes exceed eighty (80) percent but are less than or equal to one hundred twenty
(120) percent of the median income within the county.
J. “Senior citizen housing development” means a residential development developed,
substantially rehabilitated, or substantially renovated for senior citizens (55 years or
older) that has at least thirty-five (35) dwelling units.
K. "Very-low income households" shall have the meaning set forth in California Health and
Safety Code, Section 50105; provided the income of such persons and families whose
incomes exceed thirty (30) percent but are less than or equal to fifty (50) percent of the
median income within the county.
17.90.030 Application process for incentive
A. The developer may submit a preliminary proposal for the development of affordable
housing prior to the submittal of any formal requests for general plan amendments,
zoning amendments or subdivision map approvals. The city council shall, within ninety
days of receiving a written preliminary proposal, notify the housing developer in writing
of the procedures under which the city will comply with this chapter.
B. Any request for a density bonus or other incentives shall be in writing, and shall include
the following information, as well as any additional information required by the director:
1. The name of the developer;
2. The location of the proposed project;
3. The density allowed under the zoning regulations, as well as the proposed density;
4. The number and type (bedroom count) of dwellings and identification of those
dwellings which are to be affordable to each household income category;
5. Whether the dwellings will be offered for sale or for rent;
6. The proposed sales price, financing terms, rental rates or other factors which will
make the dwellings affordable to very-low, lower and moderate income
households. (Ord. 1282 § 2, 1995; Ord. 1035 § 1 (part), 1985)
Packet Pg. 265
Item 9
City of San Luis Obispo
March 2015 Zoning Regulations
Page 233
17.90.040 Standard incentives for housing projects.
A. This section shall apply only to housing projects consisting of five (5) or more dwelling
units. Per state law, projects that provide affordable housing are allowed up to a 35%
density bonus based on the tables outlined below for the respective affordability levels.
In addition, the City Council may approve a density bonus in excess of 35% at the
request of the developer as well as other concessions and incentives outlined in
sections 17.90.060.
B. All density calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next
whole number.
C. For the purpose of this section, “total units” or “total dwelling units” does not include
units added by a density bonus awarded pursuant to this section or any local law
granting a greater density bonus.
D. Ten Percent Low Income Dedication. When a developer agrees to construct ten (10)
percent of the total units of a housing development for persons or families of lower
income, the director shall grant the developer, upon the developer’s request, a density
bonus, the density bonus shall be calculated as follows:
Percentage Low-
Income Units
Percentage Density
Bonus
10 20
11 21.5
12 23
13 24.5
14 26
15 27.5
17 30.5
18 32
19 33.5
20 35
E. Five Percent Very-Low Income Dedication. When a developer agrees to construct at
least five (5) percent of the total units of a housing development for very-low income
households, the director shall grant the developer, upon the developer’s request, a
density bonus, the density bonus shall be calculated as follows:
Percentage Very Low-
Income Units
Percentage Density
Bonus
5 20
6 22.5
7 25
8 27.5
9 30
10 32.5
11 35
Packet Pg. 266
Item 9
City of San Luis Obispo
Zoning Regulations March 2015
Page 234
F. Twenty Percent Senior Citizen Housing Development Dedication. When a
developer agrees to construct a senior citizen housing development, or mobile home
park that limits residency based on age requirements for housing for older persons, the
director shall grant the developer, upon the developer’s request, a density bo nus, the
density bonus shall be twenty (20) percent of the number of senior housing units.
G. Ten Percent Common Interest Development for Moderate Income Dedication. If a
developer agrees to construct ten (10) percent of the total dwelling units in a common
interest development for persons or families of moderate income, provided that all units
in the development are offered to the public for purchase, the director shall grant the
developer, upon the developer’s request, a density bonus, the density bonus sh all be
calculated as follows:
Percentage Moderate-
Income Units
Percentage Density
Bonus
10 5
11 6
12 7
13 8
14 9
15 10
16 11
17 12
18 13
19 14
20 15
21 16
22 17
23 18
24 19
25 20
26 21
27 22
28 23
29 24
30 25
31 26
32 27
33 28
34 29
35 30
36 31
37 32
38 33
39 34
40 35
Packet Pg. 267
Item 9
City of San Luis Obispo
March 2015 Zoning Regulations
Page 235
H. Land Donation Dedication. If a developer for a tentative subdivision map, parcel map,
or other residential development approval donates land to the city for affordable
housing in accordance with this chapter and the provisions set forth in California
Government Code Section 65915-65918, the applicant shall be entitled to a fifteen (15)
percent increase above the otherwise maximum allowable residential density for the
entire development, the director shall grant the applicant, upon the applicant’s request,
a density bonus, the density bonus shall be calculated as follows:
Percentage Very Low-
Income Units
Percentage Density
Bonus
10 15
11 16
12 17
13 18
14 19
15 20
16 21
17 22
18 23
19 24
20 25
21 26
22 27
23 28
24 29
25 30
26 31
27 32
28 33
29 34
30 35
I. An applicant may elect to accept a lesser percentage of density bonus.
K. Parking Requirements. Upon the request of the developer, parking ratios of a
development meeting the criteria of this section, inclusive of handicapped and guest
parking, shall be as follows:
1. Studio to one bedroom: one onsite parking space.
2. Two to three bedrooms: two onsite parking spaces.
3. Four or more bedrooms: two and one-half parking spaces.
a. If the total number of parking spaces required for a development is other than a
whole number, the number shall be rounded up to the next whole number.
Packet Pg. 268
Item 9
City of San Luis Obispo
Zoning Regulations March 2015
Page 236
b. For purposes of this section, a development may provide onsite parking through
tandem or uncovered parking, but not through on street parking.
c. An applicant may request additional parking incentives or concessions beyond
those provided in this section, subject to section 17.90.060.
17.90.050 Standard incentives for conversion of apartments to
condominium projects.
A. For the purposes of this section, “other incentives of equivalent financial value” shall
not be construed to require the city to provide cash transfer payments or other
monetary compensations but may include the reduction or waiver of requirements
which the city might otherwise apply as conditions of conversion approval.
B. For purposes of this section, “density bonus” means an increase in units of twenty-five
percent over the number of apartments, to be provided within the existing structure or
structures proposed for conversion.
C. When an applicant for approval to convert apartments to condominium units agrees to
provide at least thirty-three percent of the total units of the proposed condominium
project to persons and families of low or moderate income, or fifteen percent of the total
units of the proposed condominium project to lower income households, and agrees to
pay for the reasonable, necessary administrative costs incurred by the city pursuant to
this section, the director shall grant a density bonus or provide other incentives of
equivalent financial value as it finds appropriate.
D. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the city to approve a proposal to
convert apartments to condominiums.
E. An applicant shall not be eligible for a density bonus under this section if the
apartments proposed for conversion constitute a housing development for which a
density bonus or other incentives were provided under Sections 17.90.040 or
17.90.060 of this chapter.
F. The city shall grant the developer’s request for development incentive(s) unless the city
council makes written findings of fact that the additional incentive(s) are not required to
achieve affordable housing objectives as defined in Section 50062.5 of the Health and
Safety Code, or to ensure that sales prices for the targeted dwelling units will be set
and maintained in conformance with city affordable housing standards. (Ord. 1282 § 2,
1995; Ord. 1035 § 1 (part), 1985)
17.90.060 Alternative or additional incentives.
A. When a developer agrees to construct housing for households of very-low, lower or
moderate income households, or for qualifying senior households, and desires an
incentive other than a density bonus as provided in Section 17.90.040 of this chapter,
or when an applicant for approval to convert apartments to a condominium project
agrees to provide housing for households of very low, lower, or moderate income, or for
qualifying senior households, the developer shall receive the following number of
incentives or concessions:
Packet Pg. 269
Item 9
City of San Luis Obispo
March 2015 Zoning Regulations
Page 237
1. One incentive or concession for housing developments that include at least ten
(10) percent of the total units for lower income households, at least five (5) percent
for very-low income households, or at least ten (10) percent for persons and
families of moderate income in a common interest development.
2. Two incentives or concessions for housing developments that include at least
twenty (20) percent of the total units for lower income households, at least ten (10)
percent for very-low income households, or at least twenty (20) percent for persons
and families of moderate income in a common interest development.
3. Three incentives or concessions for housing developments that include at least
thirty (30) percent of the total units for lower income households, at least fifteen
(15) for very-low income households, or at least thirty (30) percent for persons and
families of moderate income in a common interest development.
B. Alternative incentive proposals shall include information set forth in Section 17.90.030
(B) as well as a description of the requested incentive, an estimate of the incentive’s
financial value in comparison with the financial value of the density bonus allowed in
Section 17.90.040, as well as the basis for the comparison estimate. Alternative
incentive proposals shall be considered by the council and may include but are not
limited to one or more of the following:
1. A reduction in site development standards or modification of zoning code
requirements or architectural design requirements that exceeds the minimum
building standards approved by the California Building Standards Commission as
provided in Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health
and Safety Code, including, but not limited to, a reduction in setback and square
footage requirements and in the ratio of vehicular parking spaces that would
otherwise be required that results in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual
cost reductions.
2. Approval of mixed use zoning in conjunction with the housing project if commercial,
office, industrial, or other land use will reduce the cost of the housing development
and if the commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses are compatible with the
housing project and the existing or planned development in the area where the
proposed housing project will be located.
3. Density bonus in excess of that provided in Section 17.90.040;
4. Waiver of application and development review processing fees;
5. Waiver of utility connection or park land in-lieu fees or park land dedication
requirement;
6. City funded installation of off-site improvements which may be required for the
project, such as streets or utility lines;
7. Write-down of land costs;
8. Direct subsidy of construction costs or construction financing costs;
9. Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the developer or the city
Packet Pg. 270
Item 9
City of San Luis Obispo
Zoning Regulations March 2015
Page 238
that result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions shall also
include provisions for assuring continued availability of designated units at
affordable rents or sales prices for a period of not less than thirty (30) years, or as
otherwise required by state law.
C. Proposals for approval to convert apartments to a condominium project shall include
those relevant items set forth in Section 17.90.030.(B) plus the requested incentive, an
estimate if the incentive’s financial value in comparison with the financial value of the
density bonus as set forth in Section 17.90.050, and the basis for the comparison
estimate. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the city to provide cash
transfer payments or other monetary compensation. The city may reduce or waive
requirements which the city might otherwise apply as conditions of conversion
approval.
D. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the council to approve any
alternative incentive or concession The council shall approve the requisite number of
incentives or concessions afforded by Section 17.90.060. However, the details
surrounding the incentives or concessions shall be at the discretion of the council.
E. The council action on any alternative incentive proposal shall be by resolution. Any
such resolution shall include findings relating to the information required in subpart B or
D of this section.
17.90.070 Relationship to other city procedures.
A. Projects incorporating affordable housing and receiving density bonuses, incentives, or
alternative incentives as provided in this chapter shall receive high priority processing,
to the extent allowed by law. Operation of Sections 17.90.040 or 17.90.050, or approval
of alternative incentives as provided in Section 17.90.060 shall not be construed as a
waiver of standard development review procedures or an exemption of the project from
city development standards other than those explicitly listed in the approving resolution.
Should a project fail to receive any required city approval, the density bonus or
alternative incentive granted under this chapter shall be null and void.
B. Applications of Sections 17.90.040 and 17.90.050 to projects shall be ministerial acts
for purposes of environmental review. Environmental documents need not be filed
solely for recordation of agreements concerning the density bonus and provision of
affordable housing. Normal environmental review procedures shall apply to the project
applications.
C. If the council approves an alternative incentive as provided in Section 17.90.060, such
approval shall be subject to and conditioned upon an environmental determination
being made for the project in the usual manner. The community development
department shall outline for the council any probable, significant environmental effects
which would result from the proposed incentive. (Ord. 1282 § 2, 1995; Ord. 1035 § 1
(part), 1985)
17.90.080 Agreements for affordable housing.
Prior to the issuance of construction permits for any project incorporating a density bonus
or other incentive as provided in this chapter, the city and the project owner(s) shall enter
Packet Pg. 271
Item 9
City of San Luis Obispo
March 2015 Zoning Regulations
Page 239
into an agreement in a form acceptable to the city attorney, to be recorded in the office of
the county recorder. The agreement shall specify mechanisms or procedures to assure the
continued affordability and availability of the specified number of dwelling units to very-low,
lower, and moderate income households and/or qualifying seniors. The agreement shall
also set forth those items required by Section 17.90.030.(B). of this chapter or any
alternative incentives granted pursuant to Section 17.90.060 of this chapter. The
agreement shall run with the land and shall be binding upon all heirs, successors or
assigns of the project or property owner, and shall ensure affordability for a period of not
less than thirty years, or as otherwise required by state law. (Ord. 1282 § 2, 1995; Ord.
1035 § 1 (part), 1985)
17.90.090 Fees.
A. No fee in addition to normal project application fees shall be charged for a request for a
density bonus pursuant to the provisions of Sections 17.90.040 or 17.90.050, except for
reasonable, necessary administrative costs incurred by the city pursuant to Section
17.90.050.
B. A fee not to exceed the amount charge for "pre-application concept review" may be
charged for proposals submitted pursuant to the provisions of Section 17.90.060. (Ord.
1282 § 2, 1995; Ord. 1035 § 1 (part), 1985)
17.90.100 Affordability standards.
A. The community development department shall publish and revise as needed a
schedule of rental rates and sales prices for dwellings which will be affordable to
households with incomes as provided in this chapter. The schedule shall substantially
conform with the affordability standards as established by state or federal law.
B. The maximum rental rates and sales prices as revised, generally on an annual basis,
shall remain in effect for projects receiving density bonuses or additional incentives
under this chapter as provided in the affordable housing agreement, but in no case less
than the minimum term required by state law. (Ord. 1282 § 2, 1995; Ord. 1035 § 1
(part), 1985)
17.90.110 Occupant screening.
A. The affordable dwellings developed pursuant to this chapter shall be available to
qualified occupants without regard to race, religion, national origin, sex, occupation or
other affiliation. Occupants may be screened on the basis of age only to qualify those
occupants seeking housing designed for the elderly.
B. The city housing authority or other third party acceptable to the Community
Development Director shall screen prospective occupants so that dwellings developed
pursuant to this chapter shall be occupied by households with the appropriate
qualifying incomes or ages. Owners of projects shall enter into agreements with the
housing authority for such screening services.
C. Preference in occupant screening shall be given to those employed within or residing
within the city or the immediately surrounding area, to the extent that this provision
does not conflict with state or federally funded housing assistance programs which may
apply to a particular project, or other applicable law. This section is to insure that those
Packet Pg. 272
Item 9
City of San Luis Obispo
Zoning Regulations March 2015
Page 240
households having the greatest difficulty obtaining housing at market rates within the
city shall be able to occupy affordable housing made available pursuant to this chapter.
(Ord. 1282 § 2, 1995; Ord. 1035 § 1 (part), 1985).
Packet Pg. 273
Item 9