Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
06/07/1994, 2 - BONDS FOR INDUSTRY PROGRAM TO ASSIST SAN LUIS SOURDOUGH EXPANSION
%�Illy��l�l„III AMID 1” MEETING DATE: 91� II �ilall � c� o san s os�spo 6- j NUEN COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT NUMBER: FROM: Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Officer 4 r " r SUBJECT: Bonds for Industry Program to Assist San Luis Sourdough Expansion CAO RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Approve and authorize the Mayor to sign a resolution authorizing the execution of a joint exercise of powers agreement (JPA) with the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA). 2. Approve and authorize the Mayor to sign a resolution supporting the issuance of up to $3 million in industrial development revenue bonds to assist San Luis Sourdough with a local expansion of its facilities. DISCUSSION: Background Early this year staff learned of San Luis Sourdough's plan to expand its operation by 60,000 square feet. However, the initial company plan was to complete this expansion in Paso Robles. A meeting was therefore scheduled with the owners of the company to see if the expansion could instead happen in San Luis Obispo. After exploring various issues, including local site options, the company was ultimately persuaded to remain in San Luis Obispo and is now in the process of Architectural Review Commission review (Attachment 1). Consistent with Council's economic stability goals and priorities, staff contacted the California Trade and Commerce Agency to determine what programs might be available at the State level to assist local business expansion and retention efforts. A meeting was subsequently scheduled in San Luis Obispo with a representative of the agency. During this meeting, staff learned about the "Bonds For Industry" program which makes long-term, low cost financing available for industrial expansions (Attachment 2). Staff then connected the Agency representative with officials of JBL Scientific (which also has expansion plans) and San Luis Sourdough. San Luis Sourdough has since studied this program, and is now extremely interested in participating (Attachment 3). Bonds for Industry Financing The bonds for industry program is sponsored by the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA), which is composed of an alliance of three non-profit organizations, including the League of California Cities. In summary, long term financing is provided through the issuance of tax exempt (Federal and State) industrial development bonds (IDB's). The program also offers borrowers the assistance of financial advisors to assist them through various steps required to obtain the financing. �i��llrli`��►�II����►�����U�►�►�I►►►►'►� City Of Sa IS OBISPO i AN9MbftftA1-1 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT During the early steps in the process, certain actions are required by the local government where the financing is to take place. The attached correspondence from the program's bond counsel, Orick Harrington & Sutcliffe (Attachment 4), outlines these requirements in some detail. In short, the City must join the CSCDA through the execution of a joint powers agreement, and must also hold what is called a "TEFRA" hearing. This hearing is required by CSCDA to demonstrate,pursuant to Federal and State law, that the local governing body supports the expansion project and the use of tax exempt financing. After the TEFRA hearing is completed, the financial advisors will work with San Luis Sourdough to complete the remaining steps in the process. The City will have little if any further involvement in the financing side of the project. Once the City becomes a member of the CSCDA, only the 'TEFRA" hearing will be necessary to support the participation of other local companies in the Bonds For Industry program. FISCAL IMPACT: These actions pose absolutely no financial liability to the City. The City will not issue.the bonds, nor will the City's name be on the bonds. The City will have no liability whatsoever for bond repayment.This is confirmed in the correspondence from the State's bond counsel, and has been independently verified by City staff. ATTACHMENTS: 1. San Luis Sourdough Correspondence 2. Bonds for Industry Program Summary i 3. Request to Participate 4. Orick, Harrington & Sutcliffe Correspondence 5. Resolution Approving CSCDA JPA 6. Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement 7. Resolution Supporting Issuance of Bond 8. CSCDA Membership Roster I i I g:cscda 3580 Sueldo Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 January 13, 1994 RECEIVED Kenneth C:. Hampian JAN 18 1994 Assistant City Administrative Officer City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm St SAN'LUIG=?51SP0.CA Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100- Dear 3403-8100Dear Ken, After hearing very positive things about you from Dave Garth, Wanda Strassburg and several of our other business associates, it was very nice to sit down with you and discuss our needs and concerns relative to expansion. As mentioned in the meeting, we had nearly ruled out the . possibility of locating a second facility in the city of San Luis Obispo as we felt it was almost impossible to.find a buildable cite that.would meet.both our time line and.our financial needs, It. `was very gratifying to hear" dist the city is 'interested 'm.keeping us here and that your assistance and that of Arnold Jonas is available to help us through the development process. It is a very exciting and welcome change. We appreciated hearing your comments Tuesday at the Manufacturer's meeting, and again we are very positive about the message that is coming from City Hall. We love San Luis Obispo and we enjoy very much the relationship that we have developed with the community, and it is certainly our first choice to keep all of our operation here- After our meeting, we are feeling positive that may happen. Thanks for your offer of help and if and when it is needed we will definitely be in touch. Sincerely, . Charlie West 805 543.6142 .1.800 266.SOiiR fax 805 543.1279 " CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE CoAmiN'Is DEVELOPDIENT AUTHORITY PRESENTS Low-COST TAX EXEMPT FINANCING FOR NL NUFACTURERS Sponsors: Financial Advisors: California State HB Capital Association of Counties Union Bank League of California Underwriters: Cities Artemis Capital, Inc. CAS-UORNrA California Manufacturers Bankers Trust Co S Association Bond Counsel: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe Trustee: First Trust of California LAND, BUMDINGS AND NEw EQuawENT t a 'r «i r ■ � 1 a • :a The Bonds For Industry Pro- Who Is Eligible? What are the Benefits gram sponsored by the Cali- To qualify for the Bonds For Industry for the Borrower? forma Statewide Communi- tax exempt bond program, a borrower The Bonds for Industry program ties Development Authority needs to meet the following eligibility provides numerous benefits to quali- (CSCDA)provides nianufac- criteria: fied manufacturers. The most signifi- turers with below market financing at 1. .lfanufacturers or cant benefit of the program is that a tax exempt interest rates. To stimulate Processing Only— team of experts manages all of the growth, the interest on these bonds is The firm must be engaged in details and complexities associated with exempt from Federal and State income manufacturing, processing or the bond financing,from local and State tax. value added. approval to sale of the bonds. The The primary goal of this financing 2. Less Tl.7an 510.11illion— manufacturer is free to concentrate on program is to enable manufacturers to the day-today operation of business purchase land, buildings and capital The total project cost roust rather than having to resolve the my not exceed 51100 million.*,000 equipment to expand their operations. be at least 55 ,000 and may of issues Which accompany a bond .An added benefit for California is help- . application. The Bonds for Industry ing communities create new jobs and 3. Xewjobs— team has financed over 50 companies strengthen the local economic base. The capital expansion must and over 5200 million. Other advan-. The sponsor, CSCDA, is an alli- create new jobs. Cages are: ance of three prominent non-profit 4. Letter of Credit— • Tar Exempt Rates— organizations in California: the Califor- The borrmver must secure a Lowest capital market rate, nia State Association of Counties standby letter of credit from a averaging 5-M during the (CSAC), the California :Manufacturers bank with a substantial asset base. last twelve years. Association (C.'tLA.) and the League of 5. Local Support— • Long Tern:— California Cities(LCC). In addition,the The project must have city or 15 to 30 year terms. Bonds For Industry program is en- county support. • XoPre-PaymentPenalty— dorsed by the State of California's De- 'No pre-payment penalty partment of Trade and Commerce. 110:11illion limitation includes capital for paying off bonds early. ezpensefortbeprojecttbreeyearsbefore • Assuniable— bond issue and any capital expenses to The bonds are assumable be incurred 3 years after the bond issue. if the business is sold to a qualified use. • Comprehensive Fun7ding— The funds can be used for construction and take out to finance land, buildings and new equipment. T i1 1 1 ' 11 KIM M / 1 What Is The Process? complete the State application process How Long Does It Take? The process for securing Bonds for outlined later in the brochure before seek- The time bem-een pre-application Industry financing normally takes be- ing State approval. and State approval can range from one tween 90 and 120 days. The financial month to two months;depending upon advisors -will assist each company Stage 4. State Approval. the availability of required documenta- through the following six stages: The State of California holds two tion. Bond funds are available -within hearings on each project. The first hear- 60 days of State approval. Generallv. Stage 1.Inducement• ing is x•ith the California Industrial Devel- the entire process takes 120 days. *If To induce a project, the issuing opment Financing Advisory Commission timing of bond proceeds becomes an authority,CSCDA,adopts a formal reso- (CIDFAC)which determines whether the issue, banks providing the letter of lution approving the project at a public project meets the State criteria for issuing credit routine]• provide bridge financ- meeting. The borrower must complete industrial development bonds. ing until bond proceeds are available. the pre-application process outlined The second heating is held by the later in the brochure before a project California Debt Limit Allocation Commit- can be induced. All costs incurred after tee(CDLA.C)which hears requests regard- the inducement resolution is adopted ing all qualified projects and provides Stage I Stage 2 are eligible to be financed or reim- allocation for the actual issuance of the burled from bond proceeds. bonds. It is normally necessary for the borrower to attend the meetings of these Stage 2. Public Hearing. two bodies. The Bonds For Industry's Finance Team rill also attend the hearing A public hearing,called a TEFR�" to assist the borrower. Hearing," must be held in the local i community (city or county) in which Stage S. Bond Documentation. V the project is to be constructed. The Stage 3 Stage 4 Finance Team arranges for the hearing Once the State approval has been before the city council or board of granted, the Finance Team prepares all supervisors,provides the city or county bond documents and works with each all necessary documentation and is borrower and each letter of credit bank in present at the meeting if required. dor- order to complete the documentation mally the borrower is also present in process. case questions arise regarding the project- Stage 6. Bonds Sold and Funds Are V Available. Stage S Stage 6 Stage 3. State Application and Tax After the final documents are signed Questionaire by all parties, the bonds are sold and The Financial Advisors work with remarketed by the underwriter team, eke each borrower to help prepare and Artemis Capital, Inc. and Bankers Trust. submit a complete Stare application, a Funds are made available for draw-down tax questionnaire,and other necessary through the trustee, First Trust. documentation. The borrower must Tax Equity and Financial Responsi- bility Act 3 -7— i ► ► 6 • ► How Much Will It Cost? trustee and trustee counsel, printing, rat- An administrative fee of 4/10 of 1% The Bonds For Industry-program is ing, State fees, and master letter of credit is charged for all administrative costs a composite program which groups fees. This fee does not corer three costs: including remarketing, trustee fees, issues for several borrowers for pur- borrower attorney costs,standby letter of annual rating fees, and general admin- poses of selling the bonds. This has the credit bank costs, and any local fees istradon. effect of lowering the overall cost of Which a city or county may charge for issuance. Hmvever,each borrower has their participation. Additionally, the plaster letter of a separate trust indenture and there is credit bank charges.3 of 1%to back any no cross-debt responsibility between What Is the Effective Annual standby letter of credit from a bank individual borrowers. Interest Rate? rated A or better. If the standby bank There are four ongoing components has a lower rating, the master letter of The cost of bond financing is di- w lnicln comprise the effective annual in- credit cost may be higher. ided into two segments: [lie front-end terest rate of the bonds. The first is the costs and the ongoing effective annual base interest rate, which has averaged A Typical Example: interest rate. 5.1%over the last m-elve years and 2.7% 1. Ac-g. Base Rate: 5.10% over the last two years. The adjacent chart 2. Standby by LOC: 1.50410 WhatAre the Front-End Costs? shows this rate by year since 1982. This 3. Admin. Costs: 0.do% Tlne program charges an all-in fee interest rate is a variable rate and is subject 4. 'Master LOC: 0.30% for all issuance costs of 4.25%. Of this, to change every seven days. Effective Rare: 7.30% '.% can be financed from bond pro- ceeds. The remainder is paid directly The second component is the standby by the borrower and is generally re- Letter Of Credit (LOC) fee charged by a garded as an equity contribution to the bank as security for repayment of the project. This total fee includes the cost bonds. The annual fees for this LOC have of bond counsel, financial advisors, ranged from .3%to tab depending on the underwriter and underwriter counsel, credit status of the borrower. Rates Average Less Than 60% of Prime .9- Prime Rate 15% 14.9 -B-Tax Exempt 0 14% 13% 12.1 12% 11% 10.8 10.9 10% 9.9 9.3 10.0 9.5 9% 7.6 8.6 8% 7:5 S.3 7% 6% 5.4 6.1 15.3 5.9 6.3 5.8 6.3 6.0 5°/a 4.7 5.0 44.4 5.1 T % 3° [3-0 t2.3 2% 1% 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Avg. a- � i / 1 la g/ 'al all • ' Who Are the What Other Companies Have A Majority of these companies par- Bonds For Industry Used the Program? ticipated in composite bond issues with Finance Team Members? The Bonds For Industry program has three or more companies grouped in a The Bonds For Industry Finance financed over S200 million in bonds since single issue. When an individual bor- Team has substantial experience in is- its inception in September 1987. Follow- rower has a borrowing requirement suing industrial development bonds, ing are some of the firms which have greater than 55 million, and a letter of and assisting borrowers in completing taken advantage of the Bonds For Indus- credit from a bank rated AA or AAA,the The bond process as expeditiously and try program: issuers will consider taking the bor- simply as possible. This team has rower to market on a stand-alone basis. worked together to issue in excess of $200 million in tax exempt industrial Agriculture Products Loralie Originals, Inc. development bonds to over 50 compa- Allwire, Inc. McCain Citrus, Inc. nies. American Zettler, Inc. McElroy Metal 'Till, Inc. Amsted Industries, Inc. Marcel Shumman, Inc. Financial Advisors are HB Capital Andercmft Products, Inc. Marko Foam Products, Inc. Resources, Ltd. and Union Bank. This Applied Biosystems Master-Halco, Inc. team provides a unique group of skilled Aqua-Sen-Engineers, Inc. Michigan Hanger Industries, Inc. professionals that combines the gov- Brooks Products, Inc. NRI, Inc. ernment finance background of HB C&D Plastics \ichirin-Flex USA. Inc. Capital with the strong credit expert- CAITAC&JAE Co. Nordmwest Pipe ence of Union Bank. This team has Castle Industries of California Pacific Handy Cutter structured and managed some of the Chino Basin Water District Pacific Scientific, Inc. largest tax exempt industrial develop- Contech Construction Products Pasco Scientific, Inc. ment bond issues in the U.S. Diamond Foods Rapelli of California Encore Video Ring Can Corp. The Underwriter Team of.4-nemis Eurodesign Sierra Spring Water Capital and Bankers Trust brings a Evapco, Inc. South Bay Circuits wealth of experience in structuring, Fairway;.folds Staub Metals Corporation marketing and remarketing bonds that Florestone Products Co., Inc. Sunclipse, Inc. provide the lowest rates available on Grundfos Pumps Corporation Tower Industries, Inc. the market. Bankers Trust is one of the Image Laboratories Transamerican Resources largest remarketing agents of short term Industrial Dynamics Company Triple H Food Processors (7 day)tax exempt bonds in the United Instrument Specialties Company W& H Voorunan. Inc. States. Intermountain Trading Co. Walker Spring JIC'Manufacturing Zam, Inc. Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe as Jaygee Reality Co. Zieman Manufacturing Bond Counsel, the largest such firm in K.U.M. Ltd. Z_\DC California, provides assurance that all Lorbor Industries documents conform to tax code and securities laws. First Trust of California is the trustee 5 and has the broadest experience in the T administration of California industrial I development bonds. If your company is interested in participating, please note the following list of the steps to be completed: .' Pre Application Process Step 1. Complete the pre-application form (attached). Step 2. Send three most recent years of financials. Step 3. Send $1,250 non-refundable pre-application fee payable to the California State Association of Counties. Step 4. Send a letter of intent from a bank willing to consider a letter of credit. B. Complete State Application Process Step 5. Complete tax questionnaire." Step 6. Complete formal State application." Step 7. Secure a relocation letter, if required. Step 8. Send the following checks': • 5300 payable to the California State:association of Counties (for CDLILC) • 51,250 payable to the California State Association of Counties (for CIDFAC) • Good faith deposit of 1%payable to the California State Association of Counties. Step 9. Letter of commitment from a bank willing to provide a letter of credit. 'flay be combined into one check if sent at same time. " Forms available from financial advisors. Send all completed documents to: California Communities Bonds For Industry 7901 Stoneridge Drive, Swte 225 Pleasanton, California 94588 WHO SHOLLD I CONTACT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION? Call the California Communities Hotline: In California: (800) 635-3993 Outside California: (510) 463-8283 Facsimile: (510) 463-8457 OTHER DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS If you do not qualify for the tax exempt industrial development bond program,Bonds For Industry also has an attractive taxable bond financing program. For more information, call (800) 635-3993. 6 T a- g Alk i � � � � ori �; • Financial Statements Are Required Please submit ansn-ers to the following questions,along with financial statements for the past three(3))-ears. Public corporations submit form IOK plus most recent form 10Q. Individuals,or other entities for which audited financial statements are not available, attach balance sheets and"or tax returns. ffillglll�llll INSPIRE! -Name of Firm Address of Finn City State ZIP Primary Contact Phone Number Description of the product(s) your frau manufacturers. Amount of Construction/Acquisition Funds Requested Land Building New Equipment Total Addressilocation of Proposed Project Brief Description of Proposed Project Including Size of the Parcel of Land and Building. Will the Project Involve Construction --Yes ❑ \o Est. Construction Period (Months) Current Number of Employees: At Current Site: To Be Transferred From Another Site in California: How Many Jobs Do You Estimate at New Site 3 Years After Completion of the Project? Are You Relocating? ❑ Yes ❑ -No ❑ If Yes, from Where? Banks With Which Your Firm Has an Existing Relationship 1. Signature Title Date Send Completed Pre Application and Financials to. Cal;forma Communities Bonds For Industry 7901 Stoneridge Drive, Suite 225 Pleasanton, Calijontia 94588 an � CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MAY 17 , 1991 KEN HAMPIAN ASSISTANT CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 990 PALM ST SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 DEAR KEN SAN LUIS SOURDOUGH HAS BEEN FGRMIALLY 1. DU ED LNfJ IiiL CALIFORNIA COMIMfUNITIES BONDS FUR INDUS'IRY VRC!Gw:\! . 1erill_r. IS CO—SPONSORED BY THE CALIFORNIA STALE ASS0; IAfi1_-1N �F COUN"LIES AND THE CALIFORNIA LEAGUE OF CITIES . .['Hr'_ OFFERS LOW COST FUNDS FOR 1HE SOLE PURPOSE OF ST HiI:•ii _H EXPANDING MANUFACTURING TYPE BUSINESS IN THL ,4TAiE U1 CALIFORNIA. THE BONDS PROGRAM APPEARS TO BE "TAYLOR MADE FOR CUR EXPANSION PROJECT, ALLOWING lis TO BORROW APPROXI.MAiELY GMiE: MILLION DOLLARS FOR NEEDED EQUIPMENT AT A START RALE GF -Ilya . IN ROUGH NUMBERS , THAT WILL BE A FIRST YEAR SAVIivGS TO OUR COMPANY OF $50 , 000 AND ONE THAT WILL ALLOW US TO 13UDGiF Hitt ADDITIONAL STAFFING AND GROWTH THAT MIGHT HAVE OTHERWISE BEES DELAYED. IT IS FOR THESE REASONS THAT WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST CITY APPROVAL OF THE ELIGIBILITY APPLICATION RELATED TO THIS PROGRAM , SO THAT WE MAY CONTINUE IN OUR PURSUIT OF THESE L W COST FUNDS . IF YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE. PROGRAM PLEASE CONTACT ME AT THE BAKERY OR CALL STEVE HA%liLL AT THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES BONDS FOR INDUSTRY OFF'LC'E AT (800) 635-3993 . THANKS AGAIN KEN FOLATES — CONTROLLER SAN LUIS SOURDOUGH 3580 Sueldo • San Luis Obispo, California 93401 (805) 54}6142 �l / t QRRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE May 10, 1994 Direct Dial 213/612-2416 Mr. Ken Hampian Assistant City Administrative officer City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Re: California Statewide Communities Development Authority Dear Mr. Hampion: At Steve Hamill's request, enclosed please find a sample TEFRA Notice and Resolution of the City Council with respect to an industrial development bond (11IDB11) financing accomplished through the California Statewide Communities Development Authority ("CSCDA") , as well as a sample resolution for consideration of the Council in order for the City to join CSCDA. In addition, set forth below is a brief summary of the basis for the power of CSCDA to accomplish such financings as well as the action required to be undertaken by a city or county member (i.e. , the "Program Participant") of CSCDA in order for such financings to proceed. These IDB financings are structured so that neither CSCDA nor the relevant Program Participant has pecuniary liability therefor. Pursuant to the provisions of the Joint Powers Act, comprising Article 1, Article 2 and Article 3 of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of the Government Code of the State of California (the "Act") , a number of California cities and counties have entered into a joint exercise of powers agreement (the "Agreement") , a copy of which is enclosed, pursuant to which CSCDA was organized. (Currently, over 100 cities and over 40 counties are Program Participants of CSCDA. A listing of the Program Participants is included for your review and use. ) CSCDA is authorized by its Agreement to issue bonds, notes, or other evidences of indebtedness, or certificates of Suite 3200 . 777 South Figuema Street . Los Angeles.California 90017.5832 a l Telephone 213 629 2020 • Facsimile 213 612 2499 New York 212 326 8800 • Sacramcnto 916 447 9200 • San Francisco 415 392 1122 . Washington.D.C. 202 6268660 r 1ti� 1010 QRRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE Mr. Ken Hampian May 10, 1994 Page 2 participation in leases or other agreements in order to promote economic development. Pursuant to the Agreement, CSCDA will not approve a financing unless the governing body of the Program Participant in whose jurisdiction the project is located (or to be located) approves the project and the financing therefor. Furthermore, Section 147 (f) of the Code requires that the proposed financing be approved by a governmental unit having jurisdiction over the area in which any facility is to be financed is located. A financing will be treated as having been approved by a governmental unit if such issue is approved "by the applicable elected representative of such governmental unit after a public hearing following reasonable public notice. " The foregoing will be deemed satisfied if the governing body of the Program Participant holds a public hearing (upon at least 14 days prior written notice) and approves the financing to be undertaken through CSCDA. We will be happy to assist you with such publication process. Again, although the Program Participant would be approving the financing for the purposes of federal tax law and the Agreement, the Program Participant would not have a pecuniary liability therefor. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call me. Very truly yours, /eien::L.AMaA1&er SLM/dmh 74606. 1 Enclosures cc: Mr. Stephen A. Hamill (w/o encls. ) a -�3 .� RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING EXECUTION OF AN AMENDED AND RESTATED JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo (the "City") has expressed an interest in participating in the economic development financing programs (the "Programs") in conjunction with the parties to that certain Amended and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Relating to the California Statewide Communities Development Authority, dated as of June 1, 1988 (the "Agreement") ; and WHEREAS, the Agreement was originally entered into to facilitate Programs with respect to California counties and was subsequently amended and restated, expanding the Agreement to include participation by California cities; and WHEREAS, there is now before this City Council the form of the Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City proposes to participate in the Programs and desires that certain projects to be located within the City be financed pursuant to the Programs and it is in the public interest and for the public benefit that the City do so; and WHEREAS, the Agreement has been filed with the City, and the members of the City Council, with the assistance of its staff, have reviewed said document. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED AND DETERMINED as follows: SECTION 1. The Agreement is hereby approved and the City Administrative Officer or his designee, is hereby 'adthorized and directed to execute said document, with such changes, insertions and omissions as may be approved by such person, and the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to affix the City's seal to said document and to attest thereto. SECTION 2. The City Administrative Officer and all other proper officers and officials of the City are hereby authorized and directed to execute such other agreements, documents and certificates, and to -perform such other acts-and ..degds, as may be necessary or convenient to effect the purposes of this Resolution and the transactions herein authorized. a �� 0 . % SECTION 3 . The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.. SECTION 4 . The City Clerk shall forward a certified copy of this Resolution to the following: Steven L. Maler, Esq. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, California 90017 The FOREGOING RESOLUTION was approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo this ( th) day of , 1994, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Approved as to form: MAYOR TY TT EY LAI-74612.1 2 AMENDED AND RESTATED JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THIS AGREEMENT, dated as of June 1, 1988 , by and among the parties executing this Agreement (all such parties, except those which have withdrawn in accordance with Section 13 hereof, being herein referred to as the "Program Participants") : WITNESSETH WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 1, Division 7, Chapter 5 of the Government Code of the State of California (the "Joint Exercise of Powers Act" ) , two or more public agencies may by agreement jointly exercise any power common to the contracting parties; and ' WHEREAS, each of the Program Participants is a "public agency" as that term is defined in Section 6500 of the Government Code of the State of California, and WHEREAS, each of the Program Participants is empowered to promote economic development, including, without limitation, the promotion of opportunities for the creation or retention of employment, the stimulation of economic activity, and the increase of the tax base, within its boundaries; and WHEREAS, a public entity established pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers Act is empowered to issue industrial development bonds pursuant to the California Industrial Development Financing Act (Title 10 (commencing with Section 91500 of the Government Code of the State of California) ) (the "Act") and to otherwise undertake financing programs under the Joint Exercise of Powers Act or other applicable provisions of law to promote economic development through the issuance of bonds, notes, or other evidences of indebtedness, or certificates of participation in leases or other agreements (all such instruments being herein collectively referred to as "Bonds") ; and WHEREAS, in order to promote economic development within the State of California, the County Supervisors Association of California ( "CSAC") , together with the California Manufacturers Association, has established the Bonds for Industry program (the "Program") . WHEREAS, in furtherance of the Program, certain California counties (collectively, the "Initial Participants" ) have entered into that certain Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement dated as of November 18 , 1987 (the "Initial Agreement") , pursuant to which the California Counties Industrial Development Authority has been established as a separate entity under the Joint Exercise of Powers Act for the purposes and with the powers specified in the Initial Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Le.ague of California Cities ( "LCC") has determined to join as a sponsor of the Program and to actively participate in the administration of the Authority; and WHEREAS, the Initial Participants have determined to specifically authorize the Authority to issue Bonds pursuant to Article 2 of the Joint Exercise of Powers Act ("Article 2") and Article 4 of the Joint Exercise of Powers Act ("Article 4") , as well as may be authorized by the Act or other applicable law; and WHEREAS, the Initial Participants desire to rename the California Counties Industrial Development Authority to better reflect the additional sponsorship of the Program; and WHEREAS, each of the Initial Participants has determined that it is in the public interest of the citizens within its boundaries, and to the benefit of such Initial Participant and the area and persons served by such Initial Participant, to amend and restate in its entirety the Initial Agreement in order to implement the provisions set forth above; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Program Participants to use a public entity established pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers Act to undertake projects within their respective jurisdictions that may be financed with Bonds issued pursuant to the Act, Article 2, Article 4, or other applicable provisions of law; and - WHEREAS, the projects undertaken will result in significant public benefits, including those public benefits set forth in Section 91502 . 1 of the Act, an increased level of economic activity, or an increased tax base, and will therefore serve and be of benefit to the inhabitants of the jurisdictions of the Program Participants; NOW, THEREFORE, the Program Participants, fox—and in consideration of the mutual promises ,and agreements herein — contained, do agree to amend and restate the Initial Agreement- in greementin its entirety to provide as follows : 379h5 Section 1. Purpose. This Agreement is made pursuant to the provisions of the Joint Exercise of Powers Act, relating to the joint exercise of powers common to public agencies, in this case being the Program Participants . The Program Participants each possess the powers referred to in the recitals hereof. The purpose of this Agreement -is to establish an agency for, and with the purpose of, issuing Bonds to finance projects within the territorial limits of the Program Participants pursuant to the Act, Article 20 Article 9 , or other applicable provisions of law; provided, however that nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as a limitation on the rights of the Program Participants to pursue economic development outside of this Agreement, including the rights to issue Bonds through industrial development authorities under the Act, or as otherwise permitted by law. Within the various jurisdictions of the Program Participants such purpose will be accomplished and said powers exercised in the manner hereinafter set forth. Section 2. Term• This Agreement shall become effective in accordance with Section 18 as of the date hereof and shall continue in full force and effect for a period of forty (90) years from the date hereof, or until such time as it is terminated in writing by all the Program Participants; provided, however, that this Agreement shall not terminate or be terminated until the date on which all Bonds or other indebtedness issued or caused to be issued by the Authority shall have been retired, or full provision shall have been made for their retirement, including interest until their retirement date. Section 3. Authority. A. CREATION AND POWERS OF AUTHORITY. (1) Pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers Act, there is hereby created a public entity to be known as the "California Statewide Communities Development Authority" (the "Authority") , and said Authority shall be a public entity separate and apart from the Program Participants. Its debts, liabilities and obligations do not constitute debts, liabilities or obligations of any party to this Agreement . B. COMMISSION. The Authority shall be administered by a Commission (the "Commission") which shall consist of seven members, each R r 3 379h5 a- serving in his or her individual capacity as a member of the Commission. The Commission shall be the administering agency of this Agreement, and, as such, shall be vested with the powers set forth herein, and shall execute and administer this Agreement in accordance with the purposes and functions provided herein. Four members of the Commission shall be appointed by the governing body of CSAC and three members of the Commission shall be appointed by the governing body of LCC. Initial members of the Commission shall serve a term ending June 1, 1991 . Successors to such members shall be selected in the manner in which the respective initial member was selected and shall serve a term of three years. Any appointment to fill an unexpired term, however, shall be for such unexpired term. The term of office specified above shall be applicable unless the term of office of the respective member is terminated as hereinafter provided, and provided that theterm of any member shall not expire until a successor thereto has been appointed as provided herein. Each of CSAC and LCC may appoint an alternate member of the Commission for each member of the Commission which it appoints. Such alternate member may act as a member of the Commission in place of and during the absence or disability of such regularly appointed member. All references in this Agreement to any member of the Commission shall be deemed to refer to and include the applicable alternate member when so acting in place of a regularly appointed member. Each member or alternate member of the Commission may be removed and replaced at any time by the governing body by which such member was appointed. Any individual, including any member of the governing body or staff of CSAC or LCC, shall be eligible to serve as a member or alternate member of the Commission. Members and alternate members of the Commission shall not receive any compensation for serving as such but shall be entitled to reimbursement for any expenses . actually incurred in connection with serving as a member or alternate member, if the Commission shall determine that such expenses shall be reimbursed. and there are unencumbered funds available for such purpose. C. OFFICERS; DUTIES; OFFICIAL BONDS. The Commission shall elect a Chair, a vice-Chair, and a Secretary of the Authority from among its members- to serve for such term as shall be determined by the Commission . -- .-The. Commission shall appoint one or more of its officers or 4 a_i9 379h5 employees to serve as treasurer, auditor, and controller of the Authority (the "Treasurer" ) pursuant to Section 6505 . 6 of the Joint Exercise of Powers Act to serve for such term as shall be determined by the Commission. Subject to the applicable provisions of any resolution, indenture or other instrument or proceeding authorizing or securing Bonds (each such resolution, indenture, instrument and proceeding being herein referred to as an "Indenture" ) providing for a trustee or other fiscal agent, the Treasurer is designated as the depositary of the Authority to have custody of all money of the Authority, from whatever source derived. The Treasurer of the Authority shall have the powers, duties and responsibilities specified in Section 6505 . 5 of the Joint Exercise of Powers Act . The Treasurer of the Authority is •designated as the public officer or person who has charge of, handles, or has access to any property of the Authority, and such officer shall file an official bond with the Secretary of the Authority in the amount specified by resolution of the Commission but in no event less than $1, 000. If and to the extent permitted by law, any such officer may satisfy this requirement by filing an official bond in at least said amount obtained in connection with another public office. The Commission shall have the power to appoint such other officers and employees as it may deem necessary and to retain independent counsel, consultants and accountants . The Commission shall have the power, by resolution, to the extent permitted by the Joint Exercise of Powers Act or any other applicable law, to delegate any of its functions to one or more of the members of the Commission or officers or agents of the Authority and to cause any of said members, officers or agents to take any actions and execute any documents or instruments for and in the name and on behalf of the Commission or the Authority. D. MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION. (1) Regular Meetings . The Commission shall provide for its regular meetings; provided, however, it shall hold at least one regular meeting each year. The date, hour and place of the holding of the regular meetings shall be fixed by resolution of the Commission and a copy of such resolution shall-be filed with each party hereto. 5 379h5 � ��� (Z) 52eS Meetinos . Special meetings of the Commission may be called in accordance with the provisions of Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of California . (3) Ralph M Brown Act . All meetings of the Commission, including, without limitation, regular, adjourned regular, special, and adjourned special meetings shall be called, noticed, held and conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act (commencing with Section 54950 of the Government Code of the State of California) . (4) Minutes . The Secretary of the Authority shall cause to be kept minutes of the regular, adjourned' regular, special, and adjourned special meetings of the Commission and shall, as soon as possible after each meeting, cause a copy of the minutes to be forwarded to each member of the Commission. (5) Quorum. A majority of the members of the Commission which includes at least one member appointed by the governing body of each of CSAC and LCC shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business . No action may be taken by the Commission except upon the affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Commission which includes at least one member appointed by the governing body of each of CSAC and LCC, except that less than a quorum may adjourn a meeting to another time and place. E. RULES AND REGULATIONS. The Authority may adopt, from time to time, by resolution of the Commission such rules and regulations for the conduct of its meetings and affairs as may be-- required. Section 4. Powers. The Authority shall have any and all powers relating to economic development authorized by law to each of the parties hereto and separately to the public entity herein created, including, without limitation, the promotion of opportunities for the creation and retention of employment, the stimulation of economic activity, and the increase-of the tax base, within the jurisdictions of such parties . Such powers shall include the common powers specified in this 6 379h5 Agreement and may be exercised in the manner and according to the method provided in this Agreement. All such powers common to the parties are specified as powers of the Authority. The Authority is hereby authorized to do all acts necessary for the exercise of such powers, including, but not limited to, any or all of the following: to make and enter into contracts; to employ agents and employees; to acquire, construct, provide for maintenance and operation of, or maintain and operate, any buildings, works or improvements; to acquire, hold or dispose of property wherever located; to incur debts, liabilities or obligations; to receive gifts, contributions and donations of property, funds, services and other forms of assistance from persons, firms, corporations and any governmental entity; to sue and be sued in its own name; and generally to do any and all things necessary or convenient to the promotion of economic development, including without limitation the promotion of opportunities for the creation or retention of employment, the stimulation of economic activity, and the increase of the tax base, all as herein contemplated. without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Authority may issue or cause to be issued bonded and other indebtedness, and pledge any property or revenues as security to the extent permitted under the Joint Exercise of Powers Act, including Article 2 and Article 4 , the Act or any other applicable provision of law. The manner in which the Authority shall exercise its powers and perform its duties is and shall be subject to the restrictions upon the manner in which a California county could exercise such powers and perform such duties until a California general law city shall become a Program Participant, at which time it shall be subject to the restrictions upon the manner in which a California general law city could exercise such powers and perform such duties. The manner in which the Authority shall exercise its powers and perform its duties shall not be subject to any restrictions applicable to the manner in which any other public agency could exercise such powers or perform such duties, whether such agency is a party to this Agreement or not. Section S. Fiscal Year. For the purposes of this Agreement, the term "Fiscal Year" shall mean the fiscal year as established from time to time by the Authority, being, at the date of this Agreement, the period from July 1 to and including the following June 30 , except for the first Fiscal Year which sha.l.l be the period from the date of this Agreement to June 30, 1988. 379h5 -aa Section 6. Disposition of Assets. At the .end of the term hereof or upon the earlier termination of this Agreement as set forth in Section 2 hereof, after payment of all expenses and liabilities of the Authority, all property of the Authority both real and personal shall automatically vest in the Program Participants and shall thereafter remain the sole property of the Program Participants; provided, however, that any surplus money on hand shall be returned in proportion to the contributions made by the Program Participants. Section 7. Bonds. The Authority shall issue Bonds for the purpose of exercising its powers and raising the funds necessary to carry out its purposes under this Agreement . Said Bonds may, at the discretion of Authority, be issued in series . " The services of bond counsel, financing consultants and other consultants and advisors working on the projects and/or their financing shall be used by the Authority. The fees and expenses of such counsel, consultants, advisors, and the expenses of CSAC, LCC, and the Commission shall be paid from the proceeds of the Bonds or any other unencumbered funds of the Authority available for such purpose. Section 8. Bonds Only Limited and Special Obligations of Authority. The Bonds, together with the interest and premium, if any, thereon, shall not be deemed to constitute a debt of any Program Participant, CSAC, or LCC or pledge of the faith and credit of the Program Participants, CSAC, LCC, or the Authority. The Bonds shall be only special obligations of the Authority, and the Authority shall under no circumstances be obligated to pay the Bonds or the respective project costs except from revenues and other funds pledged therefor. Neither the Program Participants, CSAC, LCC, nor the Authority shall be obligated to pay the principal of, premium, if any, or interest on the Bonds, or other costs incidental thereto, except from the revenues and funds pledged therefor, and neither the faith and credit nor the taxing power of the Program Participants nor the faith and credit of CSAC, LCC, or the Authority shall be pledged to the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, or interest on the Bonds nor shall the Program Participants, CSAC, LCC, or the Authority in any manner be obligated to make any appropriation for such payment . No covenant or agreement contained in any Bond or •— Indenture shall be deemed to be a covenant or agreement of any 379h5 0? 3 member of the Commission, or any officer, agent or employee of the Authority in his individual capacity and neither the Commission of the Authority nor any officer thereof executing the Bonds shall be liable personally on any Bond or be subject to any personal liability or accountability by reason of the issuance of any Bonds. Section 9. Local Approval. A copy of the application for financing of a project shall be filed by the Authority with the Program Participant in whose jurisdiction the project is to be located. The Authority shall not issue Bonds with respect to any project unless the governing body of the Program Participant in whose jurisdiction the project is to be located, or its duly authorized designee, shall approve, conditionally or unconditionally, the project, including the issuance of Bonds therefor. Action to approve or disapprove a. project shall be taken within 45 days of the filing with the Program Participant. Certification of approval or disapproval shall be made by the clerk of the governing body of the Program Participant, or by such other officer as may be designated by the applicable Program Participant, to the Authority. Section 10. Accounts and Reports. All funds of the Authority shall be strictly accounted for. The Authority shall establish and maintain such funds and accounts as may be required by good accounting practice and by any provision of any Indenture (to the extent such duties are not assigned to a trustee of Bonds) . The books and records of the Authority shall be open to inspection at all reasonable times by each Program Participant. The Treasurer of the Authority shall cause an independent audit to be made of the books of accounts and financial records of the Agency by a certified public accountant or public accountant in compliance with the provisions of Section 6505 of the Joint Exercise of Powers Act. In each case the minimum requirements of the..audit shall be those prescribed by the State Controller for special districts under Section 26909 of the Government Code of the State of California and shall conform to generally accepted auditing standards. When such an audit of accounts and records is made by a certified public accountant or public accountant, a report thereof shall be filed as public records with each Program Participant and also with the county auditor of each county in which a Program Participant is located. Such report shall be filed within 12 months of the end..of the Fiscal Year or Years under examination. 9 -a 3'79h5 Ari1vcosts of the audit, including contracts with, or employment of, certified public accountants or public accountants in making an audit pursuant to this Section, shall be borne by the Authority and shall be a charge against any unencumbered funds of the Authority available for that purpose. In any Fiscal Year the Commission may, by resolution adopted by unanimous vote, replace the annual special audit with an audit covering a two-year period. The Treasurer of the Authority, within 120 days after the close of each Fiscal Year, shall give a complete written report of all financial activities for such Fiscal Year to each of the Program Participants to the extent such activities are not covered by the reports of the trustees for the Bonds . The trustee appointed under each Indenture shall establish suitable funds, furnish financial reports and provide suitable accounting procedures to carry out the provisions of said Indenture. Said trustee may be given such duties in said Indenture as may be desirable to carry out this Agreement . Section 11. Funds. Subject to the applicable provisions of each Indenture, which may provide for a trustee to receive, have custody of and disburse Authority funds, the Treasurer of the Authority shall receive, have the custody of and disburse Authority funds pursuant to the accounting procedures developed under Section 10 hereof, and shall make the disbursements required by this Agreement or otherwise necessary to carry out any of the provisions or purposes of this Agreement. Section 12. Notices. Notices and other communications hereunder to the Program Participants shall be sufficient if delivered to the clerk of the governing body of each Program Participant. Section 13. Withdrawal and Addition of Part es. A Program Participant may withdraw from this Agreement upon written notice to the Commission; provided, however, that no such withdrawal shall result in the dissolution of the Authority so long as any Bonds remain outstanding under an Indenture. Any such withdrawal shall be effective only upon receipt of the notice of withdrawal by the Commission which shall acknowledge receipt of such notice of _ withdrawal in writing and shall file such notice as an amendment to this Agreement effective upon such filing. 10 37shs Qualifying public agencies may be added as parties to this Agreement and become Program Participants upon: ( i ) the filing by such public agency of an executed counterpart of this Agreement, together with a certified copy of the resolution of the governing body of such public agency approving this Agreement and the execution and delivery hereof; and (ii) adoption of a resolution of the Commission approving the addition of such public agency as a Program Participant. Upon satisfaction of such conditions, the Commission shall file such executed counterpart of this Agreement as an amendment hereto, effective upon such filing . Section 14. Indemnification. To the full extent permitted by law, the Commission may authorize indemnification by the Authority of any person who is or was a member or alternate member of the Commission, or an officer, employee or other agent of the Authority, and who was or is a party or is threatened to be made a party to a proceeding by reason of the fact that such person is or was such a member or alternate member of the Commission, or an officer, employee or other agent of the Authority, against expenses, judgments, fines, settlements and other amounts actually and reasonably incurred in connection with such proceeding, if such person acted in good faith and in a manner such person reasonably believed to be in the best interests of the Authority and, in the case of a criminal proceeding, had no reasonable cause to believe the conduct of such person was unlawful and, in the case of an action by or in the right of the Authority, acted with such care, including reasonable inquiry, as an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances. Section 15. Contributions and Advances. Contributions or advances of public funds and of the use of personnel, equipment or property may be made to the Authority by the parties hereto for any of the purposes of this Agreement. Payment of public funds may be made to defray the cost of any such contribution. Any such advance may be made subject to repayment, and in such case shall be repaid, in the manner agreed upon by the Authority and the party making such advance at the time of such advance. Section 16. Immunities. All of the privileges and immunities from liabilities, exemptions from laws, ordinances and rules, all pension, relief, disability, workers' compensation, and- other benefits which apply to the activity of officers, agents or employees of Program Participants when performing their 11 a-a4 0 379h5 respective functions within the territorial limits of their respective public agencies, shall apply to them to the same degree and extent while engaged as members of the Commission or otherwise as an officer, agent or other representative of the Authority or while engaged in the performance of any of their functions or duties extraterritorially under the provisions of this Agreement. Section 17. Amman m ntti. Except as provided in Section 13 above, this Agreement shall not be amended, modified, or altered except by a written instrument duly executed by each of the Program Participants. Section 18. Fffectivan%wL . This Agreement shall become effective and be in full force and effect and a legal, valid and binding obligation of each of the Program Participants at 9 :00 a .m. , California time, on the date that the Commission shall have received from . each of the Initial Participants an executed counterpart of this Agreement, together with a certified copy of a resolution of the governing body of each such Initial Participant approving this Agreement and the execution and delivery hereof . Section 19. partial Invalidity. If any one or more of the terms, provisions, promises, covenants or conditions of this Agreement shall to any extent be adjudged invalid, unenforceable, void or voidable for any reason whatsoever by a court of competent jurisdiction, each and all of the remaining terms, provisions, promises, covenants and conditions of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby, and shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. Section 20. Successors. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors of the parties hereto. Except to the extent expressly provided herein, no party may assign any right or obligation hereunder without the consent of the other parties. Section 21. Miscellaneous. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument. n — . 1 a 379h5 2 The section headings herein are for convenience only and are not to be construed as modifying or governing the language in the section referred to. Wherever in this Agreement any consent or approval is required, the same shall not be unreasonably withheld. This Agreement is made in the State of California , under the Constitution and laws of such state and is to be so construed. This Agreement is the complete and exclusive statement of the agreement among the parties hereto, which supercedes and merges all prior proposals, understandings , and other agreements, including, without limitation, the Initial Agreement, whether oral, written, or implied in conduct , between and among the parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed and attested by their proper officers thereunto duly authorized, and their official seals to be hereto affixed, as of the day and year first above written. Program Participant: [SEAL] By Name: Title: ATTEST: By Name: Title: 13 0? 379h5 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $3, 000, 000 AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS WHEREAS, the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (the "Issuer") in its inducement resolution (the "Resolution") as presented to this meeting and marked Exhibit A, has proposed to issue an amount not to exceed $3, 000, 000 aggregate principal amount of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (the "Bonds") pursuant to the California Industrial Development Financing Act, Section 91500 et. seg. of the Government Code of the State of California, as amended and supplemented (the "Act") ; and WHEREAS, the project to be financed by the Bonds consists of costs associated with the construction and/or purchase of the property and financing costs (the "Project") as described in the document presented to this meeting and marked Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, the Issuer has requested that the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo (the "City") , approve the issuance of the Bonds in order to satisfy the public approval requirement of Section 147 (f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code") , the requirements of Section 9 of the Amended and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (the "Agreement") , dated as of June 1, 1988, among certain local agencies, including the City, and the public agency approval requirement of Section 91530(f) of the Government Code of the State of California, as amended; and WHEREAS, the City has held a public hearing on 1994, providing a reasonable opportunity for persons to comment on the issuance of the Bonds and the location of the Project; and WHEREAS, it is intended that this resolution shall constitute the approval of the issuance of the Bonds required by Section 147 (f) of the Code, Section 9 of the Agreement and Section 91530(f) of the Government Code of the State of California; NOW, .THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City, that the issuance of the Bonds is hereby approved for tha purposes of Section 147 (f) of the Code, Section 9 of the Agreement and Section 91530 (f) of the Government Code of the State of California. a-a9 LAI-74612.1 ry RESOLVED FURTHER, the City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. RESOLVED FURTHER, the City Clerk shall forward a certified copy of this Resolution to the following: Steven L. Maler, Esq. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, California 90017 The FOREGOING RESOLUTION was approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo this day of , 1994, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MAYOR Approved as to form: Z'902:!�� - -5'TY A 0RT LA 1-74612.1 2 a -30 ATTACHMENT A PAGE 1 OF 3 AMENDMENT TO A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR THE CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 183 PARTICIPANTS AS OF December 14, 1993 CITIES (104) City of Agoura Hills City of Livingston City of Anaheim City of Lodi City of Alhambra City of Lompoc City of Auburn City of Long Beach City of Azusa City of Los Angeles City of Bell City of Madera City of Berkeley City of Manteca City of Brentwood City of Maywood City of Buena Park City of Marysville City of Burbank City of Merced City of Burlingame City of Millbrae City of Canyon Lake City of Monterey Park City of Carson City of Morgan Hill City of Ceres City of Mountain View City of Chowchilla City of National City City of Claremont City of Norwalk City of Clearlake City of Novato City of Corcoran City of Oceanside City of Corona City of Orange City of Cypress City of Oroville Town of Danville City of Oakland City of Dos Palos City of Palmdale City of E1 Cajon City of Palos Verdes Estates City of E1 Centro City of Paramount City of Encinitas City of Pasadena City of Etna City of Patterson City of Eureka City of Petaluma City of Folsom City of Pittsburg City of Fresno City of Placerville City of Fullerton City of Pomona City of Gridley City of Redding City of Grass Valley City of Rialto City of Hanford City of Richmond City of Hollister City of Riverside City of Industry City of Rohnert Park City of Inglewood City of Sacramento City of Ione City of Salinas City of Irvine City of San Bruno City of La Mesa City of San Gabriel City of Laguna Beach City of Sanger City of Lakeport City of San Diego City of Lancaster City of San Jose ..City of Lathrop City of San Marcos City of Lincoln City of Santa Clarita City of Lindsay City of Santa Cruz SC1-61162.1 04 -�� City ,of Santa Maria Stanislaus County City of Santa Monica Sutter County City of Seaside Trinity County City of South Lake Tahoe Ventura County City of Suisun Yolo County City of 'Torrance Yuba County City of Turlock City of Twentynine Palms DISTRICTS (37) City of Union City Apple Valley Fire Protection City. of Upland District City of Vacaville Armona Community Services City of West Sacramento District City of Whittier Big Bear City Community City of Woodland Services District Bolinas Community Public COUNTIES (40) Utility District Alameda County Bostonia Fire Protection Butte County District Colusa County Cardiff Sanitation District Contra Costa County Diablo Water District Del Norte County Encinitas Fire Protection E1 Dorado County District Glenn County Encinitas Sanitation District Humboldt County Hamilton Branch Community Imperial County Services District Inyo County Hillmar County Water District Kern County Idyllwild Fire Protection Kings County District Lake County Irish Beach Water District Lake County Service Area June Lake Public Utility No. 20 District Lassen County Keyes Community Services Madera County District Mariposa County Lakeside Fire Protection Mendocino County District Merced County Lakeside Water District Modoc County Los Trancos County Water Napa County District Nevada County Madera County Maintenance Orange County District No. 1 Placer County Mid Carmel Valley Fire Sacramento County Protection District San Bernardino County Millview County Water District San Diego County North County Fire Protection San Joaquin County District Santa Barbara County Oceano Community Services Santa Clara County District Sierra. County Paradise Irrigation District _Siskiyou County San Lorenzo Valley Water $olanb' County District Sonoma County SCI-61162.1 San Miguel Consolidated Fire Protection District Scotts Valley County Water District Springville Public Utility District Squaw Valley County Water District San Bernardino County Service Area #70 Sierra Lakes County Water District Stinson Beach County Water District Tri-Cities Municipal Water District Tuolumne County Water District #1 Upper Lake County Water District Vista Unified School District Winton Water & Sanitary District AGENCIES (2) City of Rialto Redevelopment Agency Whittier Redevelopment Agency SC1-61162.1 a X33 illlryAly'll�llllln� I MEETING DATE: IIAAII II h1��1111 cIty of San ..AIS OBISPO 6/07/94 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER: FROM: Ann Slate, Personnel Directo Prepared by: Jill Sylvain, Personnel AnalysR SUBJECT: 1994-95 Human Relations Commission Grants-In-Aid Funding Recommendations CAO RECOMMENDATIONS: 1 . Consider recommendations from the Human Relations Commission for Grants-In-Aid funding and determine the appropriate level of City support for 1994-95. 2. Adopt a resolution authorizing staff to develop and execute agreements with each Grants-In-Aid recipient as outlined in Exhibit "A" and inclusive of any modifications made by Council during the public hearing. DISCUSSION: Background In January of this year, the Human Relations Commission (HRC) began its annual Grants-In-Aid process. Notices advertising the availability of grant monies for local service organizations that provide human and social services in the City were placed in the Telegram-Tribune. In addition, prior year grant recipients were sent notices advising them of the 1994-95 Grants-In-Aid process. A workshop was subsequently held for all prospective applicants to review the changes to the grant application, reiterate the HRC's expectations for application content and format, and answer any questions of applicants. Completed Grants-In-Aid applications were due to the City in February. The HRC received thirty-two applications, with total requests for funding exceeding $166,000 (this compares to thirty-one applications requesting over $161,700 in 1993-94). Four of the agencies requesting monies were new to the process. The 1994-95 grant applications are available for Council review in the City Clerk's Office. Review Process Upon receiving the grant applications, the HRC convened a subcommittee to thoroughly review the applications and formulate preliminary grant recommendations. The subcommittee's preliminary recommendations were then presented to the full Commission for action during the HRC's regular April meeting. During the April meeting, the Commission reviewed the subcommittee's recommendations, modified them as necessary to reflect group consensus, and set a public hearing to present the recommendations to the applicant agencies. il�������H►iulI►IIIi�I1° ���lU city of San WIS OBISpo Nis COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 2 With respect to the 1994-95 process, the Grants-In-Aid subcommittee was composed of Randy Baudendistel (who served as chair), Marion Wolff and Joan Lawrence. In conducting their review, the subcommittee evaluated the applications against the Council-adopted HRC Grants-In-Aid criteria (See Attachment 2) and the Council-approved Human Needs Assessment findings (See Attachment 3). Funding_Recommendations A public hearing was subsequently held in late April to formally present the Commission's 1994-95 Grants-In-Aid recommendations to the applicant agencies. During this meeting, all applicants were given an opportunity to address the HRC regarding their recommendations. The hearing lasted approximately one hour and went smoothly. While one agency (Grass Roots II) representative expressed a strong desire for additional monies, all recognized the financial constraints the Commission was operating within. As a result, the HRC unanimously adopted their recommendations as presented and directed staff to forward them to the Council for consideration. Specifically, the HRC's 1994-95 Grants-In-Aid recommendations: • Total $84,700 (no monies have been allocated toward a reserve). • Provide funding to all 32 agencies; grants range from $750 to $8,000. • Provide funding to four new agencies (Big Brothers/Big Sisters, Mental Health Association, SLO Legal Alternative Coalition Program, and Senior Nutrition Program of SLO County). • Attempt to maintain funding to those agencies that serve the top listed needs in the Human Needs Assessment. • Provide slightly reduced levels of funding to several organizations so that monies could be made available for new applicants. A more detailed discussion of the individual grant recommendation can be found in Attachment "1" Contracts Upon Council adoption of grant amounts, staff will enter into contracts with each of the qualified organizations. Each contract is then monitored by the HRC and staff throughout the year. ii�h��in�►il�illlllllll��PQp�IIIIIII city of san L_.Js OBISpo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 3 FISCAL IMPACT: The 1994-95 Financial Plan contains $84,700 for Human Relations Commission's Grants-In-Aid Program. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution Attachment "1" - Summary of Grants-In-Aid recommendations Attachment "2" - Grants-In-Aid Criteria Attachment "3" - Human Needs Assessment Priorities I i i NRC-GA-CAR 3- RESOLUTION NO. (1994 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AUTHORIZING FUNDING TO THIRTY-TWO AGENCIES IN THE AMOUNT OF $84,700 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994-95 THROUGH THE HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo supports non-profit agencies which provide human and social services to the residents of the City of San Luis Obispo through its annual Grants-In-Aid process; and WHEREAS, funding for the Human Relations Commission Grants-In-Aid program has been included in the 1993-95 Financial Plan for the City of San Luis Obispo: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1 . That certain agencies attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A" shall be provided funding as is designated in the same attachment. SECTION 2. The staff is directed to prepare a contract for each agency identified in Exhibit "A" and the CAO is authorized to execute such contracts. Upon motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Resolution No. Page 2 the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 1994. MAYOR PEG PINARD ATTEST: Diane Gladwell, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT: �_ *JJq jenn', Oyy Attorney naaaa-nes HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION EXHIBIT "A" 1994-95 GRANTS-IN-AID FUNDING BY AGENCY ADOPTED REQUESTED COMMITTEE AGENCY 1993-94 1994-95 RECOMM. 1994-95 Ad Care Association $ 2,000 2,000 2,000 Aids Support Network 1,000 6,500 1,200 ALPHA 1,000 2,500 1,000 American Red Cross 4,200 8,000 4,200 Big Brothers/Big Sisters -0- 1,000 500 Caring Callers 450 750 450 Camp Fire Council 1,000 3,000 1,000 Casa Solana 5,000 10,000 5,000 Child.Development Center 7,500 9,000 7,500 Easter Seals 1,500 3,500 1,500 EOC Family Planning 3,000 3,000 3,000 EOC Senior Health Screening 2,700 2,844 2,800 EOC Child Care Connection 1,000 4,000 1,000 Family Services Center 4,000 6,000 4,000 Food Bank Coalition 1,000 2,500 1,000 Grass Roots II 3,000 8,945 3,100 Hospice 4,200 . 8,000 4,200 Hotline 3,100 5,000 3,200 Life Steps 1,000 4,000 1,000 Literacy Council 1,500 6,000 1,500 Long Term Care Ombudsman 1,200 1,750 1,200 Middle House 3,100 10,000 3,200 Mental Health Association -0- 5,000 5,000 Rape Crisis 5,500 8,300 5,500 RSVP 600 800 500 Salvation Army 12,000 25,000 8,000 SLO Legal Alternative Coalition Corp. -0- 1,020 500 Senior Nutrition Program of SLO.Co. -0- 2,858 1,000 Senior Peer Counseling 1,650 1,650 1,650 Voices for Children 500 750 500 Women's Shelter 8,000 12,000 8,000 Poly Pals 500 750 500 Reserve -0- -0- -0- TOTAL $84,700 $166,417 $84,700 kc�+.aan2 3-� Attachment-"V HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION SUMMARY GRANTS-IN=AID `FUNDING BY AGENCY �- 7 1. ;AD CARE ASSOCIATION 1993-94 Grant Amount: $2,000 1994-95 Request: $2,000 1994-95 Subcommittee Recommendation: $2,000 Ad Care is requesting $2,000 to support the ongoing operation of their adult day care program for the frail elderly in San Luis Obispo and provide additional daycare/respite for frail elderly individuals living in the City of San Luis Obispo. The Committee is recommending a grant of $2,000. Recommended funding is consistent with the prior year and will allow the organization to fund a portion of the expenses identified in their proposal. 2. AIDS SUPPORT NETWORK 1993-94 Grant Amount: $1,000 1994-95 Request: $6,500 1994-95 Subcommittee Recommendation: $1,200 AIDS Support Network is requesting $6,500 to expand and promote the educational outreach programs, to expand its in-house resource library and obtain larger office space. AIDS Support Network provides support to those diagnosed with AIDS or HIV disease, as well as their families. Recommended funding is consistent with the prior year and will allow the organization to fund a portion of the expenses identified in their proposal. 3. ALPHA 1993-94 Grant Amount: $1,000 199495 Request: $2,500 199495 Subcommittee Recommendation: $1,000 Alpha is requesting $2,500 to support the organization's ongoing educational program. The goals of the educational program are to increase knowledge, raise self esteem and prevent unwanted pregnancies. The Committee is recommending a grant of $1,000. Recommended funding is consistent with the prior year and will allow the organization to fund a portion of their housing assistance program. 4. AMERICAN RED CROSS 1993-94 Grant Amount: $4,200 199495 Request: $8,000 199495 Subcommittee Recommendation: $4,200 The American Red Cross is requesting $8,000 to support their ongoing Disaster Assistance, Service to Military Families, and Health and Safety Programs. The Committee is recommending a grant of $4,200. Recommended funding is consistent with the prior year and will allow the organization to fund a portion of the expenses identified in their proposal. 5. BIG BROTHERS/BIG SISTERS 1993-94 Grant Amount: $ -0- 1994-95 Request $1,000 1994-95 Subcommittee Recommendation: $ 500 Big Brother/Big Sisters is requesting $1 ,000 to start up a local chapter of the national organization with a focus on implementing a mentoring program. Requested monies will be used to purchase supplies and materials. Big Brothers/Big Sisters assists at-risk youth primarily from single parent families through a one-to-one mentoring program. This organization has never received funding through the City Grants-In-Aid program. The Committee is recommending a grant of $500. 6. CARING CALLERS 1993-94 Grant Amount: $ 450 1994-95 Request: $ 750 1994-95 Subcommittee Recommendation: $ 450 Caring Callers is requesting $750 to fund ongoing operations of their program which provides a free visiting service to frail, isolated, homebound seniors in San Luis Obispo. The Committee is recommending a grant of $450. Recommended funding is consistent with the prior year and will allow the group to fund a portion of the expenses identified in their proposal. 7. CAMP FIRE COUNCIL 1993-94 Grant Amount: $1,000 1994-95 Request: $3,000 1994-95 Subcommittee Recommendation: $1,000 The Camp Fire Council is requesting $3,000 to continue a day camp/care program at a reduced fee for children in San Luis Obispo. Requested monies will be used to market the program, purchase supplies, and subsidize lower income participant fees. 2 �r1 The Committee is recommending a grant of $1,000. Recommended funding is consistent with the prior year and will allow the group to fund a portion of the expenses identified in their proposal. 8. CASA SOLANA 1993-94 Grant Amount: $ 5,000 1994-95 Request: $10,000 1994-95 Subcommittee Recommendation: $ 5,000 Casa Solana is requesting $10,000 to support ongoing operations of providing a recovery home for alcoholic or drug dependent women and to cover the shortfall for CASA II Transition home. The Committee is recommending a grant of $5,000. Recommended funding is consistent with the prior year and will allow the group to fund a portion of the expenses identified in their proposal. 9. SAN LUIS OBISPO CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER 1993-94 Grant Amount: $ 7,500 1994-95 Request: $ 9,000 1994-95 Subcommittee Recommendation: $ 7,500 The San Luis Obispo Child Development Center is requesting $9,000 to purchase materials and supplies for their child abuse prevention/intervention program. The Committee is recommending a grant of $7,500. This will allow the organization to fund a majority of the materials and supplies identified in their proposal for their child abuse prevention/intervention program. 10. EASTER SEALS 1993-94 Grant Amount: $ 1,500 1994-95 Request: $ 3,500 1994-95 Subcommittee Recommendation: $ 1,500 Easter Seals is requesting $3,500 to help fund gaps in the medical and emergency needs of adults and children with disabilities or potentially disabling conditions. The Committee is recommending a grant of $1,500. Recommended funding is consistent with the prior year and will allow the group to fund a portion of the expenses identified in their proposal. 3 lc�/0 11 . EOC FAMILY PLANNING 1993-94 Grant Amount: $3,000 1994-95 Request: $3,000 1994-95 Subcommittee Recommendation: $3,000 The EOC Family Planning is requesting $3,000 to continue its "Forty Wonderful Project" which provides basic reproductive health screening (pap smears, mammograms, etc.) to low income women. The Committee is recommending a grant of $3,000. Recommended funding is consistent with the prior year and will allow the EOC to fund the expenses identified in their proposal for the "Forty Wonderful Project". 12. EOC SENIOR HEALTH SCREENING 1993-94 Grant Amount: $2,700 1994-95 Request: $2,844 1994-95 Subcommittee Recommendation: $2,800 EOC Senior Health Screening is requesting $2,844 to fund over four units of service to 645 seniors in the form of health screening tests, counseling, and referral services. The Committee is recommending a grant of $2,800. Recommended funding is consistent with the prior year and will allow the EOC to provide a majority of the service units requested. 13. EOC CHILDCARE RESOURCE CONNECTION 1993-94 Grant Amount: $1,000 1994-95 Request: $4,000 1994-95 Subcommittee Recommendation: $1 ,000 The EOC Childcare Resource Connection is requesting $4,000 to fund a portion of the program's operating expenses ' (e.g., training supplies, workshop expenses, etc. for implementing an Infant/Toddler Training Series.). The project is devoted to recruiting and training licensed quality childcare providers. The Committee is recommending a grant of 51 ,000 which is consistent with the prior year's grant and will allow the group to fund a portion of the expenses identified in their proposal. 4 ���� 14. FAMILY SERVICES CENTER 1993-94 Grant Amount: $4,000 1994-95 Request: $6,000 1994-95 Subcommittee Recommendation: $4,000 The Family Services Center is requesting $6,000 to fund ongoing operations in connection with providing personal, marital, and family counseling to low and middle income families in San Luis Obispo. The Committee is recommending a grant of $4,000. Recommended funding is consistent with the prior year and will allow the organization to fund a majority of the expenses identified in the proposal. 15. FOOD BANK COALITION 1993-94 Grant Amount: $1,000 1994-95 Request: $2,500 1994-95 Committee Recommendation: $1,000 Food Bank Coalition is requesting $2,500 to fund operating costs, and direct food purchases in connection with providing their emergency food assistance program. The Committee is recommending a grant of 51,000. Recommended funding is consistent with the prior year and will allow the group to fund a portion of the expenses identified in their proposal. 16. GRASS ROOTS II 1993-94 Grant Amount: $3,000 1994-95 Request: $8,945 1994-95 Subcommittee Recommendation: $3,100 Grass Roots II is requesting $8,945 to fund rent, telephone, and utility expenses associated with their Program. Grass Roots II provides food, clothing, and crisis intervention to those that do not qualify for aid from other traditional social service agencies (those that "slip through the cracks"). The Committee is recommending a grant of $3,100 which is consistent with the prior year and will fund a portion of the program's fixed expenses (rent, telephone, utilities, etc.). 5 ?_/CR 17. HOSPICE 1993-94 Grant Amount: $4,200 1994-95 Request: $8,000 1994-95 Subcommittee Recommendation: $4,200 Hospice is requesting a grant of $8,000 to fund ongoing operations of their program for providing in-home care to the terminally ill. The Committee is recommending a grant of $4,200. Recommended funding is consistent with the prior year and will. fund a portion of the expenses identified in their proposal. 18. HOTLINE 1993-94 Grant Amount: $3,100 1994-95 Request: $5,000 1994-95 Subcommittee Recommendation: $3,200 Hotline is requesting $5,000 to fund ongoing operational costs associated with providing a twenty-four hour crisis intervention hotline (such as rent, telephone, volunteer training, and postage costs). The Committee is recommending a grant of $3,200 which is consistent with the prior year funding. Recommended funding will allow Hotline to fund a portion of the expenses identified in their proposal. 19. LIFE STEPS FOUNDATION 1993-94 Grant Amount: $1,000 1994-95 Request: $4,000 1994-95 Subcommittee Recommendation: $1,000 Life Steps is requesting $4,000 to continue support of a child development educational program geared toward children of female recovering alcoholics. The Committee is recommending a grant of $1,000 and will allow them to fund a portion of expenses identified in their proposal. 20. SAN LUIS OBISPO LITERACY COUNCIL 1993-94 Grant Amount: $1,500 1994-95 Request: $6,000 1994-95 Subcommittee Recommendation: $1,500 The San Luis Obispo Literacy Council is requesting $6,000 to purchase equipment and software to continue to support a downtown computer learning center. The Committee is recommending a grant of $1,500. Recommended funding will allow the Literacy Council to purchase a portion of the equipment needed to continue their program. 21 . LONG TERM CARE OMBUDSMAN SERVICES OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 1993-94 Grant Amount: $1,200 1994-95 Request: $1,750 1994-95 Subcommittee Recommendation: $1,200 Long Term Care Ombudsman Services is requesting $1,750 to fund volunteer recruitment, training costs, and community education. The Long Term Care Ombudsman Services include ensuring that quality care is provided to residents of long term care facilities, providing long term care placement information to the community and training reporters of suspected elder and dependent adult abuse. The Committee is recommending a grant of $1,200. Recommended funding will allow the organization to fund the majority of the expenses identified in their proposal. 22. MIDDLEHOUSE 1993-94 Grant Amount: $ 3,100 1994-95 Request: $10,000 1994-95 Subcommittee Recommendation: $ 3,200 Middlehouse is requesting $10,000 to support the ongoing operating of providing a recovery home for alcoholics and drug dependent men. The Committee is recommending a grant of $3,200. Recommended funding will allow the organization to fund some of the expenses identified in their proposal. 23. MENTAL HEALTH 1993-94 Grant Amount: $ -0- 1994-95 Request: $5,000 1994-95 Subcommittee Recommendation: $5,000 Mental Health is requesting $5,000 to provide materials for the Growing Grounds Farm which provides "on the job" vocational to the mentally disabled. 7 Al Mental Health has received funding in the past but did not apply for funds last year. Recommended funding is consistent with prior years (except 93-94) and will allow the organization to fund the expenses identified in their proposal. 24. RAPE CRISIS 1993-94 Grant Amount: $5,500 1994-95 Request: $8,300 1994-95 Subcommittee Recommendation: $5,500 Rape Crisis is requesting $8,300 to fund a portion of ongoing support costs (such as rent and utilities expenses) associated with providing twenty-four hour assistance to rape victims and their families. The Committee is recommending a grant of $5,500 which is consistent with prior year grant funding. 25. RSVP 1993-94 Grant Amount: $ 600 1994-95 Request: $ 800 1994-95 Subcommittee Recommendation: $ 500 The Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) is requesting a grant of $800 to fund costs associated with volunteer recruitment. Recommended funding is consistent with the prior year and will allow the group to fund a majority of expenses as identified in their proposal. 26. SALVATION ARMY 1993-94 Grant Amount: . $12,000 1.994-95 Request: $25,000 1994-95 Subcommittee Recommendation: $ 8,000 The Salvation Army is requesting $25,000 to support the direct services provided by the organization to the community (e.g., food, rental assistance, eviction prevention, bus tokens, transient lunches, etc.) ;. .The Committee is recommending a grant of $8,000. The recommended funding level has decreased from the prior year. The Commissioners feel there is a need for a more balanced distribution among agencies who provide services to citizens that meet the needs identified in the Human Needs Assessment. 8 ��A5 27. SLO LEGAL ALTERNATIVE 1993-94 Grant Amount: 5 -0- 1994-95 Request $1 ,020 1994-95 Subcommittee Recommendation: $ 500 SLO Legal Alternatives is requesting $1 ,020 for an incoming phone line at the Clinic and office supplies. (Currently the clinic phone can only be used to call out.) SLO Legal Alternative was organized in June 1993 to provide volunteer legal and community based mediation services for low and moderate income people. The Committee is recommending a grant of $500. This organization has never received Grants-In-Aid funding. 28. SENIOR NUTRITION PROGRAM 1993-94 Grant Amount: 5 -0- 1994-95 Request: $2,858 1994-95 Subcommittee Recommendation: $1,000 Senior Nutrition is requesting $2,858 for food, supplies and rent. The funds will assist in providing meals at the Anderson Hotel and Springfield Baptist Church and in the delivery of meals to the homebound elderly of the SLO community. Senior Nutrition has been providing senior citizen meals since 1991 . The Committee is recommending a grant of $1,000. This organization has never received Grants-In-Aid funding. 29. SENIOR PEER COUNSELING 1993-94 Grant Amount: $1,650 1994-95 Request: $1,650 1994-95 Subcommittee Recommendation: $1,650 Senior Peer Counseling is requesting $1,650 to fund their program that trains senior volunteers to be peer counselors of other seniors. The program will serve the psychological needs of seniors suffering from mild to moderate disorders, such as depression or anxiety. The Committee is recommending a grant of $1,650. Recommended funding is consistent with the prior year and will allow the group to fund a portion of the expenses identified in their proposal. 9 3-/j 30. VOICES FOR CHILDREN 1993-94 Grant Amount: $ 500 1994-95 Request: $ 750 1994-95 Subcommittee Recommendation: $ 500 Voices for Children is requesting $750 for training supplies and resource books for their library. Voices for Children recruits, trains and supervises volunteers to assist neglected and abused children in dependency proceedings in the Juvenile Court. The Committee is recommending a grant of $500. 31. WOMEN'S SHELTER 1993-94 Grant Amount: $ 8,000 1994-95 Request: $12,000 1994-95 Subcommittee Recommendation: $ 8,000 The Women's Shelter is requesting $12,000 to fund ongoing shelter program expenses. The Women's Shelter provides emergency shelter for women and children who are victims of domestic violence. The Committee is recommending a grant of $8,000 which is consistent with the prior year and will allow the group to fund the majority of their expenses identified in their proposal. 32. POLY PALS 1993-94 Grant Amount: $ 500 1994-95 Request: $ 750 1994-95 Subcommittee Recommendation: $ 500 Poly Pals is requesting $750 to fund ongoing expenses (e.g., advertising and printing costs) associated with providing a "big brother/big sister" organization using college students as volunteers. The Committee is recommending a grant of $500 which will allow Poly Pals to fund a majority of the expenses identified in their proposal. MRC:CMA".2P2 R 10 I CHMENT 2 HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION GRANTS-IN-AID CRITERIA FOR FUNDING 1. Applicant agencies must offer their services to all residents of San Luis Obispo, regardless of race, religion, ethnic background, mental or physical handicap, sexual orientation, or other socio-economic factors. 2. Applicant proposals must be compatible with theuc rrent goals and objectives of the Human Relations Commission and of the Grants-in-Aid program itself. These goals and objectives will be discussed in detail at the applicant information workshop. 3. Applicant proposals that request funding for staffing will not be considered. Grants-in-Aid funding is available for non-staffing related costs that are needed in connection with providing an agency's services. 4. Applicant agencies must possess and demonstrate the managerial and fiscal competence to effectively carry out the proposed program. 5. Applicant agencies must provide direct services to City residents and offer a clear description of how City funds will be used in those efforts. 6. Applicant agencies must secure funding from a variety of sources other than the City of San Luis Obispo. 7. Applicant agencies must demonstrate a high level of cooperation with existing related programs and other community resources. 8. Applicant agencies must demonstrate a high level of volunteer participation. 9. Applicant agencies must demonstrate a high level of financial need. ATTACHMENT 3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 1. . NOT ENOUGH AFFORDABLE HOUSING 2. HOMELESSNESS 3. UNEMPLOYMENT 4. LACK OF AFFORDABLE MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE 5. DRUG AND ALCOHOL ABUSE PROBLEMS 6. LACK OF AFFORDABLE, QUALITY CHILD CARE 7: TEEN PREGNANCY (PROBLEMS ARE RANKED WITH THE WORST AT THE TOP.) GRASS ROOTS I I INC . army 13276 ARCHER STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401 HATE ING -9 AGENDA (805) 544-2333 PEOpcE rl+fi�" ITEM #__� EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PEGGY FOWLER RE-CEIVEL) �'UN3.7 June 7 , 1994 CITY COUrvCf, SAN LUIS OBISPD,CA The Board of Directors of Grass Roots II , Inc. requests your reconsideration of the Human Relations Commissions rec- commendations of Grants-in Aid. Grass Roots meets all of the GRANTS IN AID CRITERIA FOR FUNDING. Attachment 2 .� On behalf of the clients we serve, we request that more funds be allocated to issues identified by the NRC' s Human Need Assessment. Attachment 3 .* And, we request more funding be allocated to Grass RootsII as meeting the criteria. . .specifically compatibility with the current goals and objectives of the HRC and the Grants-in Aid program itself . We request more funding be allocated as Grass Roots does demonstrate a high level of financial need. Grass Roots services address the issue of affordable housing because we provide perishable food items (unavailable elsewhere) which stretch the budget of low income families . Grass Roots services to the homeless include information , referral, crisis intervention, advocacy, support services , encouragement, involvement, and specifically clothing. There are not other agencies to supply whole wardrobes and on going changes of clothing to the numbers of people served by Grass Roots . A survey of homeless folks may list jobs and affordable housing as top priorities , but these are long range issues. Finding housing and jobs require clean clothing. Grass Roots is the main sorce of clothing for hundreds of homeless clients! Year to date statistics show six hundred and four homeless clients ( 604 ) , some of them provided services dozens of times . That is an average of fifty ( 50 ) new homeless clients each month in addition to the on going case load. *CAO AGENDA REPORT Your cons 1 ❑ CDD DIR c appreciat AO 13FIN DIR V�4CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF Aanldivieso, President - TTORNEY ❑ PW DIR ICLERWOFdG ❑ POUCE CHF ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR ❑/C R D FILE ❑ 9L DIR QUPIPERS DIR Central Coast Support Services Sponsored By: Nipomo Community Medical Center June 7, 1994 Members of the City Council Central Coast Support Services supports your increased funding of Grass Roots II, Inc. We have a close and mutual relationship. Our clients are in need of their services . Grass Roots provides services to hundreds of our cities homeless citizens and homeless clients with substance abuse problems. They work with clients even we are un- able to, finding other placements and providing on-going support and services . Our clients are dependent on the food, clothing, and household items provided by Grass Roots throughout their struggle for self sufficiency. Our community would be much the poorer if this agency were unable to continue operating their facility. Additional monies need to be allocated to the most impor- tant issues of Homelessness and the needs of the homeless. 1186 Marsh Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 546-0847 1 IE 0880INDUSTRIALWAY SAN LL IS OBISPO CALIFORNIA 93401 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION a SINCE 1965 (805)5+1-4355 April 20, 1994 TO: Members, City Human Relations Commission FROM: Gwen Guyre, Director of Homeless Programs RE: LETTER OF SUPPORT, GRASSROOTS II I would like to acquaint you with the integral relationship our Homeless Shelter Program has with Grassroots Il. There are several aspects to this relationship that bear mentioning. 1. Grassroots provides the majority of needed clothing to our clients free of charge. We refer many donors who want to clothe the homeless to Grassroots because of the lack of storage at our facility, but perhaps more importantly, we lack staff to oversee the sorting and distribution of the donations. 2. Grassroots utilizes the volunteer labors of many community members, most particularly, the homeless. Many clients of our program say that the hours that they spend at Grassroots anchor them to a sense of worth and to a part of the community. This is so extremely necessary for all of us. 3. For its entire existence, Grassroots has survived with barely enough to keep its doors open - on a "wing and a prayer". This lack of financial support is insufferable, from my viewpoint. The organization provides a vital service to people most desperately in need, and have become so thoroughly integrated into our community, that perhaps we take them for granted. I don't, and I know that it costs money to run even a "grassroots" organization. Able and dedicated as Peggy Fowler is, magic may be outside her scope of talents. Please see your way clear to significantly support this organization so that the doors to Grassroots may stay open. .Child Care Resource Connection.F_mergeng Services•FnerQv Conservation.TF atheii_ation Servirns. .Family Planning Senices.Head Start.Homeless Sbelter.Migrant Child Care.Senior Health Screening.Teen Parenning Program. United Way William Beeth Pounder THE SALVAr iON ARMY 7 Bramwell H. Mislay SAN LUIS OBISPO •, Center for Worship and Service.. Commissioner "VAT%O Paul Hader Terrhorial Commander U.Colonel Bruce Harvey June 71' 1994 Divisional Commander: Captain _ Lanny French Commanding Dfficer T& V ICI'n.It May Concern: Thomas A. Salerno Advisory Board Chairman Over the"years, Grass Roots has served the neediest population of the poor and homeless people in meeting their most basic needs of food, clothing and emergency intervention. Please.continue funding this most deserving program-- without Grass. Roots, the poor of the City of. San Luis Obispo will suffer and the City itself will be diminished in soul. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Toni Flynn S.A. Homeless Project Coordinator 09OPortners - In Serfiie To Others LVdbed 815 Islay Street • P.O. Box 1407;• San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 (805) 5442401 •. FAX (805) 544-2533 . ;ETING9 AGENDA Fu„oundt has I DATE A M# San Luis Obispo California 93406 (805)543-1034 -- — RECEIVED 9 1 MA •LUISI 'OBIS�� JUN - 3 1994 �e'TOLQSA� ciry c UVN SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA June 2, 1994.. Dear Council Member, On behalf of Old Mission San Luis Obispo parish,I would like to request that the City Council reconsiderthe allotment of funds to Grass Roots II. In its listing of priorities, the, Human Relations Commission listed first, affordable housing and second, the homeless.These two needs are the very things that are addressed by Grass Roots II. In their providing of both food and,clothing to the people on the streets they are often able to release enough money in the family forthe people to get housing. Right now there are several agencies involved in the feeding of people in need and each is stretched to the limits. I do not know what the effect will be on other agencies if Grass Roots is no Iongerable to provide food. If one turns to the providing of clothing there are only two agencies in town that do that now. The Old Mission Thrift Shop and Grass Roots II. The Old Mission'is not able to completely fill this need and the C ' loss of the work of Grass Roots in ,this area will greatly effect the ability of the homeless to be clothed. For some such a situation could easily render them homeless because of the added pressure on their income. There are many of the agencies in the city with many sources of income, although all those working with the homeless are stretched to the limits right now. Grass Roots II depends for support primarily on the city funds and the shrinking of these funds is going to errode the chances of survival for a vital part of our city's services fo the homeless. In Mary's Son, Rev. Jim Nisbet Pastor, Old Mission Parish CC:.Peg Pinard o 4 13NCCDD DIR Penny Rappa ❑ RN DIR Dave Romero ❑ FIRE CHIEF Allan Settle ❑ PW DIR 5Mt9WW=V Q ❑ POUCECHF Bill Roalman ❑ MGWTEAM ❑ REG DIR ❑. ❑ UTIL DIR IE(PERS DIR city Of San LUIS OBISPO ME 7-kq E: COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER: Arnoldonas, mmuni y Development Director /7,a BY: Judith Lautner, sociate Planner SUBJECT: TA 33-94: Amendments to second residential unit regulations to allow detached, larger units in some cases, change the parking requirement, and make other minor changes. CAO RECOMMENDATION Pass to print an ordinance concurring with the negative declaration of environmental impact and amending the zoning regulations, to 1) allow larger, detached second residential units through an exception process, 2) amend the parking requirement, 3) add findings for approval of units and exceptions, 4) delete the limitation on expansion of existing floor area, and 5) correct some typographical errors; as recommended by the Planning Commission. DISCUSSION Backcround The applicant wants to add a second dwelling to her lot, over an existing garage that is detached from the primary residence. She also would like the unit to be larger than the maximum 450 square feet currently allowed. The second unit regulations require that second units be attached to the house, and provide for no exception process for this particular requirement (although there is a process for allowing larger units) . Therefore, the applicant is requesting amendments to the second unit regulations to allow detached, larger units. Staff is recommending additional changes. Ordinance amendments are reviewed by the Planning Commission and acted upon by the City Council. The Planning Commission reviewed the request on April 27 and May 11 and recommended approval (5-1, Cross voting no) of amendments, as modified by the Commission (see attached May 11 Planning Commission staff report) . The dissenting commissioner wanted to see additional language added to the ordinance restricting rents on second units, and possibly limiting the number of persons allowed to live in these units (see minutes, attached) . Project description See description in attached Planning Commission report. Evaluation 1. Pindings. State law requires that zoning texts and maps be consistent with adopted general plans. As noted in the attached April 27 Planning Commission report and discussed further in the environmental initial study, the second unit regulations and the proposed changes are consistent with the �oin���i►�Illfl�ll�ln ���� city of San Luis OBlspo 39PUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Amendments to second residential unit regulations Page 2 City's adopted and proposed Land Use and Housing Elements. To adopt the proposed changes, the City Council is required to make findings that the amendments are consistent with the General Plan, and that the City Council concurs with the Negative Declaration of environmental impact. These findings can be made. 2. Planning Commission action. Each amendment is discussed in the attached April 27 and May it Planning Commission reports. For a thorough understanding of what was requested by the applicant, and what was recommended by staff, Councilmembers should read these reports as well as the discussion of the Planning Commission's action below: Larger size. detached units. The Planning Commission supported allowing larger and detached units in special circumstances. That commission felt that there could be compatibility issues if detached, larger units were permitted in every case. Therefore, the Commission recommends retaining an exception process for units larger than 450 square feet, and recommends creating an exception process to allow detached units when special physical conditions exist. Parking. The current regulations say that parking for second units is to be provided in accordance with property development standards. In the R-1 zone, two spaces are required per dwelling, regardless of size. In the other residential zones, parking is based on the number of bedrooms in a unit, and one space is required for a studio apartment (450 square feet) . What this means is that two spaces are required for a second unit in the R-1 zone, while only one space is required in all other residential zones. Staff recommended correcting this inequity by requiring one space in all cases. The Planning Commission, concerned that larger units would mean more people and more cars, recommends that one space be required for units up to 450 square feet in area, and two spaces for units larger than 450 square feet. New findings. During its review of the amendments, the Commission discovered that specific findings, beyond those required for any use permit, were not required to be made to approve a second unit. The Commission liked the findings included in the city of Pacifica's second unit regulations, and recommends that some of Pacifica's findings be incorporated into our regulations. '"N�i ��ulflilllllpi ��Ill city of San Ltiis osIspo 3M.MUNCIL AGENDA REPORT en eats to second residential unit regulations Page 3 Second-story units. The city of Santa Cruz prohibits second- story units when the primary unit is all one-story. The Planning Commission felt this would be a good provision, but recognized that some site features, such as uneven topography or existence of a creek, may make such a requirement unreasonable in some cases. Therefore, the Commission recommends inclusion of such a prohibition, but allowing exceptions to be made by the Architectural Review Commission. Percentage increase. The Planning Commission agreed with staff that the current percentage limitation on increases in existing floor area serves no useful purpose, and recommends that it be eliminated. Other changes. The section requiring architectual review is recommended by staff and the Commission to be changed to be consistent with architectural review requirements for other projects. See the attached report for an explanation of the change. The Commission also pointed out some typographical errors. 3. Mitigation measures. The initial study includes two mitigation measures: that the City Council should 1) discuss the potential for many second units to be added to a small geographic area, and alternative means of limiting impacts from this possibility; and 2) consider adding a requirement for lockable bicycle storage in second units, or other means to encourage use of alternative transportation. These items are discussed in the April 27 Planning Commission staff report in some detail, on page 4, under the heading, "Some neighborhood preservation strategies". The Planning Commission discussed these issues and concluded that there is little potential for large numbers of second units to be added to the city, much less to a neighborhood. There was no support for requiring lockable bicycle storage, because traffic impacts were determined to be insignificant overall. If the City Council finds that the proposed changes will have a significant impact on the density or traffic in neighborhoods, and amends the initial study by imposing additional mitigation, then the ordinance will need to be revised to reflect this decision. 4 . citizen concerns. Staff has received letters from two citizens and one citizens' group opposing most of the recommended changes (attached) . Generally, the opposition is based on a perception . that second units will increase the density in neighborhoods to a degree that will be noticeable, and that any relaxation of existing regulations will create �-3 ���►►►�►�►►�Illlllflll��► ��UIU City of San Luis OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Amendments to second residential unit regulations Page 4 significant compatibility problems. The Planning Commission's recommendations are a response to citizen concerns, as well as a recognition of the needs of applicants for second units. The Commission noted that very few legal second units have been built in the ten years the regulations have been in effect (although the April 27 PC report says 18 have been built, further investigation determined that six of these were in fact second residences on large lots, a different category) , and that the likelihood is small that a large number of legal second units will be built in this city. The regulations allow these units only on conforming lots, where the primary unit is a conforming building. This means that second units would not be permitted on most lots in many older neighborhoods, where lot sizes are smaller than now required and where parking is not up to current standards or .houses are built closer to the property line than is now permitted. The regulations also require additional parking for second units. These requirements have so far prevented these units from having a significant detrimental impact on neighborhoods, and should continue to do SO. Some of the opposition appears to come from general discontent with other regulations or existing situations, such as the high-occupancy residential regulations or illegal second units, which do not have additional parking and where the owner does not live on the property. The proposed amendments will have no effect on other regulations, but it is possible that some illegal units could be converted to legal units, if all standards can be met. In those cases, the primary issue raised by residents (lack of parking) would be. addressed. Citizen Participation Special notice of the first Planning Commission hearing was given to Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) and the San Luis Drive Neighborhood Association due to their interest in the character of residential neighborhoods. In addition, staff followed-up the notice with a phone call and offered copies of the staff report before it became available to the Planning Commission. Finally staff offered to have a meeting with these groups to discuss the applicant's desired text changes. A meeting was held with RQN to discuss the changes before the matter went before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission continued the matter to May 11, 1994 to allow staff time to modify the ordinance package to address Commission concerns. Once revised language was complete, staff phoned a representative of RQN, San Luis Drive Neighborhood ����► ��IIIIIpppn ���U city of San LUIS OBISp0 Sim QpUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Amendments to second residential unit regulations Page 5 Association, and the Old Town Neighborhood Association and offered advanced copies of the revised amendments. Again, staff offered to meet with these neighborhood groups to explain the text changes which was attended by representatives of RQN. A representative from the San Luis Drive Neighborhood Association spoke at the Planning commission hearing expressing her concerns over "loosening" of the existing second dwelling unit regulations. RQN was not present at the hearing so staff presented their detailed concerns to the Commission verbally based on their meeting with staff. Notice of the Council hearing was also sent to these three neighborhood groups. Early copies of the Commission recommended language was made available for neighborhood group review. Attached: Draft ordinance April 27 and May 11 Planning Commission reports and attachments (includes environmental initial study) Draft Planning Commission minutes - April 27 and May 11, 1994 Letters in opposition to changes ORDINANCE NO. (1994 SERIES) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNIT REGULATIONS TO ALLOW LARGER AND DETACHED SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNITS, CHANGE THE PARKING REQUIREMENT, AND MAKE OTHER MINOR CHANGES (TA 33-94) WHEREAS, the City Council has held a hearing to consider the zoning text amendment request TA 33-94, amending the second residential unit regulations as shown on Exhibit A, attached; and WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings; Findings• 1. The proposed amendments conform to the general plan. 2. An initial study of environmental impacts was prepared by the Community Development Department on April 14, 1994, that describes environmental impacts associated with the text changes. The Community Development Director, on April 19, 1994, reviewed the environmental initial study and granted a Negative Declaration of environmental impact, with mitigation. The initial study concludes that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, and the City Council hereby adopts the Negative Declaration and finds that it reflects the independent judgement of the City Council. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental determination. The City council finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration, with mitigation, of environmental impact adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed zoning text change, and reflects the independent judgement of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration. SECTION 2. The zoning text amendment TA 33-94, as shown on Exhibit A, attached, is hereby approved. SECTION 3 . A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of councilmembers voting for and against, shall be published once, at least (3) days prior to its final passage, in AJ Ordinance no. (1994 Series) TA 108-93: Citywide Page 2 the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this city. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the day of 1994, on motion of seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: ditV A orn y- � PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT Chapter 17.21 SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNITS Sections: 17.21.010 Purpose. 17.21.020 Definitions. 17.21.030 General requirements. 17.21.040 Performance standards. 17.21.050 Procedure requirements. 17.21.060 Periodic review - Violations. 17.21.010 Purpose. A. This chapter is intended to implement Government Code Section 65852(.1), (.2), which allows the city to conditionally permit second dwelling units in residential zones. B. The city intends to regulate second units as permitted by Section 65852.2(a) of the state Government Coe, and other applicable sections. C. The city recognizes opportunities to implement certain policies and programs of the city housing element of the general plan by providing for and regulating second units. D. Implementation of this chapter is meant to expand housing opportunities for low-income and moderate-income or elderly households by increasing the number of rental units available within existing neighborhoods. Second units are intended to provide liveable housing at less cost while providing greater security, companionship and family support for the occupants. (Ord. 1085 - 1 Ex. A (part), 1987; Ord. 1004 - 1(part), 1984: prior code - 9900) 17.21.020 Definitions For the purpose of this chapter, the following words and phrases have the meanings given them in this section: A. "Administrative use permit" is defined as defined by Chapter 17.58 of this code. B. "Director" means the director of the community. development department or his designate. C. "Nonconforming lot" is defined as defined by Chapter 17.12 of this code. D. "Nonconforming use" is defined as defined by Chapter 17.10 of this code: E. "Primary unit" means an existing single-family residential structure that conforms with all zoning regulations in effect, including this chapter. F. "Second unit" means an attached ' r.-:..:de :ach ed dwelling unit which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and complies with all provisions of this chapter. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation on the same parcel as the primary unit is sited. (Ord. 1004 - 1 (part), 1984: prior code - 9910) 17.21.030 General requirements A. Application. Where this chapter does not contain a particular type of standard or procedure, conventional zoning standards and procedures shall apply. B. Areas Where Second Units are Allowed. Upon approval of an administrative use permit and upon meeting other requirements of this section, second units may be established in the following zones: R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4. C. Areas Prohibited. Second units shall not be established in any condominium or planned development project, or any mobile home subdivision, or trailer park, and under no circumstances shall a second unit be allowed, where in the opinion of the director, a resource.deficiency exists as defined by Chapter 2.44 of this code. D. Owner Occupancy. Either the primary unit or second unit must be owner-occupied. E. No Subdivision of Property. No subdivision of property shall be allowed where a second unit has been established unless the subdivision meets all requirements of zoning and subdivision regulations. Nothing in this section shall prohibit joint ownership of the property where a second unit has been established. F. Sale of Property. This section shall also apply to new owners of property where a second unit has been established if the property is sold'. All conditions of the use permit, restrictive covenants and other contractual agreements with the city, shall apply to the property and new owners. G. Unit Type Allowed. A second unit shall be attached to the primary unit and located within the living area of the primary unit. Wheney-F-a•iii irrefcca `c-Rr-riwr-arca Tt PJa�tanrrtg,Comrmssio may, grallt en excepttor to this requirement toJlairii `a �,,,.,� �tc�ose of this.chapter is served: �� Q-� Z.yBeoause of phys+cal s+te features, development of';.an ' attached secontl'•un�t +s sf�uptvraClwgnfeas+ble'+n th+s part+ctitar case, H. Size of Second Unit. The gross.floor area of the second unit shall not exceed four hundred fifty square feet. The p• lanning eCommission may authorize an exception to this standard by use permit upon finding that: 1 . The purpose of this chapter is served!; 2nrt's size and deS�gr� are aestFetiCeliy eamPat+ble v+r+Th the surxoundin a'S+ rte�hborhood and will not tletract from the s+p�fe fam�lyMcharacter and appearance'of x #,�„�rUA���iO f rya r@�F: cord s Qnr°antis }Second staty un+ts ars prohibited v�rhere tie pr+mary un+t+s ali A < �ye=story. Tle.;,.Arch�tectural.tRev�ew ;Corntrt+ssaan.. r. fl�rector may„.authorize;,;°art is ' Y O <f. f :nnnr •, r... w ...n:. 4:. :..:.:.... v:..:.: 'F ....... $xcepttanto tFtrs"staxtdard upon find+ng that: , .. ...n...:.. ... 1. .. ..........•.:v'�:iii:.i':.':v:::[.)'.}:i::::...:)>:iv::::::::}i:.'ii::::.�.::...::.).�'.�:i::i'.,.,...}::�::+:`::.gin:::::?::':::::i'v)":)::!.:):»:>:.:.!.:,.::..}...:.:. ��e second-story second un+t is aestheticatiq pompatrbie +rv�th tde pr+mary unit and . ...... �hee��hbt�rhooci (Ord. 1085 - 1 Ex. A (part), 1987; Ord. 1034 - 1, 1985: Ord. 1004 - 1 (part), 1984: prior code - 9920) 17.21.040 Performance standards. A. Parcel Requirements. No second unit shall be established on a parcel or parcels determined by the director to be nonconforming as defined by the zoning and subdivision regulations. B. Use Requirements. No second unit shall be established where the director has determined that the primary unit or any other structure or use on the property is nonconforming as defined by Chapter 17.14 of this code. C. Design Standards. Second units shall conform to all applicable zoning regulations .......... such as height, yards, @, a rj building coverages ete., except for density and :�r'lM. requirements as defined b zonin re ulations. .Or'�e ` ar�ti� "'>5' aci~<s�a�1'b`s �,rt adrJ+t+on to those spaces required, for fhe pnrnarY dwell+r�g;. 1. Second units shall conform to all applicable building and construction codes. 2. Nothing in this section prohibits applicants from requesting exceptions or variances Aj-10 from the strict interpretation of. zoning regulations to the extent allowed by said regulations for any other use. '• 3. Second units shall be designed as to provide separate living conditions and provide a safe and convenient environment for the occupants. 4. Second units shall also be architecturally and functionally compatible with the primary unit. (Ord. 1004 - 1 (part), 1984; prior code - 9930) 17.21.050 Procedure requirements. Prior to filing building plans with the city building department, the following shall be met: A. Permit Requirement. The applicant shall apply for and obtain an administrative use permit as defined by zoning regulations. B. Architectural Review Required. All requests shall receive architectural review in accordance with the adopted architectural review commission ordinance and guidelines. The director shall determine, upon receiving g complete application, whether the project is declared '- st: 'eticia t g fiGa t minor or incidental or h I.- be forwarded to the architectural review commssion for review. shall C. Application Contents. All proposed second unit requests shall be by formal application for administrative use permitand ehiteet .�YVIVI pITep1e PV• D. Additional Requirements. 1. Owner#s Agreement with the City. The owner shall enter into an agreement with the city, on a form approved by the city attorney, agreeing that the property will be owner-occupied. If owner occupancy is not possible, then the use will terminate, and the structure will be returned to its original condition to the satisfaction of the director. Property owners receiving approvals for second units and establishing the use pursuant to this section shall also agree to reimburse the city for costs of all necessary enforcement actions. 2. Recorded Agreement Affecting Use of Property. The applicant shall submit an agreement that will provide constructive notice to all future owners of the property, of the use and owner occupancy restrictions affecting the property. Upon approval of the administrative use permit and architectural review, the applicant shall prepare the final copy of the agreement for the director's review in a form suitable for recording in the office of the county recorder. E. Appeal. Appeal procedures for this section shall be the same as set forth for a 13, r!4 *wlt 4 611 s administrative use permits as defined in the city zoning regulations. (Ord. 1004 - 1 (part), 1984: prior code - 9940) 9} >: To grant a use permii `fora e.cond residential unit, the �irecfor or Plann,r 'g air�iss� r� o'Fon appeal,.the C)ty Council, must make the fotfow�ng f�ndin:gs .:� 1,`7he:unrt Avisually Integrated and aesthetically compat�blewith he main dvveAing :}..:... }::.. ....e . y n yds ....... .. :. .< Tt#te location°arid ortentatic�n of the second unit will}not mMriah: reduce th— irivacy othervv�se enaoyed 6y residents of adionro ing pperties; n.::..yn:.n..:.:.. v:...............create`eXC@SStue grovr3d coverage or overutilrzaton of the w.. a .fin ompar�son with t) a ext Ern9 at#ern n the surroundin neighborhool.d 17.21.060 Periodic review - Violations. A. Periodic Review. Use permits #@ shall-die-subject to review after the first year and each three years thereafter. It shall be the responsibility of the property owner to initiate the review and pay applicable fees. B. Violations. Violation of any of the provisions shall be basis for revocation of the use permit in accordance with Chapter 17.72. (Ord. 1004 - 1 (part), 1984: prior code - 9950) CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISWN STAFF REPORT ITEM # 1 BY: Judith Lautner, iate Planner MEETING DATE: April 27, 1994 FILE NUMBER: TA 3J 4 PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide SUBJECT: Amendments to second residential unit regulations, to allow detached, larger units, and to change the parking and periodic review requirements. RECONZIENDATION Recommend adoption of staff-recommended changes to the City Council. BACKGROUND Situation The applicant wants to add a second dwelling to her lot, over an existing garage that is detached from the primary residence. She also would like the unit to be larger than the maximum 450 square feet currently allowed. The second unit regulations require that second units be attached to the house, and provide for no exception process for this particular requirement (although there is a process for allowing larger units). Therefore, the applicant is requesting amendments to the second unit regulations to allow detached, larger units. Staff is recommending additional changes. Data Summary Address: Citywide Applicant: Bertha Dodge Representative: Robert Fisher Zoning: affects all residential zones General Plan: all residential designations Environmental status: Negative declaration, with mitigation, granted by Director on Project action deadline: No mandatory deadlines for legislative actions Site description The second unit regulations apply to all lots containing single detached dwellings in all residential zones. Proiect Description The applicant is requesting 1. that the second unit be allowed to be detached from the primary dwelling; 2. that the percentage of existing floor area that is allowed to be expanded be increased from 10% to 51%; 3. that the maximum allowable size of the second unit be increased from 450 square feet to 800 square feet. TA 33-94 Second Unit Regulations amendments Page 2 Community Development Department staff is recommending instead: 1. that the second unit be allowed to be detached from the primary dwelling; 2. that the percentage of existing floor area that is allowed to be expanded be increased from 10% to 15%, or eliminated altogether; 3. that the maximum allowable size of the second unit be increased from 450 square feet to 640 square feet; 4. that one parking space be required for second units, rather than requiring that parting "conform to all zoning regulations" standards; 'S. that the requirement for periodic use permit review be eliminated and replaced with a note that the use permit may be reviewed if reasonable complaints are received. EVALUATION 1. What is a second unit? A "second unit", as defined by state law, is "an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family dwelling is situated." The City's definition says a second unit is "attached", but is otherwise virtually identical to the state definition. 2. They are not "second residences". The City allows the development of more than one dwelling on a parcel in the R-1 zone, with approval of an administrative use permit. Density restrictions .apply. In other words, a second residence may be placed on an R-1 lot only when the lot contains at least 12,446 square feet (up to 7 dwellings per acre are allowed in the R-1 zone). There are no occupancy or size restrictions for such residences. "Second residential units", on the other hand, are exempt from density standards. Either the primary or the secondary unit must be owner-occupied, and at present the units are restricted in size to 450 square feet, and must be attached to the main residence. 3. Some history. The State passed a law in 1982, that allowed local agencies to adopt ordinances regulating second units or prohibiting them altogether. If such an ordinance were not adopted by July 1983, the law said that cities would have to accept applications for second units, and approve them if they met specific standards listed in the law. few jurisdictions have prohibited second units. The state law requires certain findings to be made to prohibit such units. According to Section 65852.2.(c) of the Government Code, the City must find that an ordinance allowing second units "may limit.housing opportunities of the region" and further, that "specific adverse impacts on the public health, safety, and welfare" would result from implementation of such an ordinance. It would be difficult for this City to make legally-defensible findings of this nature. TA 33-94 Second Unit Regulations amendments Page 3 In February 1984, the City adopted regulations for "second residential units". The regulations were amended the following vear by the addition of a size limit. Since 1984, 25 applications for second units have been received. Of these, seven expired, were withdrawn, or were denied. Eighteen were approved. 4. What are the current requirements? The City's second unit regulations allow only units that are attached to the primary dwelling, and limit the size to 450 square feet. When the primary dwelling is to be enlarged to create a second unit, that increase can not exceed ten percent of the existing floor area. The regulations sav that second units "shall conform to all applicable zoning regulations such as height, yards, parkins...". This means that in the R-1 zone, two parking spaces are required for a second dwelling (every dwelling in the R-1 zone requires two spaces, regardless of size), while in higher-density zones, one space is required. The ordinance requires use permit review every three years, after the first year, to assure that all conditions are being met. (The full text of the regulations, including other requirements, is attached to this report.) 5. Why change them? The applicant wants to be able to move into a second unit, about 800 square feet in area, over an existing garage, and allow her family to live in the primary dwelling. The regulations do not allow second units to be detached under any circumstances, although they do allow for exceptions to the 450-square-foot size limit. Therefore, she has requested changes to the regulations to allow detached and larger units. (Please note that, although the applicant has submitted packets of information on her particular site to the Commission, her specific situation is not being reviewed at this time. The application is solely for revisions to the ordinance. If changes are approved, she may apply for a use permit under the new regulations.) The intent of the second unit regulations is "to expand housing opportunities for low-income and moderate-income or elderly households by increasing the number of rental units available within existing neighborhoods. Second units are intended to provide liveable housing at less cost while providing greater security, companionship and family support for the occupants." (section 17.21.010.D) It appears that the existing regulations may be unduly restrictive, in light of the above purpose and the number of applications received. Few low-density lots in the city can accommodate four parking spaces. The ten-percent restriction on expansion favors larger homes, which can be more easily divided to create a separate unit within the living space. The size restriction limits the use of these units to those who are more transient or have few possessions. Staff supports detached units for those situations where attached units are infeasible or impractical. Detached "granny units" above garages are also a typical component of "neo-traditional" neighborhoods. Staff is recommending a 640-square-foot limit because it is a size that allows for a separate bedroom, but is not overly-large and could therefore likely fit on most lots. Staff supports elimination of the ten-percent floor increase limitation because such a limitation tends to prevent owners of smaller homes from having second units. The recommendation for elimination of mandatory 3-year review comes from the Hearing Officer's determination that such review is unnecessary to determine compliance with conditions and it adds paperwork that costs the applicant and the City. The parking space requirement is consistent with requirements of other cities and reasonable, given the type and size of unit. TA 33-94 Second Unit Regulations amendments Page 4 6. What might conte of the changes? The number of applicatioes for second units might be expected to rise as a result of the recommended changes. However, the ordinance would still include requirements that would prevent its use for purposes that were not intended: the owner-occupancy requirement assures that the property owner lives on the lot; the parking requirement assures that at least three parking spaces will be available; the 640-square-foot limit will allow for longer-term tenancy as well as occupancy of the smaller unit by elderly property owners, such as the applicant. 7. General plan consistency and neighborhoods. The second unit regulations are consistent with General Plan Land Use and Housing Element policies, as noted in the attached initial study. The adopted and proposed elements do not specifically address second units, nor are any of the policies or programs in conflict with provision for such units. However, during review of the draft Housing Element, the City Council deleted recommended programs to encourage such units as a means to meet housing goals. This action and Council discussion suggests that some Councilmembers see these units as a threat to neighborhood preservation and enhancement. The city contains approximately 8,300 detached single dwellings. Eighteen of these, or about 0.2%, contain legal attached second units. The number of illegal attached or detached units is unknown, but enforcement records (averaging 50 units abated per year over the past four years) indicate that the number is far larger than the number of legal units. It may be the presence of lots containing illegal units, which in most cases are not owner-occupied and often do not contain any off-site parking spaces, that gives "second units" a bad name among' some citizens. The proposed changes are not likely to have major effects on the number of illegal units. They will make it easier for citizens to create (or legalize) a unit for elderly parents or teenage children, or a small rental unit to help subsidize house payments. Although our ordinance does not control rents, it is apparent that these small units do provide economical rental housing. 8. Some neighborhood preservation strategies. There are some potential negative effects that may come of proposed changes. The following paragraphs outline the concerns and what may be done to address them, if considered significant: Too many units in one neighborhood. The 18 approved units are to be found in virtually every residential neighborhood in the city. Four of the 18, however, are in one newer subdivision: Tract 858, the 48-lot subdivision on Prefumo Canyon Road at the southerly city limit. This subdivision contains large homes on large lots, making it ideal for the addition of attached second units. Most of the four were developed as homes for elderly parents or other family members. At this time, these four appear to pose no threat to this neighborhood. In other parts of the city, several units on one block may lead to noticeable increases in traffic, especially if the units are rented to young persons with automobiles. This is an unlikely situation, but it may still be advisable to consider ways to deal with such a case: a. The regulations could include additional amendments to require separate, lockable bicycle storage for new units, or additional parking spaces could be required in parking-permit neighborhoods. The regulations could contain spacing requirements, or a total number per block, to prevent the development of second units on every lot. Staff does not support 14 •la TA 33-94 Second Unit Regulations amendments Page 5 spacing or block limitations, because such requirements can place staff in the awkward position of allowing some units and prohibiting others simply because they applied at a later date. The city of Santa Cruz currently has spacing requirements (units are allowed to be no closer than 300' apart) but is in the process of amendins the recyulations to eliminate that provision and instead limit the total number of approvals per year. b. The Hearing Officer can add requirements for such bicycle storage or additional parking on a case-by-case basis. This alternative would require no additional amendments. A change in character. If detached units are allowed, one concern may be with the addition of units above garages. Where the primary house is already two-story, such an addition would be consistent in character. Where the primary house is one-story, a two-story addition would be more prominent. The city of Santa Cruz prohibits second-story additions when the primary dwelling is all one-story. Our ordinance could include such a provision. One-story detached units are usually going to be located behind the primary dwelling, and are not likely to have any impact on the overall neighborhood character. Many homes in the community have accessory buildings, such as shops or art studios. Noise. Additional units mean additional people, and maybe more noise. Noise has not been a concern with the existing legal units, perhaps because the property owner lives on the site and can monitor it. 9. How does our ordinance compare with others? Staff contacted eight other jurisdictions (seven cities and one county) in doing research for this report. Of the eight, one has prohibited second units altogether (Monterey), one effectively prohibits such units by limiting where they can be placed (Santa Barbara City), and the six remaining cities and county (Grass Valley, Chico, Santa Barbara County, Arroyo Grande, Santa Cruz, and Palo Alto) allow detached units larger than 450 square feet (size limits range from 400 SF for a 4,000-SF lot to 1,000 SF for a larger lot, with the most common limit 640 SF). Most of these cities require one parking space for the second unit. Regulations were customized to the types of lots and residential zones in the particular jurisdiction. A large number of other jurisdictions have ordinances allowing second units. These eight were chosen for similarities (small college cities, "quality-conscious" communities, central coast area) and for differences (size, location). No scientific methods were used in making these choices. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission may recommend denial of the amendments. If the City Council agrees with the recommendation, then the current ordinance will remain in effect. The Planning Commission may recommend approval of changes different from what the applicant or staff are recommending. The Planning Commission may recommend adoption of an ordinance eliminating the second unit ordinance altogether and prohibiting second units. Special findings must be made. If the Commission *47 TA 33-94 Second Unit Regulations amendments Page 6 is considering this alternative, staff recommends that the hearing be continued to allow Community Development and legal staff to develop findings that may be defensible. The Commission may continue action. Direction should be given to staff. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The request was not routed to departments, although the Utilities Division was consulted in the development of the environmental initial study. Attached: Environmental initial study, including applicant's request and legislative draft of staff-recommended amendments (includes complete text of current regulations) CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMIrSSION STAFF REPORT ITEM x 2 BY: Judith Lautner��Associate Planner MEETING DATE: May 11, 1994 FILE NUMBER: TA�33-94 PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide SUBJECT: Amendments to second residential unit regulations to allow detached, larger units in some cases, and to change the parldng requirement. RECOIVEMMNDATION Recommend adoption of changes, as modified by the Commission, to the City Council. BACKGROUND Situation The Planning Commission first reviewed proposed changes to the second residential unit regulations on April 27, 1994, and continued action, with direction to staff. Staff has followed this direction in the development of changes to the proposed amendments. Data Summary Address: Citywide Applicant: Bertha Dodge Representative: Robert Fisher Zoning: affects all residential zones General Plan: all residential designations Environmental status: Negative declaration, with mitigation, granted by Director on Project action deadline: No mandatory deadlines for legislative actions Site description The second unit regulations apply to all lots containing single detached dwellings in all residential zones. Project Description The applicant is requesting 1. that the second unit be allowed to be detached from the primary dwelling; 2. that the percentage of existing floor area that is allowed to be expanded be increased from 10% to 51%; 3. that the maximum allowable size of the second unit be increased from 450 square feet to 800 square feet. Community Development Department staff previously recommended instead: y q9 TA 33-94 Second Unit Regulations amendments Page 2 1. that the second unit be allowed to be detached from the primary dwelling; 2. that the percentage of existing floor area that is allowed to be expanded be increased from 10% to 15%, or eliminated altogether; 3. that the maximum allowable size of the second unit be increased from 450 square feet to 640 square feet; 4. that one parking space be required for second units, rather than requiring that parking "conform to all zoning regulations" standards; 5. that the requirement for periodic use permit review be eliminated and replaced with a note that the use permit may be reviewed if reasonable complaints are received. EVALUATION 1. The Planning Commission wanted to move more cautiously. Most Commissioners generally supported changes to the existing second unit regulations. However, they were wary about making significant changes, without some built-in restraints. The Commission therefore asked staff to return with revisions to the text to 1) allow easier exceptions to the second unit size limit, 2) allow detached units in certain cases, 3) eliminate percentage limits on floor area increases, 4) require additional parking for larger units, and 5) prohibit second-story units when the primary unit is one- story. Each of these recommended changes is discussed below. 2. Allow easier exceptions to the 450-SF size limit. Staff recommended a 640-SF size limit for second units, instead of the existing 450-SF limit. Some Commissioners felt that the size of the unit should depend on the size of the lot, and that in some cases fairly large dwellings could be appropriate. To allow for some discretion in reviewing unit sizes, the Commission recommended loosening up the required findings to allow larger units. Presently, to allow a unit larger than 450 SF, the application must be referred to the Planning Comission for an exception. The exception may be granted if the following two findings can be made: 1. The purpose of the second unit chapter is served. 2. Strict compliance with the size limitation would (a) require significant structural modifications that would not be required otherwise; or (b) adversely affect a historic or architecturally significant building. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission be able to approve size limit exceptions, based on the following findings: 1. The purpose of the second unit chapter is served. TA 33.94 Second Unit Regulations amendments Page 3 2. The unit's size and design are compatible with the primary residence and will be compatible with the neighborhood. 3. Exceptions to allow detached units. Commissioners generally supported allowing detached units, but felt that such decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis. Staff recommends that detached units be allowed when the following findings can be made: 1. The purpose of the second unit chapter is served. 2. Development of an attached second unit is infeasible or impractical in this particular case. 4.. The Commission supported elimination of limits on increased floor area. Our present ordinance says that the floor area of the primary unit may be increased no more than ten percent to allow development of an attached second dwelling unit. This limit tends to penalize owners of small homes. The limit can also be ignored if the property owner first applies for an addition, then chooses to add a kitchen. The limit serves no useful practical purpose. Staff has amended the regulations to eliminate the percentage limit, as requested by the Planning Commission. 5. Let's require an additional parking space for larger units. There was concern among some Commissioners that a larger second unit would mean more people would live in it and more cars would need parking spaces. To address this concern, the Commission asked that the ordinance require one parking space for units up to some particular size limit, then require two spaces for larger units. For simplicity, staff is recommending a requirement of one parking space for units up to 450 SF in area, because 450 SF is the size limit recommended by the Commission, and an additional space for units larger than 450 SF. Staff would support requiring only one space for units up to 640 SF, however. 6. The Commission wanted one-story units where the primary unit is one-story. To address neighborhood compatibility concerns, the Commission asked that staff add a prohibition of second- story second units where the primary unit is only one-story. Staff supports a slightly modified approach, to allow consideration of second-story units in unusual situations. For example, a second unit over a garage may be a better solution for a site that is constrained by unusual topography or a creek, or where for some reason little usable open space is available. Staff recommends, therefore, that second-story units be prohibited on lots with single-story homes, but that exceptions may be granted through the architectural review process. 7. Review retained. Staff had recommended elimination of the mandatory review requirement. The Commission preferred to leave the requirement intact, at least until we have some experience with the recommended changes. The review requirement has been retained. S. ARC options have changed. Staff is recommending including the option to find a second unit project "aesthetically insignificant", thereby allowing architectural review without a formal application. The "aesthetically insignificant" option is one that was not available when this ordinance was written, and is intended to be used when a project is so minor that a planner can TA 33-94 Second Unit Regulations amendments Page 4 readily approve it "over the counter". In the case of second units, this determination may be made when few or no changes are proposed to the exterior of a residence, or the second unit will be virtually or actually invisible from the street. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission may recommend denial of the amendments. If the City Council agrees with the recommendation, then the current ordinance will remain in effect. The Planning Commission may recommend approval of changes different from what the applicant or staff are recommending. The Planning Commission may recommend adoption of an ordinance eliminating the second unit ordinance altogether and prohibiting second units. Special findings must be made. If the Commission is considering this alternative, staff recommends that the hearing be continued to allow Community Development and legal staff to develop findings that may be defensible. The Commission may continue action. Direction should be given to staff. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The request was not routed to departments, although the Utilities Division was consulted in the development of the environmental initial study. Attached: Draft amendments, as modified by Planning Commission direction Environmental initial study, including applicant's request and legislative draft of staff-recommended amendments (includes complete text of current regulations) y-;a r r; ; Chapter 17.21 SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNITS Sections: 17.21.010 Purpose. 17.21.020 Definitions. 17.21.030 General requirements. 17.21.040 Performance standards. 17.21.050 Procedure requirements. 17.21.060 Periodic review - Violations. 17.21.010 Purpose. A. This chapter is intended to implement Government Code Section 65852(.1), (.2), which allows the city to conditionally permit second dwelling units in residential zones. B. The city intends to regulate second units as permitted by Section 65852.2(a) of the state Government Coe, and other applicable sections. C. The city recognizes opportunities to implement certain policies and programs of the city housing element of the general plan by providing for and regulating second units. D. Implementation of this chapter is meant to expand housing opportunities for low-income and moderate-income or elderly households by increasing the number of rental units available within existing neighborhoods. Second units are intended to provide liveable housing at less cost while providing greater security, companionship and family support for the occupants. (Ord. 1085 - 1 Ex. A (part), 1987; Ord. 1004 - 1(part), 1984: prior code - 9900) 17.21.020 Definitions For the purpose of this chapter, the following words and phrases have the meanings given them in this section: A. "Administrative use permit" is defined as defined by Chapter 17.58 of this code. B. "Director" means the director of the community development department or his designate. C. "Nonconforming lot" is defined as defined by Chapter 17.12 of this code. D: "Nonconforming use" is defined as defined by Chapter 17.10 of this code. E. "Primary unit" means an existing single-family residential structure that conforms with all zoning regulations in effect, including this chapter. F. "Second unit" means an attachedorjdetact;ec dwelling unit which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and complies with all provisions of this chapter. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation on the same parcel as the primary unit is sited. (Ord. 1004 - 1 (part), 1984: prior code - 9910) 17.21.030 General requirements A. Application. Where this chapter does not contain a particular type of standard or procedure, conventional zoning standards and procedures shall apply. B. Areas Where Second Units are Allowed. Upon approval of an administrative use permit and upon meeting other requirements of this section, second units may be established in the following zones: R-1 , R-2, R-3, and R-4. C. Areas Prohibited. Second units shall not be established in any condominium or planned development project, or any mobile home subdivision, or trailer park, and under no circumstances shall a second unit be allowed, where in the opinion of the director, a resource deficiency exists as defined by Chapter 2.44 of this code. D. Owner Occupancy. Either the primary unit or second unit must be owner-occupied. E. No Subdivision of Property. No subdivision of property shall be allowed where a second unit has been established unless the subdivision meets all requirements of zoning and subdivision regulations. Nothing in this section shall prohibit joint ownership of the property where a second unit has been established. F. Sale of Property. This section shall also apply to new owners of property where a second unit has been established if the property is sold. All conditions of the use permit, restrictive covenants and other contractual agreements with the city, shall apply to the property and new owners. G. Unit Type Allowed. A second unit shall be attached to the primary unit and located within the living area of the primary unit. `"'h,...,...... BA ineFease in "eeF aFea P�axtnnomrniss�on a Na. . .>.. 9 grant a exceptton iu thrs requirerenE 1..0.... :allow a °ti unat, v+rer�xhe folio €nth fjd�r�gs pan l made. ::...::....v�>. ::..:... :. .. . w........ A. t e< p se.off: ;ts:;chapter:Es:segued ,...:. .£ veta ment.0 an aitaghed second c�n,t ds in#easibie .rimpracticai in this partidt .. i.n:i.\.nv....:.. .u:..v. ..« v Al H. Size of Second Unit. The gross floor area of the second unit shall not exceed four hundred fifty square feet. The pPlanning eCommission may authorize exception to this standard by use permit upon finding that: 1 . The purpose of this chapter is served: Fnedifieetiens that weuld Ret be regWired otherwise=er `mer rely aaffeet an +�.scez 6F 6Fehiteetwally signifleaRt building. Z 'T nrt`s sine anti ties19 are compattble w�tf the{� �rrrary residence and will be C1.0— trbte wit Wthe dJahborhood f=: C>�kld St©ry units JSet:or�c3 story units are prohibited where;the primary tinct s afE {. A prt story The ArtRh�tectucat Rev�et irr,;mm�sscon or Met tor rttay authorize arl v •x eac ��bn to this stan,�ard upon-#Eni�ing that. . . ... . .. . . :1 SeCon. d stoEyTsecond, un,t rS bestheticatly corrapatcbie wrtti tfte prrrhary unit and the°ne€gh69r. Rdd.' (Ord. 1085 - 1 Ex. A (part), 1987; Ord. 1034 - 1, 1985: Ord. 1004 - 1 (part), 1984: prior code - 9920) 17.21.040 Performance standards. A. Parcel Requirements. No second unit shall be established on a parcel or parcels determined by the director to be nonconforming as defined by the zoning and subdivision regulations. B. Use Requirements. No second unit shall be established where the director has determined that the primary unit or any other structure or use on the property is nonconforming as defined by Chapter 17.14 of this code. C. Design Standards. Second units shall conform to all applicable zoning regulations such as height, yards, ea g, ar)d building coverage,eta, except for density a; ' "';Y,�( ;t re uirements as defined b zonin re ulati ns. "< ,:� ""'<'``'` ���d�d dor a ��cor�� unit up to 450 sgvl�re fee; In �re$t �r►d twt� spaces for target wits, n ad�fio to t#�ose spaces required for tt�erirnare dwe(ting 1. Second units shall conform to all applicable building and construction codes. 2. Nothing in this section prohibits applicants from requesting exceptions or variances from the strict interpretation of zoning regulations to the extent allowed by said regulations for any other use. 3. Second units shall be designed as to provide separate living conditions and provide a safe and convenient environment for the occupants. 4. Second units shall also be architecturally and functionally compatible with the primary unit. (Ord. 1004 - 1 (part), 1984; prior code - 9930) 17.21.050 Procedure requirements. Prior to filing building plans with the city building department, the following shall be met: A. Permit Requirement. The applicant shall apply for and obtain an administrative use permit as defined by zoning regulations. B. Architectural Review Required. All requests shall receive architectural review in accordance with the adopted architectural review commission ordinance and guidelines. The director shall determine, upon receiving complete application,whether the project is declared aest et a3t;` <ii'ft.i"' f€i ant minor or incidental, or shall be forwarded to the architectural review commission for review. C. Application Contents. All proposed second unit requests shall be by formal application for administrative use permitand ..".h:teet.._.,' Feyie D. Additional Requirements. 1 . Owner"s Agreement with the City. The owner shall enter into an agreement with the city, on a form approved by the city attorney, agreeing that the property will be owner-occupied. If owner occupancy is not possible, then the use will terminate, and the structure will be returned to its original condition to the satisfaction of the director. Property owners receiving approvals for second units and establishing the use pursuant to this section shall also agree to reimburse the city for costs of all necessary enforcement actions. 2. Recorded Agreement Affecting Use of Poperty. The applicant shall submit an agreement that will provide constructive notice to all future owners of the property, of the use and owner occupancy restrictions affecting the property. Upon approval of the administrative use permit and architectural review, the applicant shall prepare the final copy of the agreement for the director's review in a form suitable for recording in the office of the county recorder. E. Appeal. Appeal procedures for this section shall be the same as set forth for administrative use permits as defined in the city zoning regulations. (Ord. 1004 - 1 (part), 1984: prior code - 9940) 17.21.060 Periodic review - Violations. 4 -42(0 A. Periodic Review. Use permits 'r: shall bsubject to review after the first year and each three years thereafter. It shall be the responsibility of the property owner to initiate the review and pay applicable fees. B. Violations. Violation of any of the provisions shall be basis for revocation of the use permit in accordance with Chapter 17.72. (Ord. 1004 - 1 (part), 1984: prior code - 9950) � -a7 city of San lues OBISpo Ac INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SITE LOCATION Citywide APPLICATION NO. 33-94 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Amendments to second-unit regulations t0 allow detached units, to allow existing floor area to be expanded by a greater amount, t0 allow larger units, simplify parking, and eliminate mandatory periodic review. APPLICANT Bert Dodge STAFF RECOMMENDATION: X NEGATIVE DECLARATION n X_MITIGATION INCLUDED EXPANDED I JUOILRS L aDUtiRIE� tate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AprR I4,11�94 PREPARED BY J utLR13 DATE JJ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTION: DATE 41 NklnaMO SUMMARY OF INITIAL S UDY FINDINGS I.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 11.POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS ................ ..•• NOINE* B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH.......................................... NONE* C. LAND USE ........................................................................ NONE D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ................................. ........... NONE* E. PUBLIC SERVICES ................................................................. NONE F. UTIt.IT1ES......................................................................... I\MTE* G. NOISE LEVELS .................................................................... NONE H. GEOLOGIC&SEISMIC HAZARDS&TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS .................... NONF. 1. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS............................................... yF_S* J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY .............................................. NnNF KPLANT LIFE...................................................................... NOZ L ANIMAL LIFE..................................................................... NoNm M. ARCHAEOLOGICAL'HISTORICAL ..................................................I DTONTZ N. AESTHETIC ...................................................................... NONE O. ENERGY/RESOURCE USE .......................................................... Pk1QDh113* P. OTHER ....................................... ............................. ...... 1tiTQ,4173* III.STAFF RECOMMENDATION NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WITH MITIGATION 'SEE ATTACHED REPORT �-� seas ER 33-94 Citywide: zoning regulations text amendment Second Unit regulations PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant wants to amend the City's second unit regulations, to allow second units to be as large as 800 =_quare feet, to be detached from primary units, and to allow floor area expansions up to 510 of the existing building. Community Development staff is suggesting changes to these same criteria, plus the parking and use permit review requireaents, and some changes intended to clarify language. Specifically: The applicant requests three things: 1. that the second unit be allowed to be detached from the primary dwelling; 2 . that the percentage of existing floor area that is allowed to be expanded be increased from 10% to 51%; 3 . that the maximum allowable size of the second unit be increased from 450 square feet to 800 square feet. Planning staff recommends: 1. that the second unit be allowed to be detached from the primary dwelling; 2. that the percentage of existing floor area that is allowed to be expanded be increased from 10% to 15%, or eliminated altogether; 3 . that the maximum allowable size of the second unit be increased from 450 square feet to 640 square feet; 4. that one parking space be required for second units, rather than requiring that parking "conform to all zoning regulations" standards; 5. that the requirement for periodic use permit review be eliminated and replaced with a note that the use permit may be reviewed if reasonable complaints are received. The applicant's and staff's recommended text changes are attached to and made a part of this report. �-ag ER 33-94 Second unit regulations amendments Page 2 POTENTIAL IMPACTS Community plans and goals Adopted land use element: The adopted land use element (1977) does not specifically address second units. None of the policies for residential development are in conflict with existing or proposed second unit provisions . Conclusion: No impacts. Proposed land use element: The Planning Commission-approved draft (February 1994) of the land use element (as yet unadopted by the City Council) also does not address second units. None of the proposed policies or programs conflict with existing or proposed second unit provisions. Conclusion: No impacts. Adopted Housing Element: The adopted housing element (1986) encourages infill and intensification of existing neighborhoods, plus programs that will reduce the cost of housing for many residents. These policies and programs are consistent with the existing and proposed second unit regulations. The amendments will loosen restrictions on second unit design, and thereby should encourage development of additional second units on lots where they currently would be difficult to create. The changes would likely result in a minor increase in the housing supply for renters, and could also improve homeowners" ability to afford primary units. Conclusion: No impacts. Proposed Housing Element: In addition to language encouraging infill and intensification, similar to the existing housing element, the proposed element includes a description of "accessory apartments" , that defines second units as "a common and relatively inexpensive form of housing that allows households to accommodate extended families, and allows elderly persons to share large homes, or rent small studio apartments attached to a main house" . The element contains no programs either to promote or eliminate second units. The proposed changes would not conflict with this element. Conclusion: No impacts . "l��V ER 33-94 Second unit regulations amendmeits Page 3 Population distribution and growth The amendments will make it easier for homeowners to create second units on their conforming lots. If owners take advantage of the changes, more second units may be created each year than have been in the past. Over the past four years, 13 permits for second units have been issued, an average of three per year. It is likely that the proposed changes will increase the average number. of second unit applications received per year. The increase is not expected to have a significant impact on population distribution. Conclusion: Less than significant. Transportation and circulation The addition of second units to neighborhoods contributes incrementally to traffic levels on existing streets. The proposed changes will make it easier to create second units or to make existing illegal units legal. Therefore, a greater number of units may be added to the housing stock than the present three-per-year average. Because of requirements for owner-occupancy of one of the units, and the need to provide parking for each unit, the number of applications is not expected to increase significantly. Each new unit will add approximately 6 trips to the adjacent street traffic per day. Even the least-used streets in the city experience between 100 and 200 trips per day. An increase of 6 trips would be a 3 to 6% increase on those streets, and well below those percentages elsewhere. The increase in numbers of second units is not expected to add significantly to existing traffic levels, although if several units were added to a block, the impacts may become significant over time. Conclusion: Less than significant. In unusual cases, there may be a significant impact from the development of several second units in a concentrated area. Recommended mitigation: The City Council should discuss the likelihood of many second units being added to a small geographic area, and alternative means of limiting the impacts from such an eventuality. Alternatives may include requiring mandatory spacing between units, allowing a maximum number of units per block, and setting a maximum number of second unit approvals. per- year. Utilities Adding units to older neighborhoods may have an impact on water or sewer resources. The current regulations prohibit second units "where in the opinion of the Director, a resource deficiency Al•3 ER 33-94 Second unit regulations amendments Page 4 exists" . Each second unit application is routed to the City' s Utilities Division. If that division identifies a resource problem that cannot be corrected as part of the permit process, the unit will not be allowed. This prohibition is not proposed to be changed. Therefore, these amendments will not affect the City' s water or sewer capacity. Note that a water allocation must be secured for each new unit, usually obtained by retrofitting plumbing fixtures in other buildings in this city to save water. See discussion under "Energy or resource use" , below. Conclusion: Not significant. Air cuality and wind conditions Further development incrementally adds to traffic loads and consequently, to air quality degradation. Individual impacts are insignificant, but, although unlikely, cumulative impacts may be significant. Methods to reduce the air quality impacts should be considered when these regulation amendments are reviewed. Conclusion: May be significant. Recommended mitigation: The City Council should consider adding a requirement for lockable bicycle storage in second units, or other means to encourage use of alternative transportation. Enercv or resource use Water: The City's Water Allocation Regulations allow water to be allocated to new development only when such water allocation does not affect the city's supply. This can happen only if the new use replaces a similar use of a similar size, or if water is provided by some other means to replace that used. One method, allowed by the regulations, to obtain additional water is to retrofit existing plumbing fixtures within the city limits. The City allows a developer to replace fixtures to save approximately twice as much water as the new development is expected to use. With these regulations in force, water allocated to new development will not have a detrimental effect on the available supply. Conclusion: Not significant. Other impacts See discussion above, under "air quality and wind conditions" . The project is not expected to have impacts on any other aspect of the environment. ER 33-94 Second unit regulations amendments Page 5 RECOMMENDATION Grant a negative declaration, with the following Mitigation measures 1. The City Council should discuss the likelihood of many second units being added to a small geographic area, and alternative means of limiting the impacts from such an eventuality. Alternatives may include requiring mandatory spacing between units, allowing a maximum number of units per block, and setting a maximum number of second unit approvals per year. 2 . The City Council should consider adding a requirement for lockable bicycle storage in second units, or other means to encourage use of alternative transportation. Attached: applicant- and staff-proposed amendments �F-33 ROBERTS. FISHER, An Architectural Corporation Architect C-17280 8925 ATASCADERO AVENUE ATASCADERO, CA. 43422 TEL. & FAX 805-461-4804 M.arCh 2, 1 ;-9 To: 1t1 J? inn LIJi :_Ir„1 Commurlity Gevelonn•,ent Department RE. 'Lome T evt Amend ri�ent Godlge +,(.esldence 1624 r rl l I l Ip J Lane San Luis Obispo, CA The Applicant requests the following zone text changes from Chapter 17.21 - Second Residential Units; 17.21 .0=0,l Definitions Section F. "Second Unit” add the words "or detached" after the word "attached" in the first line. 1 '.21 .)70 r,,zneral P.eyuirements Section G "Unit Type Allowed" add the words "or detached from" after the words "attached to" in the second line. Delete the words "and shall be located within the living area of tale primary unit.", from the second, third, and fourth lines. Chanoe the word "ten" to read "fifty-one" in the fifth line of this section. Section H. "Si_e of Second Unit." Change the words "four nundred f if tv" to read "e iaht hundred". Sincerely, Robert S. Fisher, e.rcnitart Agent for pplir_ant f} /� 7 �'— pvowd Q►'�'►i°��YJPf'1#S Al-3AF Chapter 17.21 SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNITS Sections: 17.21.010 Purpose. 17.21.020 Definitions. 17.21.030 General requirements. 17.21.040 Performance standards. 17.21.050. Procedure requirements. 17.21.060 Periodic review - Violations. 17.21.010 Purpose. A. This chapter is intended to implement Government Code Section 65852(.1 ), (.2), which allows the city to conditionally permit second dwelling units in residential zones. B. The city intends to regulate second units as permitted by Section 65852.2(a) of the state Government Coe, and other applicable sections. C. The city recognizes opportunities to implement certain policies and programs of the city housing element of the general plan by providing for and regulating second units. D. Implementation of this chapter is meant to expand housing opportunities for low-income and moderate-income or elderly households by increasing the number of rental units available within existing neighborhoods. Second units are intended to provide liveable housing at less cost while providing greater security, companionship and family support for the occupants. (Ord. 1085 - 1 Ex. A (part), 1987; Ord. 1004 - 1 (part), 1984: prior code - 9900) 17.21.020 Definitions For the purpose of this chapter, the following words and phrases have the meanings given them in this section: A. "Administrative use permit" is defined as defined by Chapter 17.58 of this code. B. "Director" means the director of the community development department or his designate. C. "Nonconforming lot" is defined as defined by Chapter 17.12 of this code. D. "Nonconforming use" is defined as defined by Chapter 17.10 of this code. s+6t f4- pro posed Qrr-en;9,nn-en+S ? o E. "Primary unit" means an existing single-family residential structure that conforms with all zoning regulations in effect, including this chapter. .. ._. ... F. "Second unit" means an attached or:;.detache.d dwelling unit which provides .._........ . ._..: complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and complies with all provisions of this chapter. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation on the same parcel as the primary unit is sited. (Ord. 1004 - 1 (part), 1934: prior code - 9910) 17.21.030 General requirements A. Application. Where this chapter does not contain a particular type of standard or procedure, conventional zoning standards and procedures shall apply. B. Areas Where Second Units are Allowed. Upon approval of an administrative use permit and upon meeting other requirements of this section,. second units may be established in the following zones: R-1 , R-2, R-3, and R-4. C. Areas Prohibited. Second units shall not be established in any condominium or planned development project, or any mobile home subdivision, or trailer park, and under no circumstances shall a second unit be allowed, where in the opinion of the director, a resource deficiency exists as defined by Chapter 2.44 of this code. D. Owner Occupancy. Either the primary unit or second unit must be owner-occupied. E. No Subdivision of Property. No subdivision of property shall be allowed where a second unit has been established unless the subdivision meets all requirements of zoning and subdivision regulations. Nothing in this section shall prohibit joint ownership of the property where a second unit has been established. F. Sale of Property. This section shall also apply to new owners of property where a second unit has been established if the property is sold. All conditions of the use permit, restrictive covenants and other contractual agreements with the city, shall apply to the property and new owners. G. Unit Type Allowed. A second unit shall be gt3 et attached to the primary unit eR thelet and shall located within the living area of the primary unit j7rdeta'ct"ed e,p :frorri tIm fy uni aril located on thesame lot as he ex�st�ng dwellrng. Whenever an increase in floor area is involved, it shall not exceed +en ,�fifteei percent of the existing living area. H. Size of Second Unit. The gross floor area of the second unit shall not exceed #etT s t hundred f4"fort' square feet. The planning commission may authorize exception to this standard by use permit upon finding that: 1 . The purpose of this chapter is served: #-3G 2. Strict compliance with the size limi-tation would (a) require significant structural modifications that would not be requirA otherwise: or (b) adversely affect afl historic or architecturally significant building. (Ord. 1085 - 1 Ex. A (part), 1987; Ord. 1034 - 1 , 1985: Ord. 1004 - 1 (part), 1984: prior code - 9920) 17.21.040 Performance standards. A. Parcel Requirements. No second unit shall be established on a parcel or parcels determined by the director to be nonconforming as defined by the zoning and subdivision regulations. B. Use Requirements. No second unit shall be established where the director has determined that the primary unit or any other structure or use on the property is nonconforming as defined by Chapter 17.14 of this code. C. Design Standards. Second units shall conform to all applicable zoning regulations such as height, yards, pig and building coverage, eie., except for density ani ark�r requirements as defined b zoning regulations. 'O.ne' aric r ">s `ac" "`fi''f ``a. p::...::>:::..:.g q Y 9 9 P.:<.: ...9.....P,::.>:.;;e:>:5:::::<a;I, be ;.�..} ;......:.a....:.....:......::. .:.a..........::,...................,.:.:,........... .. ....... ..... ... ....:.:.:......:.2........na...m}:.::::::::::.:a:.....::::..::::}':.. ....... 1. ••••'y'::i}'}':.}}:.:}:i:'':'ii}}':i:}:.:�:i:.i:.i:.iii}i:v'.:ii:.i}:i:i`i:iiia:ii::.::�.}::.::::::.}ii.::Y...ii.. ::Win}}}}J:^ii•}}i:}}iiii`:.:is ptoi7aded #or he second unit,'°�n add 0:n., to those; spaces required for the primary yi 1. Second units shall conform to all applicable building and construction codes. 2. Nothing in this section prohibits applicants from requesting exceptions or variances from the strict interpretation of zoning regulations to the extent allowed by said regulations for any other use. 3. Second units shall be designed as to provide separate living conditions and provide a safe and convenient environment for the occupants. 4. Second units shall also be architecturally and functionally compatible with the primary unit. (Ord. 1004 - 1 (part), 1984; prior code - 9930) 17.21.050 Procedure requirements. Prior to filing building plans with the city building department, the following shall be met: A. Permit Requirement. The applicant shall apply for and obtain an administrative use permit as-defined by zoning regulations. B. Architectural Review Required. All requests shall receive architectural review in accordance with the adopted architectural review commission ordinance and guidelines. The director shall determine, upon receiving complete application, whether the project is declared aesthetically ans�gnficant' minor or incidental, or shall be .... forwarded to the architectural review commission for review. y�-3 07 C. Application Contents. All proposed second unit requests shall be by formal application for administrative use permit D. Additional Requirements. 1 . Owner's Agreement with the City. The owner shall enter into an agreement with the city, on a form approved by the city attorney, agreeing that the property will be owner-occupied. If owner occupancy is not possible, then the use will terminate, and the structure will be returned to its original condition to the satisfaction of the director. Property owners receiving approvals for second units and establishing the use pursuant to this section shall also agree to reimburse the city for costs of all necessary enforcement actions. 2. Recorded Agreement Affecting Use of Poperty. The applicant shall submit an agreement that will provide constructive notice to all future owners of the property, of the use and owner occupancy restrictions affecting the property. Upon approval of the administrative use permit and architectural review, the applicant shall prepare the final copy of the agreement for the director's review in a form suitable for recording in the office of the county recorder. E. Appeal. Appeal procedures for this section shall be the same as set forth for administrative use permits as defined in the city zoning regulations. (Ord. 1004 - 1 (part), 1984: prior code - 9940) 17.21.060 Periodic review - Violations. A. Pefiedie-Review. Use permits are shall-be-subject to review ff€:.Wa 9pabfeWr tt:e K[:Y1hl'4Y: ri:.yy;.:::::�: y::::r:::;:.:pv. .. :...... p a34 ;ts are !tece�ved by. d�rector� and pay applieeble fees. B. Violations. Violation of any of the provisions shall be basis for revocation of the use permit in accordance with Chapter 17.72. (Ord. 1004 - 1 (part), 1984: prior code - 99501 draft Minutes City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission Meeting April 27, 1994 PRESENT: Commrs. Mary Whittlesey, Barry Karleskint, Gilbert Hoffman, Brett Cross, Grant Williams, Charles Senn, Chairperson Dodie Williams ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Judy Lautner, Assoc. Planner; Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager; Cindy Clemens, Asst. City Attorney; and Laura Murphy, Recording Secretary ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as printed. PUBLIC COMMENT: None PUBLIC HEARINGS: Item 1. Zoning Regulations Text Amendment: Appl.TA 33-94; An amendment to the Zoning Regulations relating to second dwelling units; City-wide; Bert Dodge, Applicant. Judith Lautner presented the staff report, recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of a maximum unit size of 640 square feet, elimination of the percentage increase, a standard parking requirement of one space per secondary unit, and eliminationof the mandatory three-year periodic review. She noted that staff and the applicant support retention of the owner/ occupancy requirement, and that second units only be allowed on conforming lots. She said that in the 10 years that the ordinance has been in effect, 18 second units have been approved, of the 18 units, 12 have been newly built (an average of about 1 per year). Chairperson Williams opened the public hearing. Robert Fisher, 8925 Atascadero Ave, Atascadero, applicant's representative, stated that the applicant intends to build a cottage on an R-1 lot, for herself, allowing her son to move into the existing residence. The applicant feels that the current language limits her options for extended family living arrangements on the same property. He suggested that the average of 1 to 3 permit requests per year suggests that the language is too restrictive. In addressing other concerns, he stated that limiting the number of applications per year could mitigate the traffic impact, air quality and other issues of concern addressed-in the regulations. He asked for approval of the size limit originally requested by the applicant. 4.139 Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 1994 Page 2 Ray Nordquist, 750 Pasatiempo, Co-Chairman of the Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RON), personally agreed with the general concept of the applicants proposal, but he presented the Commission with a letter from RON listing the group's concerns. RON was concerned that the proposed changes would weaken the ability of the City to maintain neighborhood compatibility and quality, and he questioned the City's ability to enforce the owner-occupancy requirement. RON questioned future use of detached units when owners no longer live at the site. Further RON concerns were that traffic and population would increase. RON asked for a limit on the number of persons allowed to live in a second unit. Pat Veesart, 1570 Hansen Lane, SLO, opposed the zoning changes, and spoke about the negative impact the changes might have on the transportation and circulation of the city. He thought the proposed changes effectively would change R-1 lots into R-2 lots without a plan in place to mitigate the negative traffic impacts on existing neighborhoods. Patricia Young, 1846 Conejo, SLO, opposed the application. She lives next door to a home with a second unit, as well as a three-car garage with a storage unit above, which has been fitted out as an apartment. She said the owner of the property was within the law. She had opposed permitting her neighbor's second unit to be rented, since the result was three units on one lot in an R-1 neighborhood. She expressed concern that the proposed changes would clear the way for more conversions, which would create traffic and other problems. She also questioned the ability of the city to preserve the R-1 status of the city's neighborhoods. Chairperson Williams closed the public hearing. Commissioner Whittlesey asked staff if it was possible to end up with three units on a lot. Judy Lautner the way the ordinance is configured, only one second unit is allowed per lot. Commissioner Cross confirmed with staff that one parking space is required for a studio apartment, and questioned if one space was sufficient for a second unit. He also expressed concern about possible construction of driveways going to the back of the lot, with no setback from the property line, and the impact on the neighbors. Ron Whisenand addressed Commr. Cross' concerns. He explained that the one parking space per unit requirement is sufficient, and is backed up by other communities' experiences. He explained that many residential neighborhoods currently have driveways which run next to the property line, between the house and the property line, to the rear detached garage. These traditional detached garages often have living units built above them. Commissioner Hoffman confirmed with staff that the current parking requirement for residences is two spaces in an R-1 zone, one covered, and one uncovered, so if one A11040 Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 1994 Page 3 additional space is required, that will be a total of three. He also asked staff for the working definition of "attached". Judy Lautner explained that attached means it has to be a part or expansion of the actual living area, not necessarily a garage, especially if the garage is not part of the residence. Commissioner Hoffman confirmed that ARC review will continue to be required. Judy Lautner said, in answer to a question by Commr. Karleskint, that owner-occupancy provisions would be retained, and that there have not been any violations of that provision. She also mentioned that the City requires a recorded agreement noting the owner-occupancy requirement, so anyone purchasing the property knows what the situation is. Commissioner Whittlesey expressed concern about the character of second units, and number of stories allowed, when the primary unit is only one story. Judy Lautner said architectural review is required to resolve issues of neighborhood compatibility, and those concerns probably would not have to be written into the ordinance. Ron Whisenand suggested that if the Commission is concerned with limiting second-story units, that perhaps that should be written into the ordinance, such as allowing two-story second units only with two-story primary units. In answer to a question by Commr. D. Williams, Judy Lautner explained that the main reason for the three-year review requirement is to remind staff to check that the property is still owner-occupied, and that the correct number of parking spaces are still available, and with the current City computer system, a simple reminder can be automatically be generated and followed up on, without formal review hearings. Ron Whisenand added that the tracking and hearing process also takes up a lot of staff time, and the applications have been 100% re-approved. Commissioner Hoffman asked staff how many of the currently approved second dwelling units had requested a size exception. Judy Lautner said that she could only recall one or two. Commissioner Senn asked if the City was going to provide more flexibility with the second units, and that could be done with appropriate safeguards. He was concerned that sound criteria be set down, and environmental considerations be addressed. Chairperson Williams asked staff for a clarification of the types of tenants now occupying the approved second units, and how many cars are involved. �[ Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 1994 Page 4 Judy Lautner explained that about half of the second units are occupied by elderly parents, and half are rentals or unknown, with an unknown number of cars. Commissioner Hoffman said he would want ARC review on the appropriateness of a detached second unit to keep it in character with the surrounding neighborhood. He also suggested elimination of the percentage increase limitation because there are already standards in place concerning lot coverage. He said that the current ordinance allows exceptions to size limit, so the 450 square foot limit is working. Commissioner Senn said he agreed with Commr. Hoffman, except for the 450 square foot limitation. He felt lot development standards apply to all sites, and different lots have different situations. The 450 square foot limit does not give the flexibility needed. Ron Whisenand suggested leaving the 450 square foot limit, but modify the required findings to allow exceptions and make it very clear when an exception could be granted. Commissioner Cross suggested that putting in a second unit over 450 square feet could increase the density and quite possibly could change the character of the neighborhood. He also suggested that one parking space is fine for a 450 square foot second unit, but larger units should be required to have two spaces. Commissioner Whittlesey reminded the Commission that the size of the second unit will be limited by both the existing lot coverage allowances and the proposed parking requirements. She suggested that the applicant be allowed to make a case that a detached unit is necessary. She also wanted a sentence in the ordinance saying that two-story units will only be allowed if there is a two-story primary unit. Commissioner Hoffman moved, and Commissioner Senn seconded that the request be continued to allow staff to come up with draft findings to allow detached and larger units and to return to the Planning Commission at the earliest opportunity. The staff report should address 1) modified findings for large units, 2) findings to allow detached units, 3) elimination of the 15% restriction, 4) modified parking; below a certain square footage, one space — over a certain square footage, two spaces required, 5) provisions for second story units, and 6) three-year review be maintained. Chairperson Williams recommended that staff also consider Mr. Nordquist's document. VOTING: AYES: Commr. Hoffman, Senn, Whittlesey, D. Williams, Cross, G. Williams, Karleskint, Senn NOES: None ABSENT: None The motion passes. �a draft Planning Commissi Minutes May 11, 1994 Page 9 Item 2. Zoning Regulations Text Amendment: Appl. TA 33-94; An amendment to the Zoning Regulations relating to second dwelling units; City-wide; Bert Dodge, Applicant. Judith Lautner presented the staff report, recommending that the Commission recommend approval of changes to the second unit regulations as modified by the Commission and staff. Ron Whisenand, added that Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) some concerns with modifying the ordinance. RQN prefers it unchanged. He also said that San Luis Drive Homeowners' Association and the Old Town Group have been notified of the proposed changes. Commissioner Cross called attention to the additions he had made to the Commission packet which were regulations from the City of Pacifica and Modoc County, regarding second dwelling units. He suggested that SLO's regulations should be modified to include some language from the Pacifica regulations. Commissioner Whittlesey confirmed that the Commission is only going to amend the text, not look at the applicant's personal project during this meeting. Ron Whisenand explained that the applicant has a project in mind that does not meet current requirements. He said the applicant is applying for the amendment first, and then would come back with the second dwelling unit application, if the amendments are approved by the City Council. Judy Lautner explained that "infeasible" would mean that the site contained a significant obstacle which would make an attached second unit impractical, such as a creek or the removal of a large tree. In answer to a question by Commr. Whittlesey, Judy Lautner explained that non-conforming parking would have to be brought up to current standards before any second unit could be allowed. Chairperson Williams opened the public hearing. Robert Fisher, 8925 Atascadero Avenue, applicant's representative, stated that the exception route is acceptable to them, since it would at least open up the ordinance so that they could request size increases and the detached units. In this case the applicant has an older one story home on a lot with a gentle up slope. The main floor is almost 8' above grade at the front of the house, so he thought a detached second-story unit is appropriate at the site. He was concerned about the restriction on upper-level units. He draft Planning Commissik Minutes May 11, 1994 Page 10 said he was in agreement with everything else proposed, including parking and the ARC review options. He said that he and the applicant do not have any problems with the recommendations of staff. Bertha Dodge, applicant, explained that she is a 38 year resident, and is also concerned about density. She thanked the Commission for their consideration of her application, and invited the members of the Commission to see the site. She also suggested that if the Commission felt it necessary, she could get a neighborhood petition signed in support of the project. Bonnie Garritano, 1950 San Luis Drive, representing the San Luis Drive Neighborhood Association, said that the changes to the Zoning Regulations, as requested by the applicant and supported by staff, could effectively create R-2 zones where the remaining R-1 neighborhoods exist, at a great loss to the character to the city. She commended the efforts of RQN for their diligence in defending the character and quality of the neighborhoods. She said that the San Luis Drive Neighborhood Association supports the Commission recommendation requiring exceptions for larger and detached units. She said the Association supports requiring more parking, but they do not believe that any second unit qualifies as "aesthetically insignificant" . Even if the project is not visible from the street, it still creates an impact on the neighborhood, so they support as much review as possible. She also felt that second units should continue to be subject to periodic review for strict compliance with all the requirements. Ron Whisenand indicated that though the representative of RQN was not present, they did have concerns. He felt that RQN is opposed to any changes to the current regulations. RQN seems to like the direction the Commission is taking, but still feels strongly that there should be no detached units allowed, or easing up of any findings required for exceptions. Commissioner Williams closed the public hearing. Commissioner Cross suggested that the Commission look at the Pacifica Regulations. He suggested that one of the concerns was the impact on neighborhoods, especially with the larger units and the number of persons that could potentially occupy them. He explained that Pacifica has limited the occupancy of the second unit to a maximum of two persons. They also require an annual notarized statement reaffirming owner occupancy, limit the square footage. to 640, and allow construction over the garage. For parking, they do not allow tandem at all, require two spaces for the primary unit, plus one uncovered space for the second unit. He also liked Pacifica's findings, one of which says the second unit must be visually integrated and aesthetically compatible with the main dwelling unit. He also felt that rent structure should be addressed to meet the intent of the second dwelling unit regulations to provide low and moderate income housing. He felt 4 draft Planning Commissi Minutes May 11, 1994 Page it that Pacifica addresses that issue very well. He noted that the Modoc County regulations allow temporary family care dwellings, which may be a way to allow a larger unit. He supported limiting occupancy to two persons, having a maximum area of 640 square feet, using the Pacifica findings, and including a rent structure. Commissioner Williams asked if it were possible to have rent control only applying to one type of property, if there isn't rent control citywide. Cindy Clemens, Assistant City Attorney, expressed concern about this issue, saying possibly some form of rent control could be accomplished with findings, but the matter would need to be continued until she could research it. Commissioner Cross asked if the Pacifica findings could be added without further review or continuance since these address the main concerns. Judy Lautner explained that some of Commr. Cross's suggested additions to the regulations could be added without much problem. She said that addition of other items would require that the application be continued again for research and additional study. She suggested that the questionable items be added to the next round of zoning regulations amendments, which would allow time for legal review and study. Commr. Williams asked if the ARC has sufficient scope and depth to address whether a second unit is aesthetically compatible with a neighborhood? Commr. Cross confirmed that these are the issues that the ARC deals with, and that if there is any concern within the neighborhood, that ARC can look at these findings, and specifically address and rule on these issues. Commr. Cross suggested that the Commission might want to consider the impacts of second driveways, in conjunction with the location of neighboring homes. Commissioner Williams reminded the Commission that the purpose of these amendments is to clean up the text of the current ordinance. Ron Whisenand suggested that the Commission concentrate on the issues that will be affected by the proposed ordinance changes, and he did not see any link between the issues at hand and the driveway issue. Commr. Whittlesey asked if the proposed changes would still allow the Commission and staff enough support to deny a detached unit project. Ron Whisenand responded that the findings as currently written are q-4J draft Planning Commissi Minutes May 11, 1994 Page 12 very wide open, but the Commission would be making that decision, though they could ask for staff recommendations and factor in other pertinent issues. He suggested that if the Commission is not comfortable with denying detached units with the suggested findings, perhaps additional findings or language should be provided which makes it clear under what circumstances the Commission would approve detached units. Commr. Whittlesey said would like to see the detached unit the exception rather than the rule. She suggested that exceptions be granted only when an attached second unit is structurally infeasible, when a physical barrier exists on the property which is too great to overcome. Commissioner Williams suggested clarifying the finding so the applicant knows s detached unit will only be considered when very great physical barriers are involved, and not a simple physical barrier, where relocation might inconvenience the applicant. Commr. Hoffman suggested wording to that effect. Ron Whisenand suggested alternative wording. Commissioners discussed using some of Pacifica's findings to approve second units and to approve exceptions. Commr. Williams asked legal counsel if the commission can limit the number of occupants, and also asked about requiring a notarized statement from owner-occupants. Cindy Clemens suggested that she would need to examine recent Federal Court rulings on limiting the number of occupants, and that we currently require a recorded agreement, which serves a similar purpose to the notarized statements. Commr. Cross stated that he is not comfortable with indeterminate size. He wanted to see a maximum size of 640 square feet, with additional findings to allow larger units, with 800 square feet being the absolute maximum. He again noted that the intent of allowing second units was to provide low- and middle-income housing, and the large units are not going to have low- or middle- income rents. Commr. Rarleskint wanted more flexibility in size. Commr. Hoffman felt that if a size limit is to be stated in the regulation, it should be 450 square feet rather than a larger number. In answer to a question from Commr. Rarleskint, Cindy Clemens said that if this were the initial enactment of this ordinance, then it draft Planning Commissi Minutes May 11, 1994 Page 13 may be appropriate to provide for legalization of existing illegal units, but it may not be appropriate now, when the City has had this ordinance for a long time. She suggested that such a provision has a different purpose than the Commission is considering. Commr. Whittlesey asked if it were appropriate to require that a second unit, if in violation, be dismantled. Ron Whisenand said that was a concern RQN had with allowing detached units. An attached unit could usually be converted to be a part of the residence. With detached units, the concern was what it could be turned into. Commr. Whittlesey moved that the Commission recommend approval to the Council of the amendments, with the following modifications: 1) A separate section is to be added, containing three findings for approving second residential lots; 2) The second finding for allowing detached units was changed; 3) The second finding to allow exceptions to the size limit was changed; and 4) Four grammatical or typographical errors were corrected. Commr. Hoffman seconded the motion. VOTING: AYES: Commr. Wittlesey, Hoffman, Karleskint, D. Williams, G. Williams, NOES: Commr. Cross ABSENT: Commissioner Senn The motion passes. q47 Lz 7t�Gc. J c /� 1 _L - e ��tac�c .�.�� cif.( � ��G /✓ � � _ RE CE IV E k. ROBERT E . AND MARY E. KENNEDY 1385 CAZADERO STREET APR 2 61994 SAN LtTIS OBISPO CA. 93401 cm OF SAN LUIS OBISK ^OMMUNfTY DEVEI nw e� April 25 , 1994 City Planning Commission 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, Ca . 93405 RE: OBJECTION TO PROPOSAL TO LIBERALIZE REGULATIONS APPLYING TO 2ND DWELLING UNITS IN R-1 ZONES My wife and I have been residents and property owners in the city of San Luis Obispo since 1940 . We built our present home in the Escuela Alta tract, an R-1 zone , in 1950 . Several years ago I was one of several citizens who testified against a near- neighbor' s proposal to build a detached unit ostensibly to house a relative. The landowner was appealing a planning commission decision; the appeal was rejected by the city council. The lady wrote me a hate letter and moved from the area. I cite this example as one reason why the provision to "eliminate periodic use permit review unless reasonable complaints are received" is unwise. Many good citizens who feel they should make a public complaint will not do so for fear of becoming engaged in some kind of controversy with a neighbor. Another example in our same neighborhood involved the surreptitious building of a rental unit over a double/or triple garage. The owners obviously rented the unit, since it drew three or four cars regularly parked in front of the house, to the dismay of the neighbors , all of whom remained silent to avoid conflict with their heretofore friends . The proposal , I understand, also advocates increasing the size of such 2nd dwelling units from the present 450 to 800 square feet. I'm sure you are aware that there are many small rental units in the city which are currently housing 3 or 4 students in apartments with less than 800 square feet. A clever builder can construct a very livable 2 bedroom 2 bath apartment with adequate kitchen, living/dining area in 800 square feet. For an owner in an R-1 zone to propose building this size of detached apartment for an elderly father and/or mother probably anticipates it will make a fine rental unit in a few years . When so used there is no provision for off-street parking, among other disadvantages . If the present owner intends to honestly use the facility for "guest quarters" it should be an addition to the existing house with an appropriately connecting doorway. When a home in an R-1 zone is sold to a buyer who made no commitment as to how the "detached unit" might be used, it would be a great temptation to use the unit as a rental . We hope the Planning Commission will reject any proposal that w ld weaken t e�present restrictions on the use of R-1 zones . urs_/ obert E. and ry E. K n � '���C d�_ In our opinion, the our existing second residential unit program has been accepted by the residents of R-1 neighborhoods. These units have been successfully integrated into R-1 neighborhoods because of the compatibility assurances which were designed into the present ordinance. The ordinance requires that the second unit be attached to the primary unit, that one unit be owner-occupied, that adequate off-street parking be created, that architecture review be required, and that periodic review occur. All of these contribute to the assurance that second units will be good neighbors, rather than sort of rentals which could become neighborhood nuisances. Neighborhood nuisances clearly degrade surrounding property values and the quality of life which is associated with R-1 neighborhoods. We feel that this current proposal WEAKENS all of these assurances. The existing ordinance requires assurance that the second units will be relatively quiet and good-neighbor rentals, instead of noisy neighborhood nuisances. This is hinged on the requirement that the property owner would be LIVING in one of the attached units. This means that the owner-landlord would be most directly and immediately affected by noisy or nuisance behavior of the rental unit occupants. This would therefor control behavior which may impact the peace and quiet of the surrounding neighborhood. Staff says, "Additional units mean additional people, and maybe more noise, Noise has not been a concern with the existing legal units, perhaps because the property owner lives on the site and can monitor it" . Staff is now proposing that completely detached second units be allowed as opposed to rental units with are actually part of a primary dwelling. We contend that the following questions be answered before abandoning the built-in neighborhood compatibility requirements of the present ordinance: 1. If the city allows completely detached and fully self-contained second units to be built on R-1 lots throughout the city and if some owner/landlords do NOT occupy one of the units as required, how will the city enforce the owner/occupant requirement which assures -neighborhood compatibility? 2. Will the city move against the detached second units with demolition proceedings? Or will the city merely change the ordinance to allow two rentals on one lot in R-1 neighborhoods? 3. If the city is hesitant to order demolitions of these illegal detached second-unit rentals, what would be the impact of the resulting two-unit rentals, with absentee landlords, be on the neighbors? 4. How would this affect the property values of adjacent single-family homes in the neighborhood? 5. If the owner-occupant requirement is violated, it is easier to require minor changes to 450 square feet in a single structure than to demolish a completely detached and fully contained rental. Should the city create a situation which it knows it can't enforce? 6. Staff states on page 3 that the owner/occupancy requirement is what will keep applications from increasing significantly. If this requirement is realistically unenforceable, doesn't it follow that applications, along with all of the impacts, WILL increase significantly? 7. The staff report repeatedly reinforces the presumption that this is what is commonly called "granny housing" , meant to provide family housing for elderly residents. The ordinance says that second units are "intended to provide livable housing at less cost while providing greater security, companionship and family support for the occupants. The report repeatably speaks of "elderly property owners" or of elderly parents or other family members. 8: If the elderly are truly to be the primary occupants of these granny units, and if the creation of many of these granny units will impact traffic and air quality significantly (as stated in the staff report) , the mitigation of bicycle storage seems strange. Is requiring a bicycle for each elderly person a logical mitigation? Given the rental history of R-1 neighborhoods, the nature of San Luis Obispo as a college town, and the absence of a requirement that this be elderly housing, it seem staff understands that many of the occupants of the second units rentals MIGHT be young people, not JUST the elderly. 9. The proposal to limit the number of detached second units to an arbitrary number for each block, in order to limit expected impacts of R-1 neighborhoods, seems unworkable. Who gets a second use permit, and who is refused inv order to limit the number of detached second units per residential block? Realistically, wouldn' t everyone who qualifies receive a permit? 10. The seemingly arbitrary basis of expected impacts / is insufficient. The calculations on page 3 for traffic impacts are based on one detached second unit .per block. Yet there is no basis for expecting one unit per block, nor any requirement for this situation to occur. What will the impact be for many such units per block as would be allowed under the proposal? What would be the impact of increased population with many units per block on the existing and proposed Land Use Elements which call for one percent city residential growth? 11. Is there a limit to the number of persons who may occupy the detached second unit? With an unenforceable owner-occupancy requirement, this clearly becomes more of a problem. 12. The city currently allows exceptions to the 450 square footage to be granted under request, after a public hearing with opportunity for neighborhood input. This allows larger second units to be permitted based in a specific situation in a specific neighborhood, but permits denial in situations that are inappropriate or where larger units would have negative impacts on adjacent neighboring houses. This process has ensured input from affected adjoining R-1 neighbors and given the city flexibility based in that input and specific situations. Doesn't a blanket increase in the square footage entitlement, as opposed to permitted increases based on public input in specific situations, decrease the city' s ability to ensure neighborhood compatibility? In closing, unlike some other cities, San Luis Obispo has allowed second residential units in R-1 neighborhoods . The present ordinance tries to ensure that second units do not become neighborhood nuisances and degrade adjacent property values by requiring that second units be attached to their primary units, that one unit be owner occupied, that adequate off-street parking be created, and that periodic review be mandatory. These present requirements have succeeded in establishing a second unit program which HAS BEEN accepted by the residents of R-1 neighborhoods, which HAVE integrated second units into R-1 neighborhoods, and which HAVE preserved the property values and quality of life of the adjacent residents. The proposal to crop these successful regulations of the present ordinance shou�d bg 94refi4lly re-exam�ned.