The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04/17/2007, C3 - RFP EIR AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS FOR THE GARDEN STREET TERRACES PROJECT a council ac en as aepont ria CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director Prepared By: Tyler Corey, Associate Planner SUBJECT: RFP EIR AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS FOR THE GARDEN STREET TERRACES PROJECT CAO RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the workscope for Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and archaeological field work consultant services in connection with the Garden Street Terraces Project and authorize staff to proceed with sending out Request for Proposal (RFP) documents to qualified consulting firms. 2. Authorize the CAO to award the contract to a qualified consulting firm for the EIR, contingent upon the developer depositing with the City the amount of the contract plus a 30% administrative fee. 3. Authorize the CAO to award the contract to a qualified consulting firm for archaeological field work services, contingent upon the developer depositing with the City the amount of the contract plus a 30% administrative fee. DISCUSSION Background Garden Street SLO Partners, LP, has submitted plans for a mixed-use development project know as the "Garden Street Terraces" (Attachment 2). The proposed project site is located within the City's Downtown Core and consists of seven parcels, including City Parking Lot No. 2. It is bordered by Broad Street, Garden Alley, Garden Street and Marsh Street. A portion of the site (properties fronting Garden and Marsh Streets) is located within the Downtown Historic District and includes buildings that are listed on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources. A draft initial study of environmental impact has been completed and is the basis for the EIR workscope (Attachment 3). Existing Memorandum of Understanding On July 18, 2006, the City Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which outlined the principles for a series of transactions affecting Parking Lot No. 2. The MOU also generally outlines some expected project elements. It is however considered a nonbinding document and does not preclude the proposed Garden Street Terraces (GST) project from undergoing the normal development review process. The GST project was formally submitted to the Community Development Department for review and processing on August 8, 2006. Any development of Parking Lot No. 2 is contingent upon GST receiving all required land use C2) -I G' Council Agenda Report—Garden Street Terraces EIR RFP April 17,2007 Page 2 entitlements. The proposed project would include the development of 1.2-acres to accommodate a downtown mixed-use center of 129,351 square feet (s.f.) including retail (17,116 sf), 53 residential units (56,406 sf), and a 70-room hotel (55,829 sf), generally of four to five stories,. but reaching a maximum of six stories up to 74 feet in height. A second-level public view terrace is proposed with access from Marsh Street. Two levels of parking (one below grade) with access from Marsh Street would serve both residential and commercial uses, as well as 40 City owned public parking spaces. The project also includes improvements to Garden Street, between Higuera and Marsh, based on the City approved Garden Street Plan. The project, as proposed, would reconfigure private and public parcels and lead to the removal and modification of both private and public structures and surface parking. EIR and Additional Archaeological.Contract Staff has developed a workscope for the EIR, which is part of the RFP excerpts attached to this report (Attachment 4). The workscope was developed from the initial study prepared by staff. It outlines the work tasks that need to be performed to fully evaluate potentially significant adverse environmental impacts. In addition, there is a separate workscope for the archaeological field work and testing activities. Staff anticipates that the same cultural resources sub-consultant for the EIR would be selected.to do the necessary field work. Because there are many different work products, milestones, and timelines for activities involved with the archaeological field work as opposed to the EIR preparation, it makes logistical sense to have a separate contract for the archaeological field work and testing services. The RFP includes the workscopes for both the preparation of the EIR and additional archaeological services, but specifies that there would be two separate City contracts to administer the distinct activities involved. The standard City RFP attachments outlining general terms and conditions, insurance requirements, and forms for the consultant to prepare, will be mailed out to consultants, but are not attached to this report. This additional information is available for review in the Council Reading File. Schedule for EIR Preparation With City Council endorsement of the RFP and workscope, RFPs would be sent out to qualified consultants on April 20`h,with consultant proposals due back to the City on May 18`s. The schedule included in the RFP anticipates interviews to be held on June 6`h and a consultant contract awarded on June 18, 2007. The RFP specifies that the Administrative Draft EIR would be delivered to the City by November 15, 2007. It is difficult to estimate the timeframe thereafter, but given extensive advisory body review,we would estimate that the EIR could be before the Council in July 2008. C3^� 0 ,D Council Agenda Report—Garden Street Terraces EIR RFP April 17,2007 Page 3 CONCURRENCES Other City Departments were actively involved and consulted in the preparation of the project's initial study of environmental impact from which the EIR workscope was derived. FISCAL IMPACT Once a qualified consultant is selected and a contract negotiated, the project applicant will pay all of the costs for the consultant services to prepare the EIR, plus a 30% administrative fee. The administration of the consultant contract will be overseen by the Community Development Department in conjunction with the Finance Department. This same procedure will be used with the archaeological consultant. This is the approved procedure for City-required EIRs. Therefore, the project will have no direct fiscal impact. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the workscope, but direct staff to prepare the EIR. This is not recommended because it is the City's preference to have Std party consultants conduct EIR's to validate the environmental review process. In addition, the timeframe for completion of the document, due to other staff obligations, would be significantly lengthier than that estimated above for a consultant and other staff work program items would be further postponed. It should also be noted that staff would need to hire sub-consultants to adequately evaluate certain technical issues. 2. Continue consideration of the workscope and RFP with direction to staff on necessary changes. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Reduced scale project plans 3. Initial Study ER 124-06 4. Excerpts from the Draft RFP including the Scope of Work 5. Proposers List Council Reading File: Proposed RFP G:tcorey\GST\RFP\RFP GST Mpt.doc 0,2 y,��' �,►��►�- .moi_ Attachment 2 bi !.1 fig 11�� Ism hen 'NO I i 1111!!jj! A 99 19b Z ZIA 11�11AH1111111-1 R MIR of; ou) 12SE 1411 CL ff 3 -1 L Ir LM 4-0 fig 0 CL LL. 'D CA D CD 0 -v 1 fill an 4-J r_ S L- E 4poz paimp u 14 p 14111,111 J�.T 0 (a L, lij J1 1111 oj Ln at L. 4A 4-J W all c o to kvj C Of gal ;Q; E PH" i 4) BT- g- X.2 a.-I. ft 0 U CL LA (D CL L- 0 till, a Si O IRV Attachment 2 3sti ul co . ....................................................... . ... ........... J!, ------- ------ --------------------------------------- 8 34 . In 'S4 w 1.16 "UNAMO an] WEN I IV W 176 ----------- ---------------------------------7 L9 Attachment 2 3sn i all 12 =E uj oil a uj fx ie 11& 7* —114 '1� JA23=Alauum 22 2 7-6\6 rl f,7 ---------- zs 42 xt el 04 -------- 1'i-UL JAI ---------- ;00 Attachment 2 san a! war i0v Ins "x" Moog 0 0 fig ell Z XT IMP. .............. ............. ... MB in., vill--- Vi AI "IFN .. ........ ..... .... . ep� zz Al, v"X 11w"0 7 I ls� . . . . . . . . . . . Attachment 2 38n a ON 14 111. MR, al 71 Lt.L, A 1� MID) Rv N F. YK; Attachmerit 2 JIM I 11 J11 1 3. 1 fix t t.. m t 'C h k A b tb t t A �t MA kt k 4 h z .g oil, it fib h b h b k k it G) G080 Ln 8 34N !O G) ILI it Jcm Hj r-n t 41 e CD Afit ll, �9!i 104 -tez ?V 1j, _t_j LO H v JD C3 Attachment 2 laa�3S 4uaW 8i • �g 9Ea 7aa�iSl 4s�eyr pap �a g r if. 1AN � ,9 1 i j : I if #g a _ co co o % I c l ail V co p ~ 0. W a $ e S € f C1 a ! tCL p 8 � sg E p toyi 1 ' • j � 0 894 € f �li[�� 95sp� § Vii t6 V. 000000000®0®M© i C � C7 Gl CL v Q m — o 0. 7aai75 eianB�H iaaii5 ejan!{H u ------ --------------- a` 3 G�-1 Attachment 2 D✓ MIN. g B @ is E j alleF a 5E Ai A el 000000000® o � d•79 EA€ yN 7E D €a7 °yyp gg �pp eertrt ------------- f B� 11 � ap E • - d 4 8 4 11 a , Il�yi: I 1 1 i° 1 Q1 ,,its? 97df a IQ f xL d t d t o II; I W 1 ' N ® ® ®" • o , I,I,III, R C I a� CL C3 - f3 f_ :. JJ Attachment 2 IN a e a fill pp e d y� tF gF Q@pJB @ q@@ A yy� °EpEp I ¢p� 3ppp®� gE�3 ` p8 ogog gg 7e2B �n if gF 0p N EE � _ 5 9 @�p ��a F e'712 g;�gF!�! HHY� gg$ p��2 3Y � �S �� 8 S � ¢��r i 8 4 4 .� � � I 1 .0 � F@ 19 1111,11 ajIs uapJoD ----- 03 I \ tl , d � N6i tl C fir/ an \ A L C C Im R I C I — Z+ a d __ - rkl` i ' Attachment 2 I fill Oil ccp u 7 �5 9 Pi f � 8 � � H� � � � � � � o � i■ 7I . $ 7tl . . � @8vee xs3: Cr 0000000000000®��JB®®®® z � - Q � v i Lr °I ------------- ,� o lowc Oil ❑ PAllMl > E oil oil O N a� c3 - ( 9 Hill 0 Ems 0 0 •°\�I 1�11�1I.E� ° �•, Y'1 i1... B :.�1�1!Pii:i. ° ,, IIR]KFi e ° .'!.•11/;y:.'. .�V. :.S13,III�.i' l IJ.LY: ^;ra-I '•.1 1 �1 •. �^. ..: 1� - - �'F�',.��-� lu nun u` -JAL� i��.al`:. ��t�. ..��Yom: _ rz 1I� T� ■; 7s �;, ,. � 11111 IIIII ��,y�li�"4•„� 1 Ii111 1�V� -�uiwpuw��..li .A •v'1� �� ■Illllllll��r"!I�O iIIPJi 1111111111■■ � �lonlllllllll ' 11 II � � 111 •� ��.Il�� 1 ii-, r°1 ,- i i f 1 y i• ; `(i ,��Ii 1 ii n•� � :� O 1 i.wir., r.vs.vr �;e■'illiltlr�. �� C ��.1111111111, .;; � ■ 1� , . O >�� 9E7Q5':=�I:ci41ire9 �♦ I •�cM.:6�C Q � Isl : �IIr� MEN ONO '•♦♦'. .... � ��,, „ ,_i"11111.1, )... 0 o 111 Illi owl 11. a - - : 1OMENS - - ■■..■ '!tit*; IF=In pfrt'i4i . 000 = ��1111 1 - - •,�1Is 1 1 I � 11��•• J S .�I 1 O,/"1 1—I�Ip�I 1_r�.7�� I 1/•�^yo =��1�1 �I�I��• 6 . 1 1 1>i0••i i�••a4r., "` .�� 1,1 1 1 1 /1 r II �. � _ �I�g.��i�i�ii`4-' ■» ii' r 1�1 1 7 '6S ♦ —1 6 • O •.8• • r f1- II 1 1 1 I,tAt.l'_�?iii'i •� , '#.`''i !ice■l �lf1•!_7 1 1 I rl,+lr - ��.�• � ' ._tri.:. �I�mQlil/O �` �• �, 1-1_,��ILI JJ �ti��a! � :,r - iu■■i �- - 'viii r'��f r w• f� r j•• fill I '�il� II 0 v • ri ZONE o e e e fll R....1 � umm1e11 inn '� .,� � uu►�� Ipl;,>N�� luul Nasaaaaaaaa.aa.>�a.i. uu►a�6�J:.iJf of 10.E ammo. ^�iaia „iia i .ams> �• nun Viii u. 1 I w.. u/m ►a.• f •1 ILLlmmmf / • c �.:� ■me+•INOW tilal•� •+Y�juenul �a�O . � � .ilii I of �.• . i .l• wimul - I i" I �umu •a;wa �'�- i ��wglrvul t J e III 2XI a.. v ■gym i��,1 1 U 71 w QR,i alj ►�� flLI u _ `� x ►�<,��II�.n U►��.tlw'iii Omni "th I l" '1■tt'llp,��i a fi•�a1��Ln.■■iL u MUM m Al �:: O•,��I Ir ,1�� non •�..�_ i:::v.�.... � ,e�,�11■o■r� iis Ml N�`•:iYll�iii�iii w r ��ues•��16��0�►,wil--i gl ilii - t 1■u� I•a O+1.� ►kali }i/nun� 1IIlmmmr' 1`•�a .fit 'lu■e�R��.r �.�•'w��luevm 3:- I, dumi■■ii K �I►t.•1 <l �IR�In� liiii��,��il�l' Att�C�1�318i1t 2 a S n• Y i li g W O F o F W E EE s 1 z � W 1 1 O i S W J achmei tt ' � �� ` til sl f :!'•Iit{� H: r N. � Q E a tl c c IN Fe o 00000aooaoa00000000©000000 00000aooaoao a a J-4 I • 1pFH I i • y , I I ' it ,E ♦ I �k I ♦--p a — ' I 4 I rw sw rs s — o e 1, -ii � ♦ • I = 1 I Ila y RI:li � I .I. .ISI. — — —1— — - - F K d I � i G1 ♦ J 1• E a � i I .wr I " ~� A ♦ Q) C E _ a yy , 9 1 I 10 T Y' �. 1 s ♦ I 1 c $ IT. C ` I I I,I,.cl•v '' li i I 0 0- S O 1 E all, H ,attachment 2 JillH gg kill fig f k El oaaoa0000000a000aaao®ooa®o MEET oao -•I iaa�75 uap�e� —I � --- - -- ------- - ------ ---- --7:3, i £J C O • I— ems I I I . l x r l I I I I ppp Y I 0411I / I • ,�_� 1 1 ♦ I +Q—I } i I Qm g 11 I rn rn rm aP __ _ ' _J 1- As e L ♦'C�j • : I ♦ 1 ' �1tiou L I �I- R I !2 3aaj15 PYm,g XMISM O GC°130000066BDD 606t300f70©�� DO�O�L7�❑ 000 O O O Eli =I o I o� "---onn Mpnnn. I' = i;e!i: ;_��!<Iw�h�lllllllll� nn in n `LL ::=• - ::. • of .. 0 © V ow ' r. illlllill , , ,_ �;y•,F ,I jN �� c`_, IIIIIIIII` 7lullllll� ,�'�Eli low niz p GLni im- + mii N•_ _� r i ■�,�I�If ,�N ~ pnnnm z.z__ __ __: _ _ _ii r•v::cmm�x:r-�----m:m.:a::x:::e;r..r. .•••:_ ........._.._......_.._ ... ._ _. © B p ° [• C@ L� C� � CEI G C@ =E G@ ; O 1�1■�I��1�11•I��i'� O O O O O ca c9 ca ea KLLLI 1,9 '104 Ifa Ht _ JIM a s Attachment 2 gal ( ! F _ �P 7 4 i p Bg q till Iq ala6 � as s 9 � Ia : �t�$ 9 � 3 � @Ii S ©0000000000000000ao©000000 00000000 jV[1 I t ly y1-.4 Y J I a � 1 � I i I I 2 KK I 1 _ a I I 1 a I I = b ❑ 4 q � F ~ ® CEO)i 7 `p v 2 I B �I I I I 4 b � v a .. _ �' I � I IrY� � I O �• a s fc - _ C � s ' ttLn >i�� ®�' :'25I 3� i �` � ,.t11►`� 1Uhl Attaw,hment 2 • t � o m �" 18@ � 44 9 111 oil o 000000ao©a0000000019BEML oo 000000aa IRA I ' a e i L p b x � 3 1 L 1 � 12® PIE 1 _ t — ® Ell: C R O L 1 � ` O L T y— � \1mIW}j C3 -a3 J + — TH lip, H1111 I asif Attachment 2 =ig a If gill I Quo O ROFIB BRr- OOO��OOO� OO®O�OOO I I ,o o=o I 9.0 a , i J9 I 10 Iy - I § o s o z ` E } b I 4 +L - - - - - - a` I 1 a _ an's 115,01, L911, Attachment 2 i , e Jill.® 9 allI oil go o 0000000000aooa000aaa121o91oo® RI re oa �S4 R 5 s o000 a 1 a I I I A I I I I 4 �• ! I i I c LTj -I I Ln E I II f _ inti •[: . I �af'jt ICi F� IpI� I .513 od o A Al ■! I ill, ° ' ■ I. �M1ld' i I, 11 o o a e a o Il�im� ,iii . 'aVr .itttt j S� i ryzS� iJ'F c° s • w>- c- 4'rvM,xdB O p °O D 9 ' �.' 'I��-_�' IXi� ° RII Ih HIN r CI 93 0 9 all ai • y O i O ' ;p''Y�,, _ut O ui: J vi,nl!(��yi�Il 1nf'um O rX.c.�y�.y�- ,• � �.il�! ilk!`Wi Nlliam ° Ilst yy,11II YY�� I 1 a11• � O ' fI � 41f Via. -" c 1 III III. =LIMA a I ' 1 it tlw ° !) I lilllll ii lyll; 1 0 ��`I x JflY��ll�rll I'G 0000 ,tom j;iil r��Kr y i fki� v� p; O : fit lift Ili Attachment 2 L w ad O Z u e d 12 s � � 45 FIOO �.�� 11�ag �a a �s k�agyrQg yg �� .s{ g 12 Rob T 7o-pb- @= p8� pGpi I i • a £Y � P 4 1 a I ri. 1 1 e • I 1 �i 2 Q J I L • I � I I • I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I I • � 1 I • . I 1 I 1 .p a, �• p I . I I I I I I I I I v a S I I 1 1 I I I I I 1 I . . . • I I I q • o • I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I La I p I I 1 I � • p p I I t a •� , i i - i � i aJ _ u = u 1 I aa ■p I R Gg I �L €Y 9 rliyn Attachment 2 N iJ 0 z V g p 40- 44 O: I I � I 8 ' _ I • G I I I I I I 1 ta • P' ffi 6d a b ia _ a C3-� € _ SIN. 1121 H t Q Attachment 2 dx I I , I I ' I I I I I I � I I rr I a I I I I uj I � I I rl I rr I I I I I I � I I I £ C b C y a� v � u v � ! lit rig HIM III , Q ��. | Q Attachment 2 � ■ � 0 � ■ | � ! EEE i ! ¥ $ [ � t i ■; |{ |_ |. ,, |. !_ |_� |, � � � � l�Lf�t i • < achmen 2 J � 4 <. a ( _ L a 6 a ! t t J` b a 'd q s r � t u t « J t a � Z Y e t I a C =4 O O O 0 J s J J ' C O J N N : y e y � 3 `" LAN $ w z C3 - �-' h=• :_ jig hig �'�!tl�t - e— .o-4c P: a ss § G 4 a .. Y 9 Z9 s � m � P a O C3 33 i k IMM 11112h MIN I Hill i i g • g E r. i i .v.c c az > .• .i� E LoL � a Q Y F r � S g Attachment 3 �►I��NI�IIIIII� hIIIIIIII � Hiii►��Illllllin II city of sAn lolls OBISPO Community Development Department•919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORINT For ER 124-06 1. Project Title: Garden Street Terraces 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Tyler Corey, Associate Planner (805)781-7169 4. Project Location: The site is located within the City's Downtown Core and Downtown Historic District, and consists of seven parcels, including City Parking Lot No. 2, bordered by Broad Street, Garden Alley, Garden Street and Marsh Street. Parcels proposed for development include: • 002-424-022 (736 Marsh and City Parking Lot.#2) • 002-424-012 (712 & 720 Marsh) • 002-424-030 (722 &728 Marsh) a 002-424-018 (742 Marsh) • 002-424-019 (748 Marsh and 1129 & 1137 Garden) 0 002424-021 (1123, 1125 & 1127 Garden) 9 002-424-016 (1119 Garden) 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Garden Street SLO Partners, L.P. c/o Hamish Marshall 805 Aerovista Place, Suite 202 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 C3 - v� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ). INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 pt The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. �` Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. 0 0 Attachment 3 6. General Plan Designation: General Retail 7. Zoning: Downtown-Commercial and Downtown-Commercial with the Historical Preservation overlay zone (C-D & C-D-H) 8. Description of the Project: The proposed "Garden Street Terraces" project is the redevelopment of 1.2-acres to accommodate a downtown mixed-use center of 129,351 square feet (sf) including retail (17,116 sf), 53 residential units of varying sizes (56,406 sf), and a 70-room hotel (55,829 sf), generally of 4 to 5 stories, but reaching a maximum of 6 stories (up to 74 feet in height). A second-level public view terrace is proposed with access from Marsh Street. Two levels of parking (one below grade) with access from Marsh Street and a total of 162 spaces, including 40 City owned public parking spaces, would serve both residential and commercial uses. Pedestrian walkways are proposed to connect the parking garage and interior of the development to the surrounding streets and alleys. The project also includes improvements to Garden Street, between Higuera and Marsh, based on the City approved Garden Street Plan. The project would reconfigure private and public parcels and lead to the removal and modification of both private and public structures and surface parking. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The project area is located in the City's Downtown Core and Downtown Historic District and is surrounded by urban development including buildings occupied by office, retail, restaurant and residential uses. The downtown setting has intermittent views of Cerro San Luis to the northwest and the Santa Lucia foothills to the northeast. 10. Project Entitlements Requested: • Architectural Review and Cultural Heritage Committee Review of project design • Vesting Tentative Tract Map for.condominium purposes • Environmental Review • Planned Development rezone to allow portions of the building to exceed 50 feet in height 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. C3-- CITY OF SAN Luis OBisPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKus-r 2007 U 0 Attachment 3 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Aesthetics X Geology/Soils X Public Services Agricultural Resources X Hazards & Hazardous Recreation Materials X Air Quality X Hydrology/Water Quality X Transportation&Traffic X Biological Resources X Land Use and Planning X Utilities and Service Systems X Cultural Resources X Noise X Mandatory Findings of Significance X Energy and Mineral Population and Housingh Resources FISH AND GAME FEES There is no evidence before the Department that the.project will have any potential adverse effects on fish X and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees. The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days(CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)). C3- CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 Attachment 3 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(§) have been added and agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an X ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Doug Davidson,Deputy Director of Community Development For:John Mandeville, Printed Name Community Development Director C3--R CITY OF SAN Luis 08ispo 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 Attachment 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved,including off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct,and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold,if any,used to evaluate each question. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact'is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17,"Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR',or other CEQA process,an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California Code of Regulations. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate,include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. CITY OF SAN Luis Oatspo 5 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 Attachment 3 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Pm..,;auy Potentially Less ThNo Significant an cant Significant Significant Impact ER# 124-06 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1.AESTHETICS. Would the ro'ecL- a) .Have a substantial adverse effect on a sterile;vista? _ 1,2 X b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited X to, trees,:rockoutcroppings,'open space; and'histodc:buildings' within a local or state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the-existing-visual character,or quality of 1,2,3, X the site and its surroundings? : 4 d) .Create a new source,of substantial light.or..glare, which would. X -adversel _affect_da orni ttime'views in the area? Evaluation a) The project site is not located within the viewshed of a scenic vista identified in Figure 11 of the Conservation and Open Space Element, Scenic Roadways and Vistas map, including views to and from public places,-such as parks,plazas,grounds of civic buildings and publicly accessible open space. b) The project site is not located near a local or state scenic highway identified in Figure 11 of the Conservation and Open Space Element,Scenic Roadways and Vistas map. c) d) Downtown San Luis Obispo is known for its distinctive small town main street environment that contains a healthy commercial district, significant historical and architectural resources, and inviting open spaces. It is enjoyed as a place for local people to live, work and be entertained, and is also important to the City's tourist industry. The visual quality of the downtown is defined by a combination of features. The character defining features can be broadly categorized as pedestrian orientation and historic character. Pedestrian-oriented features include: • continuous building storefronts • recessed building entries with 12' to 16'fust floor heights • mid-block pedestrian connections • generally low-scale street walls with one to three-story facades and a few notable taller buildings • sidewalk-level access to sum and shade • public open space areas that are separated from vehicles with access to views • landscape features such as benches,planters,large canopy street trees and lighting • a proliferation of awnings and projecting signs that are designed for and oriented to pedestrians on the sidewalk The visual quality is also defined by historic character. This character is created by the historic buildings within the downtown core area and the traditional development pattern that is prevalent within the Downtown Historic District. This traditional development pattern is associated with the numerous historic buildings in the downtown core and their components, such as traditional building materials,decorated parapets and cornices,and a combination of land uses including residential apartments or offices above retail storefronts. Most new commercial and residential projects are required to be reviewed by the City's design review board, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). In particular, the ARC scrutinizes new projects proposed in the downtown to insure that they have an appropriate scale, rhythm and design that are compatible with existing development and pedestrian- oriented. The proposed project, because of both its scale and location, has the potential to have a profound and significant impact on the character and appearance of the downtown. The ARC will have the main discretionary responsibility for insuring that the project design is in proper scale with surrounding development,and enhances, rather than detracts from,the character of the downtown. Scone of Work The consultant shall provide a comprehensive evaluation on the project's consistency with Chapter 4 of the General Plan Land Use Element and upcoming amendments to Chapter 17.42 of the Zoning Regulations and Chapter 4 of the Community Design Guidelines to address recent General Plan policy changes that allow taller buildings in the downtown (over 50 feet in CITY OF SAN LUIS Osispo 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 C3- �1D Attachment 3 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Poteutially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 12406 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated height), and offer specific mitigation to assure consistency, if deficiencies are found. The consultant shall also perform a visual analysis of the proposed project and mitigated project if changes are recommended to the project design. The visual analysis shall include both short-range and long-range views of the project, including a view from the northwest side of Higuera Street. The consultant shall factor into their cost proposal for photo-simulations and other appropriate visual analyses. The applicant shall provide electronic files of all building elevations to the consultant for use in the preparation of thephoto-simulations. 2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of 1,6 X Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a X Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to ){ their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? Evaluation a) b) c) The project site is surrounded by developed properties and public streets. The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency designates this property as Urban Land. There is no Williamson Act contract in effect on the project site. Redevelopment of the site will not contribute to conversion of farmland, and may relieve pressure to develop similar land outside of the City's Urban Reserve Line. No impacts to existing on site or off site agricultural resources are anticipated with development of the project site. Scope of Work No potential impacts have been identified with respect to agricultural resources. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 4,7 X existing or projected air quality violation? b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X quality plan? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X people? e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria X pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Evaluation a), b) The project is of a size that it must be reviewed by the Air Pollution Control District to insure compliance with the requirements of the Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County. c),d) The project does not appear to have the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or to create objectionable odors. e) San Luis Obispo County is currently considered"non-attainment"by the State for PMIo(fine particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter)air quality standards.State law requires that emissions of non-attainment pollutants and their precursors be reduced by at least 5% per year until the standards are attained. The Air Pollution Control District must evaluate the project CrrY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 7 INmAL STuDy ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 200 c.3 -4( n Aflachmenf 3 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 124-06 Issues unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated to determine if it will result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of pollutants. Scone of Work Review of air quality impacts shall be coordinated with the Air Pollution Control District and mitigation measures shall be recommended to mitigate emissions during construction as well as during the operational phase of the project,consistent with the requirements of the Clean Air Plan. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:- a) ro'ect:a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or X through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or X other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 8 X biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident X or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation X Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected X wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Evaluation a), b) According to the Natural Diversity Database of the California Department of Fish and Game, there are no species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on or near the project site, nor is riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified. c) A total of 23 trees exist on or adjacent to the site, either as street trees or parking lot landscaping. Sheet C.2 of project development plans indicates which trees are proposed to be removed or retained All on-site trees would be removed to accommodate proposed development. All but one street tree will be retained. Removal of these trees will change the number and diversity of plant species on the site. d) The property is completely surrounded by urban development and the proposed mixed-use infill development project will not interfere with the movement of any wildlife species or migratory wildlife corridor. e) The proposed project will not conflict with any local policy protecting biological resources nor any adopted habitat conservation plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. f) The site is not near any natural waterway and will therefore have no adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands. CITY OF SAN Luis Oeispo 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 20P7 C3 CTS -� /__N1 Attachment 3 , Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potu.dally Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 124-06 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Scone of work No further analysis is required.Potentially significant impacts resulting from the proposed tree removals will be reduced to a less than significant level with the installation of new on-site landscaping and street trees,which will be reviewed and approved by the ARC with consultation by the City Arborist. 5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the.significance of a., 11,25, X historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) 26,27, 28,29, is 30 b) Cause a substantial adverse change-in the significance.:of an` X archaeological resource?(See CEQA-Guidelines 15064.5) c), Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource: X orsite or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, includirig those>interred Putsrde,of.; X formal cemeteries? Evaluation Setting a)b)c)d)San Luis Obispo has a rich cultural heritage spanning the prehistoric,Spanish,Mexican,and American periods. The City is located within the area historically occupied by the Obispefio Chumash, the northernmost of the Chumash people of California. The Obispefio occupied land from the Pacific coast east to the coast range and from the Santa Maria River north to approximately Point Estero. The era of Chumash contact with Europeans began with the initial Spanish exploration of California in 1542. Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa was founded in 1772, the first Spanish establishment in Chumash territory. In 1822 California became a Mexican Territory, and the mission lands gradually became private ranchos via the new Mexican land grants. After California entered the Union in 1850, the ranchos continued to raise cattle until 1863-1864, when a severe drought depleted the cattle. By 1869, dairying had become an important part of the local economy, headed primarily by Swiss and Swiss-Italian farmers. Chinese, Portuguese, and other ethnic groups also played important roles in local history,particularly in the downtown core area. From its inception as a mission settlement in 1772,the commercial and civic life of San Luis Obispo evolved along the streets adjacent to the Old Mission.Today,the principal business district covers roughly the same area it did in the late 19th century, occupying both sides of Monterey, Higuera, and Marsh Streets between Santa Rosa and Nipomo Streets. Here is located the City's largest concentration of historic, multi-storied commercial, residential and public buildings, offering visible proof of the significance and central role of Downtown over time. The evolution of the current streetscape began in 1873, when the County built its Greek Revival style courthouse to replace the 1850 adobe original. With the connection of Higuera Street between 1889-1892,the streetscape surrounding the project area began to mature. As the pattern of transportation and land use changed in the early 1900s, commercial buildings began to outnumber private residences in the study area. Civic and commercial buildings housing retail establishments, restaurants, professional offices, and residential units on upper floors, today dominate the built environment. Architectural styles are eclectic, and include Mission Revival, Tudor Revival, California Craftsmen, Richardsonian Romanesque, early 2& century commercial, Spanish Colonial Revival, Streamline Moderne, and Contemporary. Due to the high concentration of cultural resources— including both archaeological sites and historic buildings—Downtown San Luis Obispo has been designated as a Historical District. Archaeological Resources The archaeology of San Luis Obispo reflects the City's rich, multi-cultural heritage. Archaeological excavations and construction projects have unearthed an unusually rich collection of pre-historic and historic artifacts and features considered as significant under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)Section 15064.5. Although limited in geographic area, past excavations suggest that the probability of encountering additional artifacts and archaeological features due to future development projects is high. am CITY OF SAN LUIS Osispo 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 20 7 03 - - Attachment 3 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Pat�uall Potentially less Than No Significant significant significant Impact ER# 124-06 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated The Garden Street Terraces project site represents one of the earliest use areas within the City. Given its proximity to the Mission and San Luis Creek,prehistoric or Native American Mission-era resources are highly likely to occur on the site. It is anticipated that the majority of the deposits relate to development and use of the site after 1872. The mix of commercial ventures, residences, and public uses present on the site after that date increases the likelihood of encountering intact subsurface features. These features could meet CEQA criteria as important deposits and the interpretation of artifacts and materials contained in them could assist in telling the story of a portion of San Luis Obispo's rich and varied past. Historical Resources A portion of the site (properties fronting Garden and Marsh Streets) is located within the Downtown Historic District with buildings included on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources with one of the structures (1119 Garden Street; Union Hardware Building) determined to be "potentially eligible" for the National Register of Historic Places. The project site contains thirteen buildings with six included on the Master List of Historic Resources (1119, 1123, 1125, 1127, 1129 & 1137 Garden Street)and one included on the Contributing List of Historic Resources(742 Marsh Street).In addition,structures located at 712 & 748 Marsh Street, although not in the City's Inventory of Historic Resources, may otherwise qualify as "significant" under CEQA due to their architectural detail and high degree of integrity. New buildings can have an impact on existing historical resources in two ways,directly,by demolishing,relocating or altering existing buildings to make way for new ones,or indirectly,by changing the overall character of the historic district.Chapter 3 of the Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) includes specific goals, policies and programs to promote historic preservation. The following analysis provides a brief overview of how these policies work to protect historic resources from direct impacts(demolition,relocation,alteration etc.),as well as impacts associated with incompatible adjacent development. COSE Policy 3.21.2 Demolitions. Historically or architecturally significant buildings should not be demolished or substantially changed in outward appearance, unless doing so is necessary to remove a threat to health and safety and other means to eliminate or reduce the threat to acceptable levels are infeasible. COSE Policy 3.21.2 stresses the importance of preserving historically and architecturally significant buildings unless there are prevailing or extenuating circumstances that prevent this. Projects that propose to remove historic buildings that are not a safety threat should generally be considered inconsistent with the General Plan and denied on this basis. Individual policies, that state that a direction "should" be followed, however, are interpreted in the context of all other policies and it is conceivable that a project that demolishes a historic resource could be found consistent with CEQA, through a finding of overriding considerations, and with the General Plan, if the project, as a whole, was consistent with other policies and furthered other important goals and objectives. COSE Policy 3.21.4 Changes to historic buildings. Changes or additions to historically or architecturally significant buildings should be consistent with the original structure and follow the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Buildings. New buildings in historical districts, or on historically significant sites, should reflect the form, spacing and materials of nearby historic structures. The street appearance of buildings which contribute to a neighborhood's architectural character should be maintained COSE Policy 3.21.4 specifically refers to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards as the guiding document for how historic properties should be treated. When rehabilitation projects are submitted to the City, staff provides decision makers with an analysis of how well the project complies with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. These standards mitigate the potential impact that new construction can have on the appearance of historically and architecturally significant buildings. This policy also provides guidance for new buildings in historic districts,such as the Downtown Historic District. COSE Policy 3.21.5 Historic Districts and Neighborhoods. In evaluating new pubic or private development, the City should identify and protect neighborhoods and districts having historical character due to the collective effect of Contributing or Master List historic properties. Crry of SAN Luis OBISPO 10 INinaL STumv F_mmoNmenAL CtmcicusT2007. C3 - 44 Attachment 3 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially PotmtmUy Las Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 124-06 Issas unless Impact Mitigation hicaporaw The project site is located within the Downtown Historic District. New projects located within historic districts must be evaluated for their effect on adjacent historical resources and on the district as a whole. Potential Impacts The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect archaeological and historical resources in three ways: A. Removal, demolition, relocation or alteration of the resource. The project will involve considerable grading and excavation in areas believed to contain significant subsurface cultural resources. Pursuant to the City's Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, this will require a Phase 3 resource recovery to preserve significant artifacts. ht addition, new construction will adversely affect on-site and adjacent historic resources requiring demolition,relocation, alteration or structural modifications to accommodate the project. Seven structures would be demolished and four structures would be relocated to accommodate the project, including five buildings on the Master List of Historic Resources and one building on the Contributing List of Historic Resources. Specifically, the project proposes to rehabilitate 1119 Garden (Union Hardware Building); demolish but maintain the facades of 1123, 1125 & 1127 Garden (Smith Building)and 748 Marsh;demolish 712,720,722&728 Marsh;and relocate 1129& 1137 Garden(Laird Building) to an undisclosed off-site location. B. Alteration of the resource's setting or immediate surroundings, such as that the significance of a historical resource is materially impaired (CEQA Sectionl5064.5). This includes the construction of new buildings, which, due to their location, design, or scale, alters views of the resource, its historic relationship to nearby properties, or other characteristics of the historic building or use. C. Construction vibration,noise,dust and other activities or conditions that could directly or indirectly affect the structural condition,appearance,or short-term habitability of adjacent and nearby historic buildings. Scone of Work There is a very high probability that pre-historic or cultural materials will be found on the project site. Since the project will involve significant demolitions, relocations, excavation and redevelopment, the project timeline must accommodate a time period prior to project construction to allow for identification and preliminary evaluation of cultural resources, and for full recovery of the significant subsurface resources that would be affected by the project. Other areas that are not proposed for excavation may not require recovery but shall be fully evaluated for,archaeological resource impacts. The consultant shall thoroughly discuss the impacts to cultural and archaeological resources and recommend appropriate mitigation measures. The consultant's proposal will need to cover the following: 1. A qualified archaeological consultant shall conduct a peer review of the Historical Overview and Archaeological Research Design prepared by PAR Environmental Services, Inc. dated July 2006, which includes an archeological surface testing program/work plan. The EIR shall detail all findings,discuss the potential significance of the resources, and describe steps necessary to protect the resources, including provisions for resource recovery, monitoring, curation, and public display/interpretation of the significant resources. 2. A qualified historical consultant shall be retained to identify significant historic resources within the project area,discuss in particular detail those buildings proposed for demolition, relocation or alteration, evaluate project effects on those historic resources, and recommend appropriate measures to mitigate adverse impacts. The consultant shall provide a comprehensive evaluation of the project's consistency with CEQA,Chapter 3 of the General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element, the City's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. 3. Coordinate with the appropriate local tribes (on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission)for consultation for the purpose of preserving,or mitigating impacts to,cultural places within or adjacent to the project site. CRY OF SAN LUIS OBlspo 11 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 20 07. C 3 41' AVachrr:ent 3 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources y ft�y Less Than No significant significant significant how ER# 124-06 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation in The EIR Cultural Resources sub-consultant would be the preferred consultant for the separate field work and testing contract, which would include the following tasks: 1. An archaeological field team shall be assembled to determine whether archaeological remains are present;evaluate their significance and integrity; assess potential effects; and perform impact mitigation, where appropriate, through data recovery excavation pursuant to the mitigation recommendations of the EIR. 2. The archaeologist shall provide a final report of any testing and data recovery that describes all findings, evaluates resource significance,and presents data interpretations. 3. Native American coordination shall be arranged for in case of possible recovery of human remains during project excavation. 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 1 X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource X that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? Evaluation a)b)Appendix F of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)Guidelines requires that EIRs include a discussion of the potential energy impacts of proposed projects,with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy. Future development of the area must comply with the policies contained in the General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element, adopted by the City Council in April, 2006. New development will be encouraged to minimize the use of conventional energy for space heating and cooling, water heating, and illumination by means of proper design and orientation, including the provision and protection of solar exposure. The City implements energy conservation goals through enforcement of the California Energy Code, which establishes energy conservation standards for residential and nonresidential construction. Future development of this site must meet those standards. In addition, the City encourages energy-efficient "green buildings" as certified by the U.S. Green Building Council's I.PED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design)Program or equivalent certification. The project architect has analyzed the project and prepared a draft I RED Rating System Project Checklist. The architect's preliminary assessment for the six issue areas has garnered 41 possible points or a Gold certification. The City will strongly encourage the project seek I certification. The City also implements energy conservation goals through Architectural Review. Project designers are asked to show how a project makes maximum use of passive means of reducing conventional energy demand, as opposed to designing a particular image and relying on mechanical systems to maintain comfort. c) There are no known mineral resources on the project site that would be of value to the region or to the residents of the State. Scope of Work The consultant shall provide a comprehensive evaluation on the project's consistency with Chapter 4 of the Conservation and Open Space Element including Table 2 (Solar Access Standards) and offer specific mitigation to assure consistency, if deficiencies are found. The consultant shall also identify the potentially significant energy implications of the project as detailed in Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines. Mitigation measures shall be proposed to reduce wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction,operation,maintenance,and/or removal. 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project- a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 5,9,10 effects,including risk of loss,injury or death involving. L Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated in the X most recent_ uist-Priolo Earthy lu ke Fault Zonin Map_ , rr CITY OF SAN LUIS OwsPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 Afitachment 3 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Poteauauy Potentially Leo Than No Significant Significant Significant InWxt ER# 124-06 Issues unless e Impact M la orated issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Il. Strong seismic ground shaking? X III. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? X IV. Landslides or mudflows? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that X would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on or off site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the X Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Evaluation a), c) San Luis Obispo County, including the City of San Luis Obispo, is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province, which extends along the coastline from central California into Oregon. This region is characterized by extensive folding, faulting, and fracturing of variable intensity. In general, the folds and faults of this province comprise the pronounced northwest trending ridge-valley system of the central and northern coast of California. Under the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act, the State Geologist is required to delineate appropriately wide special studies zones to encompass all potentially and recently-active fault traces deemed sufficiently active and well-defined as to constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep. In San Luis Obispo County,the special Studies Zone includes the San Andreas and Los Osos faults. The edge of this study area extends to the westerly city limit line, near Los Osos Valley Road. According to a recently conducted geology study, the closest mapped active fault is the Los Osos Fault, which runs in a northwest direction and is about one mile from the City's westerly boundary. Because portions of this fault have displaced sediments within a geologically recent time (the last 10,000 years), portions of the Los Osos fault are considered "active". Other active faults in the region include: the San Andreas, located about 30 miles to the northeast, the Nacimiento,located approximately 12 miles to the northeast,and the San Simeon-Hosgri fault zone,located approximately 12 miles to the west. Although there are no fault lines on the project site or within close proximity,the site is located in an area of"High Seismic Hazards,"specifically Seismic Zone 4,which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most likely be subjected w excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. New structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design criteria established in the California Building Code for Seismic Zone 4. To minimize this potential impact, the Uniform Building Code and City Codes require new structures to be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake. a),b),c),d)A Soils Engineering Report was prepared for the project by Earth Systems Pacific. The report concluded that the site is suitable for the proposed development provided recommendations presented in the report are incorporated into the project plans and specifications. The primary geotechnical concerns at the site are the soft and variable consistency of the alluvial soils and the associated settlement potential,shallow subsurface water, the expansive nature of the soil, the need for shoring of the proposed excavation due to adjacent improvements,and support of those improvements during construction. Scope of Work The Soils Engineering Report prepared by Earth Systems Pacific dated March 17, 2006, shall be reviewed and the recommendations of the report shall be incorporated into the environmental document. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pro ect: a) Create a significant hazard to the public'or the environment 5,11, X through the routine use, transport or disposal of hazardous 12,13 materials? b Create a significam hazard to the uublic or the environment X CrrY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INmAL STUDY ENviRONmr=NTAL CHECKLIST 2007 Attachment 3 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potcuuany Pounaany Less Ilan No siguificant Significant Significant Impact ER#12406 issues finless Impact Mitigation through-teasobably fore_seeabie,up'set and„accident';dbn"ns invoivmg the release of hazardous- nmter.0 , Wb -the environment? e) lwt hazardous.-emissions ox handle hazardous or aoutefy X hazardous,materials, substances; or waste within'one tjUafter mile of an existing or proposed sc'lipbl?. `d) -Expose people or structures tg:existing sbwces of fiazardotts' X emissions zir hazardous or.acutely hazardous' materials; substances,orwaste?- , .e) Be located on a site whidb is<inciuded"on a list of hazardausl X materials sites compiled pursupnt to Governmen(Code Section 165462.5 and; as a result,it,would create a significant hazard to the-public or the envi onmenl: f1 Fora project located within"an airport land use plan,or'within X two miles of.a public airport;would the project result ih a safety hazard for the pgople resi"g or working n_the pr4Ject apes? S' Impair implementation of, or"physically interfere with, the X adopted emergency response -plan or emergency"evacuation plan? fi) Expose people or structures to a."significant risk of lose,i'ijury, X or death;involving wildland fires,including wherg wildlar'ds are adjacent to urbanized areis-or where residents`are inteiauked'' With,wildlands? . Evaluation a)b)c) The proposed project will not create a hazard to the public through the use or transport of hazardous materials, or create a hazard through reasonably foreseeable upset conditions. The project will not emit any hazardous emissions. d) A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the project by Secor International Incorporated dated November 21, 2006. The purpose of the Phase I ESA was to identify, to the extent feasible, Recognized Environmental Conditions on the property or within the study area, which potentially have and/or may cause an adverse environmental impact to the property. The assessment has revealed no REC's associated directly with the property and two potential,off-site REC's associated with former gasoline service stations located near the property. The Phase I ESA should be evaluated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board to determine if any further testing on ground water contamination or hazardous materials in the soil are required. e) The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code§65962.5. f) The project site is approximately 3 miles northwest of the San Luis Obispo County Airport,outside the Airport Land Use Plan Area. g) The project has been reviewed by the Fire Marshall and will not conflict with any emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. h) The Safety Element of the General Plan identifies the site as having a low potential for impacts from wildland fres. Scope of Work The scope of work shall include coordination with the Regional Water Quality Control Board to determine if any further testing on ground water contamination or hazardous materials in the soil are required. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER OUALITY. Would the ro ect- a� Violate.any orator gtraltty standards or•..waste disch' 1,14, X urr�ments? ": 15,16, CITY OF SAN Luis OBtspo 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECI(UssT 2007�� Attachment 3 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Soaras Potentailly Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant SigaifiCant Impact ER# 124-06 Issues unless IMPS Mitigation m orated :- 17 by •Substanrialtydeplete groundvyater' sop_plrs •fir` .,itlttsrfere, X substantially matli groundw•ateii fecharge suph flirt there s�ghfld be,; a net'deficit•in=agtufer giumg tax a `lavirering 'o tl e• local" groundq{ater table'level(&Z.',The:productt$n rate of pre exisatag #earby._wells would.,drop to.a level whtilrY W4uld•:not stgiptitt. existing land usesr which petmi(�#ve been- f, 'P) Create or coati Bute runoff water-.whtch wquld exceed the- X capacity of estng or plaruted,stortn water draupage systems or provide. additional'sources.":of runoffr into 'surface; waders (ificludiug; bias not limited to, we an areas, ponds springs,txeeks;streanrs;rivers,^lakes,estuane_s,tial areas:;bays,; ocean,-etc)ro t d) 5ubstantcally alter the .existiog drainage pattei i of tlie'slte: or, X 'are a in'a manner vj"n"eh rvould-resuli iu su'bstantiale7osibn to J sihation onsite or offsite? e,) Substan4411y alter the emsting-drainage pattern of the site ter. X area in a tnaimer which would result m substanhal'`flVoding!. onsite or offsite? l"rt f) Place housing within A lUt}year flood hazard ate as mapped on X aFederai Flood hazard Botii�ary i ^or Flood lnsurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineatibu-map? Piace g)> within a,IW—.year ,flood hazard are _ a ,structures«;which.- X :.. >. would impede of redirect flood flows? Will the:.pro-ect introduce typical stoim water;pollutartts tato X s gSoun(kor surface waters? t = - Vill,the project alter..groimd•'wateror surface waters quality,` X nature,dissolved ox 'en;or turbidt Evaluation a),b) The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Site redevelopment will be served by the City's sewer and water systems and will not use or otherwise deplete groundwater resources. c) d) e) f) g)h) i) A Preliminary Drainage Report prepared by Wallace Group concluded that the project fully complies with the City's Waterways Management Plan (WWMP). Compliance with the WWMP is considered adequate to mitigate potentially significant impacts related to runoff,drainage,flood hazards and water quality. Scove of Work The Preliminary Drainage Report prepared by Wallace Group, dated October 31, 2006, shall be reviewed and the recommendations of the report shall be incorporated into the environmental doctmtent. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject: '66afltct 0h applicable landuse plan,,' lrcy,or regulation bf„ 1,4,5, X an agency;with jtirisdtctioli over the`prolecE:adopted >or'the 17-22 purpose;of avoiduig or mitigating an environmental-effect? -physically divide an established commuiiityv g . .Conflict:with any ajpp3!cable habitat con servanort.plan or natural' X qqWmunity eonservation.rlans?: ' #' Evaluation a) The project is located entirely within the area identified by the Land Use Element (LUE) of the General Plan as the Downtown Core(LUE Figure 4). The area is shown on the General Plan Land Use Map as General Retail, and it is zoned am CITY OF SAN LUIS Osispo 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNECKLI 2007 �� A .7 mart 3 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources roteanally Poteatiauy Less T1tao No Significant Sigaifieant Significant Impact Unless Issues ER# 124-06 Mitigation IncorDorated Downtown-Commercial (CD). A portion of the site (properties fronting Garden and Marsh Streets) is located within the Downtown Historic District. General Plan conformity is required by law. The City must make a finding that a development approval is or is not consistent with the General Plan. In addition, the City's Zoning Regulations, (Section 17.02.050) state that the City's regulations and standards will be interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with the General Plan. The proposed mixed-use redevelopment project has potential conflicts with General Plan policies that may require mitigation. Workscope items identified in Sections 1 (Aesthetics),5 (Cultural Resources),6(Energy and Mineral Resources), 11 (Noise) and 15 (Transportation/Traffic) of this Initial Study will evaluate key chapters and policies of the General Plan as they relate to the development proposal and offer specific mitigation to assure consistency,if deficiencies are found. b)The proposed mixed-use infill redevelopment project will not physically divide an established community. c)There are currently no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans in effect within the project area Scope of Work A table shall be incorporated into the EIR to summarize where the project design complies with polices and programs of the General Plan and where mitigation may be necessary to assure consistency. 11.NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of people to or generation of `unacceptable"' noise 12,20 X levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element, or general noise levels in excess of standards established in the Noise Ordinance? b) A substantial temporary, periodic, or permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne X vibration or groundborne noise levels? 'd) For a project located within pn airport land use plan, or within X two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Evaluation a) According to the Noise Contour Map in the Noise Element,the majority of the site is located within an area susceptible to 60-70 decibles(dB)Ldn due to transportation noise generated from Broad&Marsh Streets,and Highway 101. In addition to transportation noise,the project site is located within close proximity to nightclubs and bars that could sporadically increase noise levels on the site. The proposed retail commercial uses are not noise sensitive as designated by the Noise Element. However,the proposed residential and hotel uses are sensitive noise receptors. Maximum noise exposure for residential and hotel uses is 45 dB for indoor spaces and 60 dB for outdoor activity areas. Development of the project with residential and hotel uses would expose people to unacceptable noise levels, if not properly mitigated. Since the noise exposure levels for residential and hotel uses exceed thresholds for mitigations included in Figure 1 and standards in Table 1 of the Noise Element, standard mitigation measures contained in the City's Noise Guidebook cannot be used. Therefore, an acoustical analysis shall be prepared by a qualified consultant to ensure that noise impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. b) Construction of the proposed project will temporarily increase ambient noise levels. This type of noise is regulated by the City's Noise Ordinance, which regulates times of construction and maximum noise levels that may be generated. If noise levels exceed the Noise Ordinance thresholds,the property owner would be subject to possible citations. c)The project will not expose people to the generation of excessive groundborne noise levels or vibration. /`n^3 CITY OF SAN Luis Osispo 16 INmAL STuOY ENviRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 Attachment 3 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources I Potenmlly Potentially LessTuan No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 124-06 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d)The project site is approximately 3 miles north of the San Luis Obispo County Airport,outside the Airport Land Use Plan Area. Scope of Work A noise study for the project site must be prepared and recommended mitigation measures provided to demonstrate how interior and certain exterior spaces are attenuated to comply with the noise exposure limits established by the Noise Element of the General Plan. These recommendations must reflect the order of preference and management approaches for mitigating noise exposure established by Policies 8,8.1,8.2,8.3,8.4 and 9 of the Noise Element. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly 4,19 X (for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Evaluation a) b) c)The population added by this project is within the General Plan's projection and will not induce substantial growth into the area or result in population exceeding local and regional growth projections. The project site is bordered by urban development and the development of the site represents an in-fill development opportunity. This type of development is encouraged because it can take advantage of existing facilities for water,sewer,storm drainage,transportation and parks. The project site does not currently contain residential uses;therefore,housing or people will not be displaced by the project. Scope of Work No potential impacts have been identified with respect to population and housing. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision, or need, of new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? 4 X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Parks? X e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? X Other public facilities? X Evaluation a) The Fire Department has provided preliminary comments on the proposed development plans and has indicated that due to the proposed height of the building(74 feet at its tallest point),a fire truck with a 100-foot aerial ladder is needed to provide adequate fire protection. In addition, a 20-foot wide clear area must be maintained on Garden Street between Marsh and Higuera Streets without any physical obstructions (i.e. walls, fixed tables and seating, landscaping, street lights, street trees, parking)for fire access. Currently, the City has a fire truck with a 75-foot aerial ladder, which is adequate to meet the height needs of existing buildings in the City. However, the service life of this fire truck is nearing the end of its`front line" service life of sixteen years. Thus, in adequately planning for future needs over the next sixteen years (the service life of the replacement unit), the Fire Department is proposing that the new fire truck have a 100-foot aerial ladder as part of the 2007-09 Financial Plan 03 - �I Cm or SAN Luis Oeispo 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNEcicus r 2007 Attachment 3 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Soames ruy Potentially Less Than Na sigaificant significant significant Impact ER# 124-06 Issues unless Impact hfitigation In orated process. The cost difference between a fire truck with a 100-foot ladder and one with a 75-foot ladder is about$300,000,and a mitigation fee program is being developed that would fund the cost difference. Only new development that would benefit from the added capacity (generally buildings taller than 50 feet) would participate in the fee program; and fees for these would be proportional to the added benefit(most likely based on the amount of building square footage above 50 feet). The addition of this unit to the City's firefighting fleet is still in the proposal and internal review stage: these is no financial or policy commitment to make this purchase at this time. The mitigation plan should be completed in Spring 2007. Adoption of mitigation fees,if any, will be subject to Council approval. The consultant must work with the Fire Department to insure that their standards for access and service are met. b) The Police Department has reviewed the development plans and has indicated that the courtyard and terrace areas of the project should be maintained under private ownership and patrolled by a private security company. Courtyard and terrace areas would be difficult to patrol and would require an increased focus by beat officers.The applicant may work directly with the Police Department on this issue since it is something that normally occurs during the development review process. c) The school districts in the state are separate governing bodies with authority to collect fees to finance school construction and parcel acquisition. Section 65955 of the Government Code prohibits the City from denying a project or collecting any fees beyond those required by the school district itself,to mitigate effects of inadequate school facilities. Any effect that the additional children will have on school facilities will be mitigated in whole or in part by the districts per square foot fees, charged at the time of building permit issuance for each residential unit. d) The project will add incrementally to the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. A total of 53 residential condominium units are proposed. The project will be required to provide some of its own amenities in compliance with the City's Property Improvement Standards for Common Interest Subdivisions. This will insure an adequate level of on-site private open space and common open space. Recreation areas are also required for high density residential development The City's Parkland In-Lieu fee program assesses fees based on each new lot in a subdivision so that the City can meet the goals included in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan,including maintenance of existing facilities. e) f) The proposal does not require the development of new City infrastructure that will result in altered services because of the scale of the project and its location within a developed portion of the City. Increased traffic on downtown streets surrounding the project site may require more frequent resurfacing of those streets. Scope of Work The consultant shall work with the Fire Department to insure that project plans meet their standards for access and service.To address impacts to police resources, the consultant shall complete a third-patty evaluation of a security plan submitted by the applicant that includes the parking structure, courtyard and public terrace areas, residential and hotel valet parking areas, elevator entry areas and public pedestrian walkways. The security plan shall be approved by the Police Chief and identify the locations of 911 capable phones in the parking garage, establish rules and regulations for public use of the courtyard and terrace areas, and establish timeframes for private security patrols to be in place. The plans should ultimately become a recorded document that runs with the land to insure its long-term applicability. 14.RECREATION. Would the project: ".^.e ^v ., 66 �, s X M the use of bxxtstmg neighborhood or renal }�arlc r: 23 24 E "` .Z'�' 3(2'Yt'{ �yw, , '�'oll��ecreattonal`lfacrhties rsu h��that��'siibstanhalx��physical rafttmof�e-factltty wou18-o'bcur or beraccelerated��za„„gym . e .r�.l:.' Lzb�'Inciudeurecr creattonal facilmes;sror"segture flue=c6nstruc o mor' X �.,> � expans19 of+recreational'facilifies,whti }mug jt eve artga Ali sical_effect bn,theenvffoiiiiient� .; �� rc ,• -n Evaluation a) The project will add incrementally to the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. A total of 53 residential condominium units are proposed. The project will be required to provide some of its own amenities in compliance with the City's Property Improvement Standards for Common Interest Subdivisions. This will insure an adequate level of on-site CITY OF SAN LUIS Owspo 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 Aftacli l nenf Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Poteasally PotentaDy Less loos No significant significant significant Impact Unless Issues finpact ER# 124-06 Mitigation IRCOrDarated private open space and common open space. Recreation areas are also required for high density residential development. The City's Parkland In-Lieu fee program assesses fees based on each new lot in a subdivision so that the City can meet the goals included in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan,including maintenance of existing facilities. On-site recreation facilities in addition to in-lieu fees will satisfy the need for parks generated by the project. b) The project does not involve the construction of it own recreational facilities that would be considered significant. Scope of Work The Parks and Recreation Department shall be consulted to determine if there are any potentially significant impacts to existing recreational facilities that would require mitigation. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the 4,12, X existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? 18,33 b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a,level of service X standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and highways? c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features (e.g. sharp X curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? `d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X 'e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? X f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative X transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land X Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise, or a change in air trafficpatterns? Evaluation a)b)c)d)e)f)g) The project site is bordered by Broad Street, Garden Alley,Garden Street and Marsh Street in the Downtown Core. Other nearby streets, such as Higuera,Pismo and Santa Rosa provide linkages to the project from other parts of town. The City's Circulation Element of the General Plan classifies Broad and Marsh Streets as "arterial". Garden Street is classified as a'local street." No change to any of these street classifications would be needed with approval of the project in that they would continue to function as they currently do. Surrounding streets would cavy commercial and residential traffic to and from the site,with an access point on Marsh Street. City staff has reviewed the Site Access and On-Site Circulation Analysis prepared by Fehr& Peers dated July 19, 2006 & November 2,2006 for the project and evaluated project plans in terms of potential transportation and traffic issues. Staff does not concur with the findings and conclusions included in the aforementioned analysis, and it has not been updated to reflect the project's latest configuration, which eliminated vehicular access from Garden Street. Staff finds that the project could result in potentially significant issues in terms of on-and off-site vehicular and pedestrian traffic congestion, circulation and safety, operational effectiveness of public parking spaces,delivery and refuse collection,commercial loading zones,sidewalk widths, emergency access, parking structure design (including circulation, turning movements, and potential for vehicle stacking into the public right-of-way at the parking garage entry and possible sight visibility issues at the garage entry and exit),compliance with Parking and Driveway Standards,construction phasing and how it affects vehicle circulation,parking, pedestrians,refuse collection and deliveries,impacts to existing on-street public parking,pedestrian/vehicle conflicts in dual use areas and bicycle and transit facilities. These issues are discussed further in the following paragraphs: Traffic Congestion The project will generate additional vehicle trips within the Central Business District. This additional demand will likely impact the operation of signalized and unsignalized intersections and may degrade the level of service (LOS) at some 0-3 -53 CnY OF SAN Luis ftspo 19 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNEcKusT 2007 r Attachment 3 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources soarces Potentia y Porenriauv Less9Lan No Significant significant significant tmpmx ER# 124-06 lames unless impact Mitigation Incomorated intersections. Depending on the specific distribution of traffic from the project and the application of trip generation rates that reflect the project's proposed mix of land rises, fully implementing this project may significantly impact intersection operations. During the project's construction, parking shortages might occur once the public parking lot is no longer available for use. This shortage could result in additional traffic circulation within the downtown area, which may cause short-term, but significant traffic and circulation impacts. Emergency Access As discussed in further detail in Section 13 (Public Services), in order to provide adequate emergency access to the project site a 20-foot wide clear area must be maintained on Garden Street between Marsh and lEguera Streets without any physical obstructions (i.e. walls,fixed tables and seating,landscaping, street lights, street trees,parking). The consultant will need to work with the Fire Department to ensure that their standards for access and service are met. Parking Structure Design It appears that the proposed Marsh Street single access point to the parking structure is not sufficient to allow vehicles to safely and effectively enter and exit the site. It is likely that more than one point of entrance and exit will be necessary to accommodate the traffic generated by the project. At a minimum, it is anticipated that two lanes into the garage and two lanes out of the garage must be available during the peak hours of use to avoid significant queuing. The efficiency and effectiveness of the garage as a whole and the convenience of accessing all parking spaces should be considered in determining the feasibility of the structure. Short-Term Parking Concerns During archeological recovery activities and during project construction there will be a significant impact to parking availability since the surface level public parking spaces that presently occupy the project site would be unavailable. During these periods, it is anticipated that local on-street parking, and parking in the Marsh Street Parking Garage, 919 Palm Parking Garage,and the Palm Street Parking Garage could be impacted to the point of capacity. During peak times such as on Thursday nights, during special events, jury assembly periods, and during the busy tourist season periods, available parking in the downtown core could be severely limited. The likely result of this would bean infusion of vehicle traffic into the neighborhoods surrounding the downtown core as people looking for parking spots are forced to look farther out into residential areas. Short-term parking shortages could result in additional traffic circulation within the downtown,which may cause significant traffic and circulation impacts. Pedestrian Access and Circulation The intensity of the proposed project will generate significant pedestrian demand that is not addressed by the City's current sidewalk system (Broad Street sidewalk is 8 feet wide where there are no tree wells or other obstructions) or at street intersections. This is critical at intersections (signalized and unsignalized) where conflicts between pedestrians and turning vehicles are most likely to occur. Scope of Work A traffic study will need to be prepared by a licensed Traffic Engineer and incorporated into the EIR. The traffic study shall adhere to the City of San Luis Obispo Traffic Impact Study Guidelines(June 2000). Project trip generation characteristics and distributions are to be submitted to the City for review and comment/approval prior to proceeding with the traffic analysis. The consultant shall utilize the San Luis Obispo Citywide Traffic Model (SLOCTM),.or equal,to develop the background traffic projections for future year analyses. The consultant shall supply exhibits illustrating proposed mitigations. Along arterial corridors,a traffic signal progression analysis may be necessary for Level of Service determinations and mitigations. C3 -�'F CRY OF SAN Luis OBispo 20 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CttEmusrr 2007 Attachment 3 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sow Potentaor Potentiauyless loan No significant sigaificant Significant Impact ER#12406 IsS11s unless fact Nfitigation m orated Regarding the SLOCTM,the consultant shall provide the City with a copy of the computer disk and documentation with the project land uses and loaded network. If the consultant utilizes another software other than MINUTP,a licensed copy of the program shall be provided to the City along with the project disks. Specific concerns and tasks that must be addressed in the required traffic study include: 1. Final EIR for the Parking & Downtown Access Plan - review the EIR to: validate this previous EIR's conclusions; determine the validity of, and incorporate, pertinent mitigation measures identified in the EIR into the design of this project; determine whether residual significant transportation impacts exist; and present supplemental mitigation measures as necessary. 2. Pedestrian and Vehicular Counts and Trip Generation - provide existing counts and specific trip generation numbers to determine the extent to which this project will increase existing traffic volumes, and perhaps congestion, in the Downtown Core. The consultant should assume that the Garden Street Improvement Plan will be implemented which includes limiting the block of Garden Street between Marsh and.Higuera Street to one-way traffic. 3. Intersection Impacts - evaluate the adequacy of pedestrian space and vehicle storage for left and right turns at impacted intersections within the Downtown Core in close proximity to the project site(and the secondary impacts on the existing supply of curb parking). Also analyze the intersection design for accommodating project associated truck turning movements. At a minimum, intersections to be analyzed shall include Broad/Marsh, Marsh/Garden, Marsh/Chorro, Garden/Mguera, l iguera/Broad, and Chorro/Higuera. Consultant should assume that the Garden Street Improvement Plan will be implemented which includes limiting the block of Garden Street between Marsh and Higuera Street to one- way traffic. 4. Traffic Signals-look at signal coordination between impacted intersections and the potential need for new traffic signals, pedestrian countdown heads,or other modifications. 5. Pedestrian Access and Circulation - evaluate the need for modifications to pedestrian facilities both on-and off-site including the parking structure(adequacy of pedestrian access in and out of street-level public parking garage)and along downtown sidewalks(adequacy of sidewalk widths),traffic signals,and at mid-block and intersection locations,to safely accommodate increased pedestrian volumes associated with the project. 6. Project Support Access - determine whether adequate service, delivery, refuse collection, and emergency access to the proposed project site is adequately provided to avoid conflicts with vehicle and non-vehicular circulation and evaluate how these services impact existing on-street parking and delivery zones. 7. Parking Facility Access Point - the location, design, and adequacy of the proposed singular vehicular access to the proposed parking facility,its impact on vehicle circulation,queuing,parking,and pedestrian circulation within the garage and along the Marsh Street public sidewalk. 8. Parking Facility Internal Efficiency - review and recommend changes to the proposed parking structure (public and private levels) regarding circulation safety, compliance with Parking and Driveway Standards, turning movements, queuing, sight visibility at entry and exit,pedestrian and bicycle access and circulation and operational effectiveness of the public parking spaces. 9. Garden Alley—Evaluate potential impacts associated with the closure of Garden Alley. Evaluate how trash and delivery trucks access the alley. 10. Parking Adequacy Issues — summarize the parking demand and supply (public and private) and identify alternative parking strategies as mitigation measures. Evaluate the project's consistency with the parking requirements for the C-D zone. Indicate existing and proposed curb parking surrounding the site and evaluate any impacts associated with the loss of public parking.Evaluate how the project implements the City's Garden Street Improvement Plan. 3 CRY OF SAN LUIS 0sispo 21 INITIAL SninY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 AttachmEnt 3 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources lea y Potmtially Less lean No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 124-06 Issnes Unless Impact Mitigation hworprmted 11. Access Mitigation Strategies-provide an evaluation of how access levels to the downtown for employees and patrons as well as workers associated with the construction can be maintained during the phased construction of the project. Al a minimum,mitigation strategies shall include TDM measures,supplemental parking,and/or alternative parking techniques and programs. 16.UTII,ITEES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 1,31, X Regional Water Quality Control Board? 32 b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water X treatment, wastewater treatment, water quality control, or storm drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project X from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and expanded water resources needed? d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, X which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitment? e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? f) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations X related to solid waste? Evaluation a), b) This project has been reviewed by the City's Utilities Engineer and, other than the sewer main in Garden Street, no resource/infrastructure deficiencies have been identified. The sewer main in Garden Street will need to be replaced due to its age, grade defects, and poor condition, in order to accommodate the additional wastewater flows from the project. Redevelopment of the site is subject to Water and Wastewater Impact Fees, which were adopted to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the cost of constructing the water supply, treatment and distribution facilities that will be necessary to serve it. c)The City has adopted Water Allocation Regulations to insure that increased water use by new development and land use changes do not jeopardize adequate water service to current and new customers. Section 17.89.030 of the regulations states that a water allocation shall be required to: "obtain a connection to the city water system for a structure or facility not previously connected; change the use of land or buildings, whether or not a construction permit is also required; obtain a construction permit." Payment of the City's Water Impact Fee and compliance with the City's standards and State requirements will assure that impacts to water supplies are less than significant. d) The City wastewater treatment plant and existing sewers in the vicinity have sufficient capacity to serve the project site. This statement assumes the replacement of the Garden Street sewer main with the overall project, as indicated above. The developer will be required to construct private sewer facilities to convey wastewater to the nearest public sewer. The on-site sewer facilities will be required to be constructed according to the standards in the Uniform Plumbing Code. Impact fees are collected at the time building permits are issued to pay for capacity at the City's Water Reclamation Facility. The fees are set at a level that is intended to offset the potential impacts of each component of the project. e) f) Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939) shows that Californians dispose of roughly 2,500 pounds of waste per month. Over 90% of this waste goes to landfills, posing a threat to groundwater, air quality, and public health. Cold Canyon landfill is projected to reach its capacity by 2018. The Act requires each city and county in California to reduce the flow of materials to landfills by 50%(from 1989 levels)by 2000. To help reduce the waste stream generated by this project,consistent with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element,recycling facilities must be accommodated on the project site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials must be COF SAN Luis 08mpo 22 INMAL Sruov ENviRONMENTAL CNECuuu urr st 2007 Attachment 3 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially [essT6an No significant Sigaificant significant Impact ER# 124-06 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation incorporated submitted with the building permit application. The project is required by ordinance to include facilities for recycling to reduce the waste stream generated by the project,consistent with the Source Reduction and Recycling Element. Scone of Work No further analysis is required. Potentially significant impacts resulting from the additional wastewater flows from the project, as identified by the City's Utilities Engineer,will be reduced to a less than significant level with the replacement of the sewer main on Garden Street. The sewer line replacement is a component of the project plans and the requirement will become a condition of the project as it receives various land use entitlements. 17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. {a) •Does the piajec",t"baveYbe-paiential_io-degrad�ilia qualify of the X environnieut,substantiallyadduce the habitat of aThsh or:wi7dlife' species;,cause A fish or wildlife poptilation.to drop below Sejf sustaining levels,,•threaten io eliminate. a.plant poi',animal- commumitN redurce ilio.nu mbef or restrict the range of-a.raze.or endangered plant or animal or eliminate,important examples of the dria'or,litiodi of California hf"s q or rebid ? 1The initial study identifies that the project raises potentially significant impacts for all the issue areas checked in the table on page 3. b).Does the project'bave impacts that are.indivic7im- limited,"but X cumiilativeiy . considerable?.- ("Cunmilatively coniideiable" means,that the incremental effects'.of it project aid considerable ;c•' when viewed in connectidn with tate effects ofrtlie past projects,. the"effects of other current projects, and the effeois of probable '_' fuituieprojects) Impacts discussed under the headings of air quality, transportation/traffic, energy and mineral resources, and utilities and service systems could be considered to have cumulative significance. q) Does the project have:environmental effects, Bch will cause X suibstant"W"adverse4ffecM onchuman beir gs, either,;duecdy or. _ Ir3diret:tl ?' _ r An EIR will be required to analyze the potential adverse environmental impacts associated with project development Mitigation measures recommended by the EIR consultant will prevent the project from resulting in substantial adverse impacts on humane. M EARLIER ANALYSES. .eF analysis may be`iised where pursGaat to the tiering;program E)it ar other CEQA,.procrss,one or more effects have beerr.adequatiely analyzed m an �arher EIit:or Negative Declaration: Section 15 063_(d :,O) (D); In 11iis-case a diseussiori, houldiden ' „the'followin items: -' '. ) > artier "' s s yscd.-Iden' earlier anal es aiid tate where the :are available foT review. N/A ►� _f<mpacts adequately acldee ca. identify wluch`g100s^t Bili the aliove c)l`e�k}st wec��uttliin Ilia scrape:of and tide§irately analyzed its ati earlier:document pursuant!to applicable Jega lstn tech ds,and state whether u>h effects'woe addressed by xWgation merit s°based on th6earherana sis: N/A -r t) `tigaHon:�easu es. FoY effects That ale '7�ess than St nigntcant 4 i fi with'Mi ' tion tiga corporated;"describe the mitigation measures which were,mcoroorated or•refine fiom"the ea6lier document and the extent to vdgch they address site-speeiftc condltiOtts;,i)f•thG ro'ect N/A 19. SOURCE REFERENCES. 1. I City of SLO General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element,May 2006 2. 1 Community Design Guidelines,City of San Luis Obispo,May 2003 Clrr of SAN Luis 08ispo 23 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKIST 2007 Attachment 3 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Lms Than xo Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 124-06 Issues unless Impact Mitigation m 3. Downtown Development Handbook,ULI, 1992 4. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element,September 2004 5. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element,July_2000 6. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dIm/FNIMP/ 7. CEQA Air Quality Handbook,Air Pollution Control District,2003 S. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 12.24,Tree Regulations 9. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Prielo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act,effective January 1, 1990 10. Soils Engineering Report prepared by Earth Systems Pacific dated March 17,2006 11. City of San Luis Obispo Land Use,Inventory and Geographic Information System,current database 12. County of San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan for SLO County ort,July 2004 13. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Secor International Incorporated dated November 21,2006 14. Flood Insurance Rate Ma (Community Panel#060304625 C)dated July 18, 1985 15. City of SLO Waterways Management Plan,May 2006 16. Preliminary Drainage Report prepared by Wallace Group,dated October 31,2006 17. City of San Luis Obispo Water and Wastewater Management Element,June 2004 18. City of San Luis Obispo Circulation Element,November 1994 19. City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element,May 2004 20. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element and Noise Guidebook,May 1996 21. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations,February 2007 22. Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center,May 1993 23. City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Element and Master Plan,June 2001 24. City of San Luis Obispo Subdivision Regulations,March 2006 25. City of San Luis Obispo,Historical Preservation Program Guidelines,February 1987 26. City of San Luis Obispo,Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines,October 1995 27. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Site Ma 28. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Ma 29. Cultural Resources Inventory and CEQA Evaluation for the Garden Street Terraces Project prepared by PAR Environmental Services,Inc.dated July 2006 30. CEQA and Historical Resources prepared by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research dated May 1996 31. City of SLO Source Reduction and Recycling Element,on file in the Utilities Department 32. City of San Luis Obispo Water Allocation Regulations,June 1995 33. Final EIR for the Parking&Downtown Access Plan,Parsons Transportation Group, 1999. Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Reduced Scale Project Plans SUMMARY OF WORKSCOPE ITEMS Section 1.Aesthetics The consultant shall provide a comprehensive evaluation on the project's consistency with Chapter 4 of the General Plan Land Use Element and upcoming amendments to Chapter 17.42 of the Zoning Regulations and Chapter 4 of the Community Design Guidelines to address recent General Plan policy changes that allow taller buildings in the downtown(over 50 feet.in height), and offer specific mitigation to assure consistency, if deficiencies are found. The consultant shall also perform a visual analysis of the proposed project and mitigated project if changes are recommended to the project design. The visual analysis shall include both short-range and long-range views of the project, including a view from the northwest side of C3 -fig Cn-f OF SAN Luis OBISPO 24 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKusT 2007 Attachment 3 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sines Po=aaliy Potentially LM Than No Significant significant Significant Fact ER# 12406 Issue Unless bw= Me Incorporated Higuera Street. The consultant shall factor into their cost proposal for photo-simulations and other appropriate visual analyses. The applicant shall provide electronic files of all building elevations to the consultant for use in the preparation of the photo-simulations. Section 2.Agricultural Resources No potential impacts have been identified with respect to agricultural resources. Section 3.Air Quality Review of air quality impacts shall be coordinated with the Air Pollution Control District and mitigation measures shall be recommended to mitigate emissions during construction as well as during the operational phase of the project,consistent with the requirements of the Clean Air Plan. Section 4.Biological Resources No further analysis is required.Potentially significant impacts resulting from the proposed tree removals will be reduced to a less than significant level with the installation of new on-site landscaping and street trees,which will be reviewed and approved by the ARC with consultation by the City Arborist. Section 5.Cultural Resources There is a very high probability that pre-historic or cultural materials will be found on the project site. Since the project will involve significant demolitions, relocations, excavation and redevelopment, the project timeline must accommodate a time period prior to project construction to allow for identification and preliminary evaluation of cultural resources, and for full recovery of the significant subsurface resources that would be affected by the project. Other areas that are not proposed for excavation may not require recovery but shall be fully evaluated for archaeological resource impacts. The consultant shall thoroughly discuss the impacts to cultural and archaeological resources and recommend appropriate mitigation measures. The consultant's proposal will need to cover the following. 1. A qualified archaeological consultant shall conduct a peer review of the Historical Overview and Archaeological Research Design prepared by PAR Environmental Services, Inc. dated July 2006, which includes an archeological surface testing program/work plan. The EIR shall detail all findings,discuss the potential significance of the resources, and describe steps necessary to protect the resources, including provisions for resource recovery, monitoring,curation, and public display/interpretation of the significant resources. 2. A qualified historical consultant shall be retained to identify significant historic resources within the project area,discuss in particular detail those buildings proposed for demolition, relocation or alteration, evaluate project effects on those historic resources; and recommend appropriate measures to mitigate adverse impacts. The consultant shall provide a comprehensive evaluation of the project's consistency with CEQA,Chapter 3 of the General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element, the City's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. 3. Coordinate with the appropriate local tribes (on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission)for consultation for the purpose of preserving,or mitigating impacts to,cultural places within or adjacent to the project site. The EIR Cultural Resources sub-consultant would be the preferred consultant for the separate field work and testing contract, which would include the following tasks. 1. An archaeological field team shall be assembled to determine whether archaeological remains are present;evaluate their significance and integrity; assess potential effects; and perform impact mitigation, where appropriate, through data recovery excavation pursuant to the mitigation recommendations of the EIR. Cl- J ' CrrY OF SAN Luis Oaispo 25 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKUSTT 2007 Attachment 3 Issues, Discussion and Supportnig Information Sources soumes Pot..4any Potentially i Tha2n No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 124-06 issods Unless impact Mitigation orated 2. The archaeologist shall provide a final report of any testing and data recovery that describes all findings, evaluates resource significance,and presents data interpretations. 3. Native American coordination shall be arranged for in case of possible recovery of human remains during project excavation. Section 6.Energy and Mineral Resources The consultant shall provide a comprehensive evaluation on the project's consistency with Chapter 4 of the Conservation and Open Space Element including Table 2 (Solar Access Standards) and offer specific mitigation to assure consistency, if deficiencies are found. The consultant shall also identify the potentially significant energy implications of the project as detailed in Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines. Mitigation measures shall be proposed to reduce wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction,operation,maintenance,and/or removal. Section 7.Geology and Soils The Soils Engineering Report prepared by Earth Systems Pacific dated March 17, 2006, shall be reviewed and the recommendations of the report shall be incorporated into the environmental document. Section 8.Hazards and Hazardous Materials The scope of work shall include coordination with the Regional Water Quality Control Board to determine if any further testing on ground water contamination or hazardous materials in the soil are required. Section 9.Hydrology and Water Quality The Preliminary Drainage Report prepared by Wallace Group, dated October 31, 2006, shall be reviewed and the recommendations of the report shall be incorporated into the environmental document. Section 10.Land Use and Planning A table shall be incorporated into the EIR to summarize where the project design complies with polices and programs of the General Plan and where mitigation may be necessary to assure consistency. Section 11.Noise A noise study for the project site must be prepared and recommendations must be provided for how to reach the noise limits established by the Noise Element of the General Pian. These recommendations must reflect the order of preference and management approaches for mitigating noise exposure established by Policies 8,8.1,8.2,8.3,8.4 and 9 of the Noise Element. Section 12.Population and Housing No potential impacts have been identified with respect to population and housing. Section 13.Public Services The consultant shall work with the Fire Department to insure that project plans meet their standards for access and service.To address impacts to police resources,the consultant shall complete a third-party evaluation of a security plan submitted by the applicant that includes the parking structure, courtyard and public terrace areas, residential and hotel valet parking areas, elevator entry areas and public pedestrian walkways. The security plan.shall be approved by the Police Chief and identify the locations of 911 capable phones in the parking garage, establish rules and regulations for public use of the courtyard and C 3- [AD CRY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 26 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 .� Attachment 3 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources somas Pow aafly Potentially I Less Than No significant significant sigiificant Ewst ER# 124-06 issms Ung fact Mitigation In ted terrace areas, and establish timeframes for private security patrols to be in place. The plans should ultimately become a recorded document that runs with the land to insure its long-term applicability. Section 14.Recreation The Parks and Recreation Department shall be consulted to determine if there are any potentially significant impacts to existing recreational facilities that would require mitigation. Section 15.Transportation/Traffic A traffic study will need to be prepared by a licensed Traffic Engineer and incorporated into the EIR. The traffic study shall adhere to the City of San Luis Obispo Traffic Impact Study Guidelines(June 2000). Project trip generation characteristics and distributions are to be submitted to the City for review and comment/approval prior to proceeding with the traffic analysis. The consultant shall utilize the San Luis Obispo Citywide Traffic Model (SLOCTM),or equal, to develop the background traffic projections for future year analyses. The consultant shall supply exhibits illustrating proposed mitigations. Along arterial corridors,a traffic signal progression analysis may be necessary for Level of Service determinations and mitigations. Regarding the SLOCTM,the consultant shall provide the City with a copy of the computer disk and documentation with the project land uses and loaded network.If the consultant utilizes another software other than M]NUTP,a licensed copy of the program shall be provided to the City along with the project disks. Specific concerns and tasks that must be addressed in the required traffic study include: 1. Final EIR for the Parking & Downtown Access Plan - review the EIR to: validate this previous EIR's conclusions; determine the validity of, and incorporate, pertinent mitigation measures identified in the EIR into the design of this project; determine whether residual significant transportation impacts exist; and present supplemental mitigation measures as necessary. 2. Pedestrian and Vehicular Counts and Trip Generation -provide existing counts and specific trip generation numbers to determine the extent to which this project will increase existing traffic volumes, and perhaps congestion, in the Downtown Core. The consultant should assume that the Garden Street Improvement Plan will be implemented which includes limiting the block of Garden Street between Marsh and Higuera Street to one-way traffic. 3. Intersection Impacts - evaluate the adequacy of pedestrian space and vehicle storage for left and right turns at impacted intersections within the Downtown Core in close proximity to the project site(and the secondary impacts on the existing supply of curb parking). Also analyze the intersection design for accommodating project associated truck turning movements. At a minimum, intersections to be analyzed shall include Broad/Marsh, Marsh/Garden, Marsh/Chorro, Garden/Higuera, Higuera/Broad, and Chorro/Higuera. Consultant should assume that,the Garden Street Improvement Plan will be implemented which includes limiting the block of Garden Street between Marsh and Higuera Street to one- way traffic. 4. Traffic Signals-look at signal coordination between impacted intersections and the potential need for new traffic signals, pedestrian countdown heads,or other modifications. 5. Pedestrian Access and Circulation - evaluate the need for modifications to pedestrian facilities both on-and off-site including the parking structure(adequacy of pedestrian access in and out of street-level public parking garage)and along downtown sidewalks(adequacy of sidewalk widths),traffic signals,and at mid-block and intersection locations,to safely accommodate increased pedestrian volumes associated with the project. C3--- [.p l CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 27 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIsT'2007 Attachment 3 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources POw daily Potentially I L.es Mum No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 124-06 Issues Unless Impact mitigation hw=orated 6. Project Support Access - determine whether adequate service, delivery, refuse collection, and emergency access to the proposed project site is adequately provided to avoid conflicts with vehicle and non-vehicular circulation and evaluate how these services impact existing on-street parking and delivery zones. 7. Parking Facility Access Point - the location, design, and adequacy of the proposed singular vehicular access to the proposed parking facility,its impact on vehicle circulation,queuing,parking,and pedestrian circulation within the garage and along the Marsh Street public sidewalk. 8. Parking Facility Internal Efficiency - review and recommend changes to the proposed parking structure (public and private levels) regarding circulation safety, compliance with Parking and Driveway Standards, turning movements, queuing, sight visibility at entry and exit, pedestrian and bicycle access and circulation and operational effectiveness of the public parking spaces. 9. Garden Alley—Evaluate potential impacts associated with the closure of Garden Alley. Evaluate how trash and delivery trucks access the alley. 10. Parking Adequacy Issues — summarize the parking demand and supply (public and private) and identify alternative parking strategies as mitigation measures. Evaluate the project's consistency with the parking requirements for the C-D zone. Indicate.existing and proposed curb parking surrounding the site and evaluate any impacts associated with the loss of public parking.Evaluate how the project implements the City's Garden Street Improvement Plan. 11. Access Mitigation Strategies-provide an evaluation of how access levels to the downtown for employees and patrons as well as workers associated with the construction can be maintained during the phased construction of the project. At a minimum,mitigation strategies shall include TDM measures,supplemental parking,and/or alternative parking techniques and programs. Section 16.Utilities and Service Systems No further analysis is required. Potentially significant impacts resulting from the additional wastewater flows from the project, as identified by the City's Utilities Engineer,will be reduced to a less than significant level with the replacement of the sewer main on Garden Street. The sewer line replacement is a component of the project plans and the requirement will become a condition of the project as it receives various land use entitlements. CRY OF SAN Luis OBIspo 28 INRIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 Attachment 4 city of san tui s oBl spo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Notice Requesting Proposals for Garden Street Terraces Project EIR & Archaeological Services Specification No. 90695 The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting sealed proposals to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) for the Garden Street Terraces Project. The EIR must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and address the topics identified in the Request for Proposals (RFP). All proposals must be received by the Department of Finance by 3:00 p.m. on Friday, May 18, 2007, when they will be opened publicly in the City Hall Council Chambers. Proposals received after said time will not be considered. To guard against premature opening, each proposal shall be submitted to the Department of Finance, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, in a sealed envelope plainly marked with the proposal title, specification number, proposer name, and time and date of the proposal opening. Proposals shall be submitted using the forms provided in the specification package. Additional information may be obtained by contacting Tyler Corey,Associate Planner,at(805)781-7169. ® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including disabled persons in all of our services,programs and actiivities. P J Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. U, Attachment 4 Specification No. 90695 TABLE OF CONTENTS A. Description of Work (R1-6 B. General Terms and Conditions 7-10 Proposal Requirements Contract Award and Execution N� Contract Performance C. Special Terms and Conditions 11-14 Project Coordination Proposal Content Proposal Evaluation and Selection A"t�,'J Proposal Review and Award Schedule Start and Completion of Work D. Agreement 15-16 E. Insurance Requirements 17-18 n� a � F. Proposal Submittal Forms 19-21 Proposal Submittal Form References ons Statement of Past Contract Disqualificati Attachment 4 Section A DESCRIPTION OF WORK Project Description The proposed project site is located within the City's Downtown Core and consists of seven parcels, including City Parking Lot No. 2, bordered by Broad Street, Garden Alley, Garden Street and Marsh Street. A portion of the site (properties fronting Garden and Marsh Streets) is located within the Downtown Historic District with buildings included on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources. The proposed project would include the development of 1.2-acres to accommodate a downtown mixed- use center of 129,351 square feet (sf) including retail (17,116 sf), 53 residential units (56,406 sf), and a 70-room hotel (55,829 sf),generally of 4 to 5 stories,but reaching a maximum of 6 stories up to 74 feet in height. A second-level public view terrace is proposed with access from Marsh Street. Two levels of parking (one below grade) with access from Marsh Street would serve both residential and commercial uses, as well as 40 City owned public parking spaces. The project also includes improvements to Garden Street, between Higuera and Marsh, based on the City approved Garden Street Plan. The project would reconfigure private and public parcels and lead to the removal and modification of both private and public structures and surface parking. Scope of Work An Initial Study of Environmental Impact was completed for this project, which concluded that there may be significant environmental impacts associated with development and that an environmental impact report (EIR) is required. The applicant is not disputing the need for preparation of an EIR. The workscope more specifically identifies issues and tasks that need to be performed to evaluate potential impacts of the project. EIR Workscope Items The selected consultant shall incorporate the Initial Study of Environmental Impact that was completed for this project into the EIR. The following list of workscope issues was extracted from that initial study. The numbers used below that identify issue areas are consistent with the system from the initial study. For those issue areas included in the initial study,which concluded that impacts were less than significant, no workscope items appear. #1 AF.STAFTicS. A. The consultant shall provide a comprehensive evaluation on the project's consistency with Chapter 4 of the General Plan Land Use Element and upcoming amendments to Chapter 17.42 of the Zoning Regulations and Chapter 4 of the Community Design Guidelines to address recent General Plan policy changes that allow taller buildings in the downtown (over 50 feet in height), and offer specific mitigation to assure consistency, if deficiencies are found. B. The consultant shall perform a visual analysis of the proposed project and mitigated project if changes are recommended to the project design. The visual analysis shall include both short- range and long-range views of the project, including a view from the northwest side of Higuera Street. The consultant shall factor into their cost proposal for photo-simulations and other appropriate visual analyses. The applicant shall provide electronic files of all building elevations to the consultant for use in the preparation of the photo-simulations. C � -c�S 0 Attachment 4 #3 AIR QUALE A. Review of air quality impacts shall be coordinated by the consultant with the Air Pollution Control District and mitigation measures shall be recommended to mitigate emissions during construction as well as during the operational phase of the project, consistent with the requirements of the Clean Air Plan. #5 CULTURAL RESO-MM : A. The EIR consultant selected will need to thoroughly discuss the impacts to cultural and archaeological resources and recommend appropriate mitigation measures. The consultant's proposal will need to cover the following: 1. A qualified archaeological consultant shall conduct a peer review of the Historical Overview and Archaeological Research Design prepared by PAR Environmental Services, Inc. dated July 2006, which includes an archeological surface testing program/work plan. The EIR shall detail all findings, discuss the potential significance of the resources, and describe steps necessary to protect the resources, including provisions for resource recovery, monitoring, curation, and public display/interpretation of the significant resources. 2. A qualified historical consultant shall be retained to identify significant historic resources within the project area, discuss in particular detail those buildings proposed for demolition, relocation or alteration, evaluate project effects on those historic resources, and recommend appropriate measures to mitigate adverse impacts. The consultant shall provide a comprehensive evaluation of the project's consistency with CEQA, Chapter 3 of the General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element, the City's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. 3. Coordinate with the appropriate local tribes (on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission) for consultation for the purpose of preserving, or mitigating impacts to,cultural places within or adjacent to the project site. Separate Archaeoloacal Services Contract Workscope: A. An expanded workscope for the separate archaeological services shall be included with the EIR proposal. However, it is understood that the contract for archaeological services would be separate and follow at a later date. It is assumed that the mitigation plan that is a part of the EIR would need to be first prepared in order to develop a reasonable estimate of the necessary contract budget. The EIR Cultural Resources sub-consultant would be the preferred consultant for the separate field work and testing contract,which would include the following tasks: 1. An archaeological field team shall be assembled to determine whether archaeological remains are present; evaluate their significance and integrity; assess potential effects; and perform impact mitigation, where appropriate, through data recovery excavation pursuant to the mitigation recommendations of the EIR. 2. The archaeologist shall provide a final report of any testing and data recovery that describes all findings,evaluates resource significance,and presents data interpretations. 3. Native American coordination shall be arranged for in case of possible recovery of human remains during project excavation. ti LP � Attachment 4 #6 ENERGYAND Ai. ESO tR .S: A. The consultant shall provide a comprehensive evaluation on the project's consistency with Chapter 4 of the Conservation and Open Space Element including Table 2 (Solar Access Standards)and offer specific mitigation to assure consistency, if deficiencies are found. B. The consultant shall identify the potentially significant energy implications of the project as detailed in Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines. Mitigation measures shall be proposed to reduce wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction, operation, maintenance,and/or removal. #7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS: A. The Soils Engineering Report prepared by Earth Systems Pacific dated March 17, 2006, shall be reviewed by the consultant and the recommendations of the report shall be incorporated into the environmental document. #8 HA7.ARDs AND HA7.ARDOUs MATF.RiAI.S: A. The consultant shall coordinate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board to determine if any further testing on ground water contamination or hazardous materials in the soil are required. #9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUAi.rrY: A. The Preliminary Drainage Report prepared by Wallace Group, dated October 31, 2006, shall be reviewed by the consultant and the recommendations of the report shall be incorporated into the environmental document. #10 LAND USE AND PLANNING: A. A table shall be prepared by the consultant and incorporated into the EIR to summarize where the project design complies with polices and programs of the General Plan and where mitigation may be necessary to assure consistency. #11 NOISE: A. A noise study for the project site must be prepared and recommendations must be provided for how to reach the noise limits established by the Noise Element of the General Plan. These recommendations must reflect the order of preference and management approaches for mitigating noise exposure established by Policies 8, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4 and 9 of the Noise Element. #13 PuBijcsFRyLcF,4jI A. The consultant shall work with the Fire Department to insure that project plans meet their standards for access and service. B. To address impacts to police resources, the consultant shall complete a third-party evaluation of a security plan submitted by the applicant that includes the parking structure, courtyard and public terrace areas, residential and hotel valet parking areas, elevator entry areas and public pedestrian walkways. The security plan shall be approved by the Police Chief and identify the locations of 911 capable phones in the parking garage, establish rules and regulations for public use of the courtyard and terrace areas, and establish timeframes for private security patrols to be in place. C3 -(-e�7 0 -"\ Attachment 4 The plans should ultimately become a recorded document that runs with the land to insure its long-term applicability. #14 RFcREAnM A. The Parks and Recreation Department shall be consulted to determine if there are any potentially significant impacts to existing recreational facilities that would require mitigation. #15 TRANspoRTATION/TRAFFIC: A. A traffic study will need to be prepared by a licensed Traffic Engineer and incorporated into the EIR. The traffic study shall adhere to the City of San Luis Obispo Traffic Impact Study Guidelines (June 2000). Project trip generation characteristics and distributions are to be submitted to the City for review and comment/approval prior to proceeding with the traffic analysis. The EIR will highlight the project setting related to traffic issues, summarize the impact analysis,and outline appropriate mitigation measures. The traffic study would eventually become a technical appendix to the EIR. The consultant shall utilize the San Luis Obispo Citywide Traffic Model (SLOCTM), or equal, to develop the background traffic projections for future year analyses. The consultant shall supply exhibits illustrating proposed mitigations. Along arterial corridors, a traffic signal progression analysis may be necessary for Level of Service determinations and mitigations. Regarding the SLOCTM, the consultant shall provide the City with a copy of the computer disk and documentation with the project land uses and loaded network. If the consultant utilizes another software other than MINUTP, a licensed copy of the program shall be provided to the City along with the project disks. Specific concerns and tasks that must be addressed in the required traffic study include: 1. Final EIR for the Parking & Downtown Access Plan - review the EIR to: validate this previous EIR's conclusions; determine the validity of, and incorporate, pertinent mitigation measures identified in the EIR into the design of this project; determine whether residual significant transportation impacts exist; and present supplemental mitigation measures as necessary. 2. Pedestrian and Vehicular Counts and Trip Generation - provide existing counts and specific trip generation numbers to determine the extent to which this project will increase existing traffic volumes, and perhaps congestion, in the Downtown Core. The consultant should assume that the Garden Street Improvement Plan will be implemented which includes limiting the block of Garden Street between Marsh and Higuera Street to one-way traffic. 3. Intersection.Impacts-evaluate the adequacy of pedestrian space and vehicle storage for left and right turns at impacted intersections within the Downtown Core in close proximity to the project site (and the secondary impacts on the existing supply of curb parking). Also analyze the intersection design for accommodating project associated truck turning movements. At a minimum, intersections to be analyzed shall include Broad/Marsh, Marsh/Garden, Marsh/Chorro, Garden/Higuera, Higuera/Broad, and Chorro/Higuera. Consultant should assume that the Garden Street Improvement Plan will be implemented which includes limiting the block of Garden Street between Marsh and Higuera Street to one-way traffic. 4. Traffic Signals- look at signal coordination between impacted intersections and the potential need for new traffic signals,pedestrian countdown heads, or other modifications. C ✓ - �p" Attachment 4 5. Pedestrian Access and Circulation - evaluate the need for modifications to pedestrian facilities both on-and off-site including the parking structure (adequacy of pedestrian access in and out of street-level public parking garage) and along downtown sidewalks (adequacy of sidewalk widths), traffic signals, and at mid-block and intersection locations, to safely accommodate increased pedestrian volumes associated with the project. 6. Project Support Access - determine whether adequate service, delivery, refuse collection, and emergency access to the proposed project site is adequately provided to avoid conflicts with vehicle and non-vehicular circulation and evaluate how these services impact existing on-street parking and delivery zones. 7. Parking Facility Access Point -the location, design, and adequacy of the proposed singular vehicular access to the proposed parking facility, its impact on vehicle circulation, queuing, parking, and pedestrian circulation within the garage and along the Marsh Street public sidewalk. 8. Parking Facility Internal Efficiency - review and recommend changes to the proposed parking structure (public and private levels) regarding circulation safety, compliance with Parking and Driveway Standards, turning movements, queuing, sight visibility at entry and exit, pedestrian and bicycle access and circulation and operational effectiveness of the public parking spaces. 9. Garden Alley — Evaluate potential impacts associated with the closure of Garden Alley. Evaluate how trash and delivery trucks access the alley. 10. Parking Adequacy Issues—summarize the parking demand and supply (public and private) and identify alternative parking strategies as mitigation measures. Evaluate the project's consistency with the parking requirements for the C-D zone. Indicate existing and proposed curb parking surrounding the site and evaluate any impacts associated with the loss of public parking.Evaluate how the project implements the City's Garden Street Improvement Plan. 11. Access Mitigation Strategies - provide an evaluation of how access levels to the downtown for employees and patrons as well as workers associated with the construction can be maintained during the phased construction of the project. At a minimum, mitigation strategies shall include TDM measures, supplemental parking, and/or alternative parking techniques and programs. Additional EIR Workscope items In addition to the above-mentioned significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed development, the EIR should discuss any other significant environmental impacts that are discovered by the consultant while preparing a proposal, public input from the scoping meeting, or comments made by other agencies after circulation of the Notice of Preparation. In order to be sure the EIR is a comprehensive list of all the potential significant items, a discussion of standard CEQA items that were not considered significant should be included. A description of each of these items, including justification of why they were deemed less than significant, including proposed mitigation measures, should be provided. Attachment 4 Alternatives Alternatives need to clearly indicate how they would address identified project impacts and should at minimum evaluate the following: 1. The "no"project alternative; 2. Incorporation of historic buildings alternative; 3. Protection of visual resources alternative; 4. Project without public parking spaces alternative; 5. Reduced development alternative; and 6. Other comparable sites where the project might be developed. Mitigation Monitoring Program The consultant shall prepare a Mitigation Monitoring Program consistent with CEQA Section 21081.6. Resources The EIR should address, and rely on as a resource, previous EIRs that have been completed within the project vicinity, specifically the Environmental Impact Report for the Copeland's Project (EIR 192-01 and ER 193-01,August 2002,prepared by AMEC for the City of San Luis Obispo). Cam° -r .(D Attachment 4 Section C SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS PROJECT COORDINATION. a. City. The Community Development Director (hereinafter referred to as "Director's hereby designates Tyler Corey, Associate Planner, as the Project Manager for the City. He shall serve as the representative of the City for all purposes under this agreement. The Project Manager, or the Director in his absence,shall supervise the progress and execution of this agreement. b. Consultant. Consultant shall assign a single Project Manager to have overall responsibility for the progress and execution of this agreement for Consultant. CONTENT OF PROPOSALS Three (3)copies of the proposal must be submitted that reflect a clear understanding of the workscope to be performed and include the following information: 1. Resumes of your firm, the project manager, key technical staff and any sub-consultants you plan to employ. Work on previous projects with similar workscopes should be highlighted, along with references from at least three firms for whom you have provided similar services with telephone numbers included. With this project, it is critical that the consultant's professional team include: a. A licensed civil engineer with a background in traffic,or registered traffic engineer; b. An architect or engineer with a specialization in parking structure design; C. A qualified architectural historian and archaeologist. An organizational and manpower chart to show the names of all key personnel assigned to the project should also be included. 2. A draft work program, which expands on, the workscope contained in Section A of this Request for Proposals(RFP). The work program shall itemize major tasks and work products, responsible staff, special information or studies required, and special methods or equipment, if any, you anticipate using. Procedures should be included showing how the consultant plans to coordinate with key City staff. The work program shall also specify information, equipment, or services to be provided by the City that is not already identified in the workscope. The work program should identify all other elements of the EIR needed to assure CEQA compliance, which may not be listed in the workscope,and should explain how this will be accomplished. 3. A preliminary estimate of number of hours expected to complete the work, organized by major task to be accomplished and by level of employee who will be assigned to do this work. The time for firm members to attend public hearings where the EIR is considered (minimum of four) should be included as part of the hours estimate. 4. A schedule of completion for major tasks identified under#2,above. Examples of key tasks are: data collection, data verification and analysis, completion of the Draft EIR, responses to comments, attendance at public hearings, and certification of the Final EIR. It is the City's intent that an administrative draft of the EIR would be prepared by November 15, 2007. The schedule was based on using a 140-day timeframe for production of the administrative draft of the EIR c3 - `li 0 jJ Attachment 4 from the EIR kick-off meeting date scheduled for June 28, 2007, between City staff, the consultants and the applicant. 5. Hourly billing rates for the staff to be assigned to this project, including any sub-consultants. 6. Three references from clients for whom your firm has completed similar EIRs. PROPOSAL E VAL UA TION AND CONS UL TANT SELECTION Review of the project by City decision-makers is dependent on completion of the Draft EIR. Therefore, timely completion and circulation of the Draft EIR is essential to expeditious processing of the project consistent with CEQA and will be considered in evaluating consultant proposals. A pre-submittal information meeting is scheduled for May 3, 2007 at 3 p.m. in Conference Room 1 at 919 Palm Street to answer questions and clarify expectations. A review committee using a two-phase selection process as follows will evaluate proposals: Written Proposal Review and Finalist Candidate Selection A group of finalist candidates (generally the top three to five proposers) will be selected for follow-up interviews and presentations based on the following criteria as indicated in their written proposals: a. Understanding of the work required by the City b. Quality and responsiveness of the proposal C. Demonstrated competence and professional qualifications necessary for satisfactory performance of the work required by the City d. Recent experience in successfully performing similar services e. Proposed approach in completing the work f. References g. Background and related experience of the specific individuals to be assigned to this project Presentations,Interviews, and Consultant Selection Finalist candidates will be required to make an oral presentation to the review committee and answer questions about their proposals. The purpose of this phase is two-fold: to clarify and resolve any outstanding questions or issues about the proposal; and to evaluate the proposer's ability to present information orally clearly and concisely. As part of this second phase of the selection process, finalist candidates will submit proposed compensation costs for the work, including a proposed payment schedule tied to the completion of key project milestones or tasks. Contract award will be based on a combination of factors that represent that best overall value for completing the work outlined in the workscope as determined by the City, including: the written proposal criteria noted above; results of background and reference checks;results from the interviews and presentations phase; and proposed compensation. After evaluating the proposals and discussing them further with the finalists or the tentatively selected Consultant, the City reserves the right to further negotiate the proposed workscope and/or method and amount of compensation. PROPOSAL REVIEW AND AWARD SCHEDULE TENTATIVE The following is an outline of the anticipated schedule for proposal review and contract award: Issue RFP April 20, 2007 Pre-submittal information meeting May 3, 2007 C3 - `1� Attachment 4 Receive proposals May 18, 2007 Complete proposal evaluation June 1, 2007 Conduct finalist interviews June 6, 2007 Finalize staff recommendation June 13, 2007 Award contract June 18, 2007 Applicant deposits EIR cost June 20, 2007 EIR kick-off meeting/Start work June 28, 2007 Complete admin. Draft EIR November 15, 2007 If you have any questions about this RFP, schedule, or attachments, please call Tyler Corey at(805) 781- 7169. START AND COMPLETION OF WORK 1. Contract Schedule. The above schedule, as well as meeting dates needed in the future, may be modified with the mutual consent of the City and the Consultant. 2. Completion of Work Work on the administrative draft of the EIR shall be completed 140 calendar days after the EIR kick-off meeting date scheduled for June 28,2007. 3 Ownership of Materials. All original drawings, plan documents and other materials prepared by or in possession of the Consultant as part of the work or services under these specifications shall become the permanent property of the City,and shall be delivered to the City upon demand. 4. Copies of Reports and Information. If the City requests additional copies of reports, drawings, specifications, or any other material in addition to what the Consultant is required to furnish in limited quantities as part of the work or services under these specifications, the Consultant shall provide such additional copies as are requested; and City shall compensate the Consultant for the costs of duplicating of such copies at the Consultant's direct expense. 5. Required Deliverable Products. The Consultant will be required to provide: a. Five (5) hard and five (5) electronic copies of the Administrative Draft EIR which addresses all elements of the workscope. City staff will review any documents or materials provided by the Consultant and, where necessary, the Consultant will be required to respond to staff comments and make such changes as deemed appropriate. b. Sixty (60) hard (utilizing two-sided copying) and five (5) electronic copies of the Draft EIR. C. Fifty(50) hard and five (5) electronic copies of the Final EIR, which incorporates changes to the draft document as a result of its review at pubic hearings, and includes responses to comments. d. One camera-ready original of the Draft and Final EIRs,unbound, each page printed on only one side, including any original graphics in place and scaled to size,ready for reproduction. e. When computers have been used to produce materials submitted to the City as a part of the workscope, the Consultant must provide the corresponding computer files to the City, compatible with the following programs whenever possible unless otherwise directed by the project manager. C3 -g3 Attachment 4 Word Processing Microsoft Word Spreadsheets Microsoft Excel Desktop Publishing Adobe PhotoShop,Microsoft Publisher Computer files must be submitted on a compact disc. Each disc shall be clearly labeled and have a printed copy of the directory. 6. Attendance at Meetings and Hearings. As part of the workscope and included in the contract price is attendance at a minimum of four public meetings to present. and discuss the Consultant's findings and recommendations. The cost should also include a public scoping meeting to be held at a Planning Commission meeting on July 25, 2007. Consultant shall attend as many "working" meetings with staff as necessary in performing workscope tasks. 7. Preparation of CEQA Documents. The consultant, in consultation with the Project Manager, shall be responsible for the preparation of the required Notice of Preparation (NOP), Notice of Completion(NOC), and Notice of Availability(NOA). The consultant will also be responsible for mailing these documents to relevant agencies and interested citizens, as well as distributing Draft EIRs. The costs for these tasks and mailing costs should be factored into the total EIR budget. c: --SLI U Attachment 5 PROPOSERS LIST GARDEN STREET TERRACES PROJECT EIR—SPECIFICATION NO.90695 AMEC Earth &Environmental, Inc. Dudek & Associates,Inc. Envicom 104 W. Anapamu St., Suite 621 Chapala St. 28328 Agoura Rd. 204A Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Fugro West, Inc. FIRMA The Morro Group 1012 Pacific St., Ste. A 849 Monterey St. 1422 Monterey St., Ste. C200 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Pacific Municipal Consultants SAIC Rincon Consultants, Inc. 585 Cannery Row, Suite 304 816 State St., Ste. 500 1530 Monterey Street, Suite D Monterey, CA 93940 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Woodward Clyde Consultants Tetra Tech, Inc. Douglas Wood & Associates, Inc. 130 Robin Hill Rd.,Ste. 100 4213 State Street, Suite 205 1461 Higuera St., Suite A Santa Barbara,CA 93117 Santa Barbara, CA 93110 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 David Early, Principal Padre Associates, Inc. Design, Community TPG Consulting, Inc. 811 El Capitan Way, Ste. 130 &Environment 222 N. Garden St., Ste. 100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 1625 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 300 Visalia, CA 93291 Berkeley, CA 94709 A/E Consultants Dames & Moore LFR Levine Fricke Information Network 3445 West Shaw Ave., Suite 101 301 Miller St., Ste. 210 P.O. Box 417816 Fresno, CA 93711 Santa Maria, CA 93454 Sacramento, CA 95841. C 3 RED FILE _ Page 1 of 3 MEETING AGEk A OUNCIL CDD DIR DATEy_ak?ITEM #� cao FIN DIR RECEIVED ACAO le FIRE CHIEF Hampian, Ken ATTORNEY IF Pw DIR ❑o_ t�� CLERK70AIG— 9L C CHF From: Mandeville, John 13DEPT HEADS FEC DIR PR 1 Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 1:00 PM B 6171E DIR SLO CITY CLERK HR C11R To: Carter, Andrew; Hampian, Ken r codwevc. Cc: Davidson, Doug; Corey, Tyler r �' Subject: RE: Garden Street EIR Andrew, thanks for giving us an opportunity to address your questions before the meeting. Here are some answers. Staff will also be prepared to respond further at the meeting. The RFP stage of the environmental review process not intended to prescribe in detail what the EIR will address. The scope of services in the RFP are necessarily imprecise, but necessary in order to help consultants estimate how much their services for the work are likely to cost. The purpose of the RFP is to invite proposals from environmental consulting firms based on a general description of what are expected to be potentially significant environmental impacts at this time and general direction on how the City would like certain subjects addressed. The RFP enables consultants to assemble project teams with expertise in fields that correspond to where the significant impacts are expected and to estimate how much of their time will be needed. In addition to the RFP itself, the City will hold a pre-submittal meeting, prior to the date consultant proposals are due, to answer questions the consultants may have before submitting a proposal. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) practitioners understand and expect that all the details of what they will be analyzing are not finalized when they start. Rather it is their job to identify specific impacts and craft mitigation measures specific to the impacts they identify. Here are responses to your specific questions: 1. Scoping meetings. A public scoping meeting will be held after a consultant is hired. The reason for having the consultant team on board before the scoping meeting is that the consultant can better work if they are present to hear input at scoping meetings and ask follow-up questions as necessary. Public input on an upcoming EIR is actively solicited during the public comment period established by CEQA. Input is sought in writing and as public comment during a scoping meeting. What is requested during the public comment period phase of EIR preparation is factual information, rather than opinions on the desirability of a development proposal. It is possible that potentially significant environmental impacts that were not identified in the Initial Study prepared by staff could be identified, however it is unlikely a new category of impacts will discovered after the initial study. The section of the RFP titled "Additional EIR Workscope Items" address this possibility. Where staff has prepared an initial study, input from the general public almost always provides additional information with respect to a category of impacts the consultant is already contracted to analyze. For instance, a rare species not already expected may be identified during a scoping meeting, but the consultant will probably already be doing a biological impact analysis. If a new category of impacts are identified, the consultant is obligated to address them as well. The information provided in the RFP about the project and its setting allows the consultant to determine the likelihood that unexpected classes of impacts will be discovered and address that in their proposed costs for 4/17/2007 Page 2 of 3 services. With respect to the RFP before the Council tonight, the Council is being asked whether or not the Initial Study and RFP scope of work identifies the types of impacts that can be expected for the proposed project based on what is currently known. 2. More Description of the Project Alternatives. 1. The "no" project alternative.This alternative assumes continuation of the existing setting. 2. Incorporation of historic buildings alternative. The objective of this alternative is to mitigate or avoid all or most of the proposed project's significant impacts to historic structures. Under this alternative, all existing historic structures on site would remain as is or be preserved, rehabilitated, or restored and incorporated into the proposed project. 3. Protection of visual resources alternative. The objective of this alternative would be to evaluate the proposed project's impacts to community character and visual resources. Specifically, the proposed building's height, mass and scale would be evaluated for impacts to surrounding historic buildings, the Downtown Historic District, and Downtown Core. 4. Project without public parking spaces alternative. The objective of this alternative would be to evaluate the proposed project without inclusion of the proposed 40 City owned public parking spaces. 5. Reduced development alternative.This is an alternative required by CEQA. The objective of this alternative would be to reduce the amount of development proposed by eliminating square footage,height and mass of the project while preserving the overall design concept and preserving key project components. 6. Other comparable sites where the project might be developed.This alternative involves review of the potential to construct a development of similar size and scale as the Garden Street Terraces at an alternative location in the downtown area. 3. What are the various types of "appropriate measures" which might be considered to mitigate any adverse impacts due to demolition and/or relocation of the historical buildings currently on the block? It will be the consultants job to provide a specific description of any potential impact to historic buildings and appropriate mitigation measures. The RFP seeks a consultant team with specific expertise in historical/archaeological impacts and mitigation measures. They are likely to have experience that goes beyond the experience of City staff. In the City of San Luis Obispo, compliance with the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Historic Preservation has been a mitigation measure for potential impacts to historic structures. In addition to full mitigation, the City can also accept partial mitigation of impacts, at the discretion of the decision making body. 4. Will short-term as well as long-term parking mitigations be considered? Yes, this was done with the Court Street development and is addressed as item #11 on page C3-69 of the Council Agenda Report. 5. How will consultant(s) go about deciding if additional intersection impacts need to be considered? The consultants will work under the direction of the Public Works Department. The traffic analysis requires a run of the City traffic model. The model will produce information on all of the City's intersections. Staff and the consultants will be able to see if any additional intersections go past the acceptable level of service. Vehicle trips from a new development 4/17/2007 Page 3 of 3 J that exceed the designated acceptable level of service on a roadway or an intersection is by definition an adverse impact. I hope these answers adequately answer your questions. Staff from Public Works and Community Development will be at the meeting tonight to answer any follow-up questions you may have. From: Carter, Andrew Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 5:58 AM To: Hampian, Ken; Mandeville, John Subject: Garden Street.EIR Ken/John, I plan to pull this item for further discussionAnformation. I do not, however, have any serious concerns about it. In, fact, the only real concern I have is that this is on the consent agenda. It seems too important to me to be on the consent agenda. Here are the questions I would like addressed. 1) What public hearings have already been held on this scoping? I presume this went before the Planning Commission and perhaps other committees as well Is that correct? 2) 1 would appreciate some discussion on the various project alternatives that will be reviewed. What do these alternatives entail? (p. C3-70) 3) From a "tool kit" perspective, what are the various types of "appropriate measures"which might be considered to mitigate any adverse impacts due to demolition and/or relocation of the historical buildings currently on the block? (p C3-45, Scope of Work#2) 4) Will short-term as well as long-term parking mitigations be considered? By short-term, I mean while the project is being built and no Lot 2 spaces are available? (p. C3-55, Scope of Work#10) 5) How will the consultant(s) go about deciding if additional "Intersection Impacts" need to be considered? I envision potential impacts at Broad& Pacific (back up from garage entrance) and Garden & Pacific (folks circling the block) and even perhaps south on Marsh (Foster Freeze intersection). (p. C3-55, Scope of Work#3) Andrew Carter Council Member 4/17/2007 ll Page 1 of 1 Council,SloCity From: lisa leutwyler[sloleuts@hotmail.com] nt: Tue 4/17/2007 9:39 AM To: Council,SloCity RECEIVED Cc: Subject: New downtown project on agenda tonight. APR 1 7 2007 Attachments: SLO CITY CLERK Dear Council, Please, please DO NOT APPROVE the planned development that is up for approval tonight. The project is too tall,too big and overall not keeping with the character that our downtown is known and has won awards for. While we agree that downtown housing is important,the average.downtown worker will not be able to afford the condos. The project will take away a valuable parking lot that brings in money to the city,our viewshed will be further destroyed,etc.,etc.,etc. As far as agreements for funds for future parking,we doubt the Prado overpass will ever come be built in our lifetime and we're in our early fifties! Or if it is,we will end up paying for it dearly with increased taxes. Look at whats has happened to the projected sewer costs in Los Osos since it was proposed many many years ago. As far as new retail,while we're sure quite a few of the Poly kids and perhaps others shop in the new development where the Court St. parking once was,we have only gone in Pottery Bam once. Looked in some of the other windows and wern't at all Impressed. The whole project is too Santa Barbaraish for us. SLO's downtown was and should be known for its local, unique stores. Yes,we do love the Kincade and Rip Sqeak galleries, and have made purchases in both, but as far as spending money downtown,the only'chain'store would be Ross. So if any of the new retail stores planned would be part of a chain,they won't see our money. Besides,the rent will probably be way out of line as it is with so many of the downtown stores. One of our favorites Meridian is leaving mainly due to rent prices and that's why JoAnns left. And look at what was purposed as an increase for McCarthy's and Mo's. We know you don't have any say over that, but everything is integrated. In our opinion,the projects that SLO should be finding a way to bring into the city is more recreational ones,Roller and/or Ice Skating, Bowling, Miniature Golf,etc. Our kids(and us adults) need more to do than have more soccer fields. Bottom line....NDC THE PROJECT! Thank you, Lisa&Steve Leutwyler Interest Rates Fall Again! $430,000 Mortgage for$1,399/mo-Calculate new payment I LCOUNCIL CAORED FILE ACAO EFMEETING AGENDA >� ATTORNEY {211 DEPTCLEREAD HFDATE�a2 ITEM #❑ DEPT HEADS ;-,� �� v G4o r G LEi� https:Hmail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycounci l/Inbox/New%20downtown%20project%20on%20agenda... 4/17/2007 `J �o he C� RESPONSE TO Section A—DESCRIPTION OF WORK/DRAFT RFP SCOPE OF WORK GARDEN STREET TERRACES Prepared on behalf of GARDEN STREET SLO PARTNERS,LP 17 April 2007 SECTION REQUESTED REVISIONS/COMMENTS #1 Aesthetics B. Reword as follows: "The consultant shall perform a,peer review of the applicant's visual Deheted:visual annlys s analvsis of the proposed project or mitigated project, if changes are recommended to the project design., The consultant should factor into Deleted:The visual analysis shall their cost proposal for photo simulations, including ata minimum, a view include both short-range and long-range from the northwest side of Hi era Street;Addition/photo simulations views of the northwest de of ng a view � � P from the northwest side of Higuern Street. should include the following short-range and long-range views as listed Deleted: below. The applicant shall , make available their electronic files of all building elevations or other related visual materials and resources to the `provide consultant for their use."See attachment. Define the following for the consultant and include in 1.B.: Short-range views and long-range views. #5 Cultural "A qualified historical consultant shall review the Cultural Resources A.2. Deleted:be retained to Resources Invemory and CE0.9 Evaluation for the Garden Street Terraces Project, PAR Environmental Services, Inc., dated Julv 2006 and identify significant historic resources within the project areas,......." #5 Cultural Revise the 5`b sentence to read: Resources— '-The EIR Cultural Resources sub-consultant,may be the preterred Deleted:would Separate consultant for the separate field work and testing contract,which........ Archaeological Contract A. #b Energy Add the following task: and Mineral C.The consultant shall peer review the applicant's LEED checklist. Resources #7 Geology "The Soils Engineering Report prepared by Earth Systems Pacific,dated OASIS ASSOCIATES,INC. O 17 April 2007 Applicant's Response to Section A—Description of Work Page 2 of 2 and Soils March 17. 2006, shall be peer reviewed by the consultant and the recommendations of the report shall be incorporated into the environmental document." #9 Hydrology "The Preliminary Drainage Report prepared by Wallace Group,dated and Water October 31,2006,shall be peer reviewed by the consultant and the Quality recommendations of the report shall be incorporated into the environmental document." #13 Please describe the nexus between the project's potential impacts and a Transportation/ validation review of a City document that analyzed parking and access in Traffic A.I. the entire downtown area.Should this be a fair share contribution only? A.I.Pedestrian This task should include a peer review of the Garden Street Tenuce Site and Vehicular Access and On-Site Circulation Analysis prepared by Fehr&Peers, Counts dated July 19,2006 as it included project trip generation rates and existing counts. A.S.Pedestrian Define what streets are to be included in"along downtown sidewalks". Access and Circulation Attachment- Inventory of Visual Materials and Resources,garcia architecture+design, 16 April 2007 0ACWdm Street Teaace\Comsponde=\Garden Sheet TertaceRFPscopemvisions.doc U Council j acEnoa PepoRt CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O FROM: Monica Irons, Director of Human Resources 1Y0 SUBJECT: 2007 AND 2008 ADJUSTMENT TO MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION CAO RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt a resolution approving management compensation through December 31, 2008. 2. Adopt a resolution adjusting the annual salary of the City Administrative Officer(CAO). DISCUSSION Overview Each year in the spring, the City Council evaluates the performance of the CAO and City Attorney, and establishes goals for the coming year. Shortly thereafter, department heads are evaluated and goals are set, followed by evaluation and goal setting for all other management employees. The timing and sequence were established several years ago to vertically integrate Council goals into the work programs of appointed officials, department heads, and managers. Compensation for these classifications is also reviewed at this time and may include salary adjustments, pay for performance increases, or changes to benefits. The management group includes 69 employees: two appointed officials (the City Administrative Officer and the City Attorney), 10 department heads, and 57 other management employees. These are professional-level employees, exempt from the overtime provisions of the Federal Labor Standards Act(FLSA), including first-line supervisors,program managers, and department heads. Because these employees are unrepresented, there are no negotiations or "meet and confer" procedures, as there are for the City's other regular employees. Instead, compensation and benefits for this group are set by resolution after discussions with a management committee and a recommendation from the CAO to the Council. Management Compensation The management compensation resolution expired December 31, 2006, and a committee was formed in February 2007 to discuss management compensation. Discussions and recommendations were based primarily on adjustments to salary and cafeteria benefits previously approved by Council for other employee groups for 2007 and 2008. Following is a summary of the recommended changes: Management Employees' Compensation Page 2 Term: Two Years(January 1, 2007,through December 31,2008) Salary: January 2007 -2%increase July 2007 - 3%increase January 2008 -2%increase July 2008 -3%increase Cafeteria Contribution: December 2006 -increase to $710 per month December 2007 -increase to$790 per month Pay for Performance System: 1. Continue to suspend pay for performance for those employees at top of a salary range. 2. Review the management performance evaluation program during the next year. Resolution Term A two-year management resolution is recommended as it will coincide with the two-year Financial Plan. A two-year resolution may also help address issues the City has experienced in recruiting and retaining management employees by clarifying upcoming changes to management compensation and benefits. Salarydiustments Salary adjustments modify salary ranges while maintaining an individual's position within the range. Salary adjustments are considered each year based upon economic factors as well as negotiated changes to salary ranges in other City employee groups. Economic factors include the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County area as well as the San Francisco-Oakland area. The Los Angeles index has been higher than the San Francisco index for the past few years. At year-end 2006 the CPI for Los Angeles was 4.3 while the San Francisco CPI was 3.2. Local economic factors, such as housing costs are also considered. While housing sales have slowed locally, prices have not decreased significantly on the Central Coast and rents remain stable. Many management employees directly supervise employees within the San Luis Obispo City Employees' Association (SLOCEA). In August 2006, Council approved a 5% per year salary adjustment effective July 1, 2007 and July 1; 2008, respectively, for SLOCEA employees. The recommended salary adjustments maintain internal equity between management employees and those they supervise. GAagenda reports\2007\ManagementCompfinal.doc �J Management Employees' Compensation Page 3 Cafeteria Contribution The cafeteria contribution is provided to employees to purchase health insurance (e.g. medical, dental, vision, etc.) for themselves as well as their family. Currently, the cafeteria contribution for management employees is the lowest in the City and covers only 52% of the cost to cover a family under medical, dental, and vision insurance. A 2006 performance measurement study(the "benchmark" study completed at the request of the Tribune), noted the City cafeteria contribution for management employees was about 40% below the median cafeteria contribution in comparison cities. Staff recommends increasing the cafeteria contribution from $635 to $710 per month retroactive to December 1, 2006, and from $710 to $790 effective December 1, 2007, for all management employees. The proposed increases bring the contribution in line with the cafeteria contribution for general unit employees. However, health insurance premiums increased 13% from 2006 to 2007 and are expected to increase an additional 10%-15% in 2008. Therefore, the proposed increases in cafeteria contributions merely keep employees from "losing ground" and will not significantly alter the City's position relative to comparison cities. In terms of another comparison, Cal Poly managers have the same medical benefits and premiums, but Cal Poly contributes $1,042 monthly to the cost of family medical coverage and pays 100% of the premium for dental and vision. This equates to Cal Poly covering 98% of family coverage costs on comparable medical, dental, and vision plans. Pay for Performance System: To be suspended again for the maiority of management employees The Management Pay for Performance System was developed and adopted by Council in 1996. The system was designed to link management employees' goals to the major city goals, thus rewarding excellent service to the citizens of San Luis Obispo. Dependent upon annual performance evaluation ratings, an employee may be eligible for a pay for performance increase between 0% and 5% that moves an individual's salary within a salary range. For management employees at the top of range, the system includes a feature that provides the recommended performance increase to be converted to a lump-sum if an employee demonstrates "exceptional" or "outstanding" performance. This feature was voluntarily suspended for the past three years due to concerns about the City's fiscal health. Management employees and staff agree this feature should be suspended again during the term of this resolution. Suspension of this feature affects 57% of the managers and therefore, staff supports evaluating the overall effectiveness of the management pay for performance system during the next year. Appointed Officials' Evaluations and CAO Compensation In accordance with the Appointed Officials' Evaluation Process, the City Council is authorized to approve annual salary adjustments for Appointed Officials that are within the City's management compensation and pay for performance guidelines. Performance evaluations for the City Administrative Officer(CAO) and the City Attorney(CA)were conducted on March 15, 2007, in closed session. Although the performance of both the CAO and CA warranted pay for performance increases per the City's guidelines, the suspension of the pay for performance system will apply to these positions. G:\agm&mpons\2007\M=g==tCompfinal.doc C4 ,3 Management Employees' Compensation Page 4 However, the Council has indicated that it wishes to restore the 4.5% pay the CAO voluntarily waived in 2003. He did this as he led the organization through difficult financial times, cost reductions, and budget balancing. Now that the City's fiscal situation has stabilized, the Council wishes to prospectively(not retroactively)restore this increase, effective April 5, 2007. FISCAL IMPACT The cost of the program as outlined above is approximately $355,000 annually. This represents approximately 4% of the annual total compensation for management employees, 0.9% of total City staffing costs, and 0.4% of the total City budget. Funding for the remainder of the current fiscal year is available within the existing budget. The remaining costs will be included in the 2007-09 Financial Plan. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution with Exhibit"A" Salary Schedule and Exhibit`B"Fringe Benefits 2. Resolution Adjusting Compensation for CAO Wagenda reports\2007\ManagementCompSnal.doc Attachment I Page I of 2 RESOLUTION NO. (2007 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO REVISING MANAGEMENT COMPENSATION AND THE PAY FOR PERFORMANCE SYSTEM FOR APPOINTED OFFICL4LLS AND MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL SUPERSEDING PREVIOUS RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT WHEREAS, the City Council is committed to a comprehensive policy that strengthens the recruitment and retention of well qualified and effective appointed officials and management personnel; and WHEREAS, in 1996 the City Council established the Management Pay for Performance System,which has included periodic reviews and updates; WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to provide an appropriate compensation package for its management personnel; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo hereby revises management compensation and the Management Pay for Performance System as follows: SECTION 1. The management compensation package and the Management Pay for Performance System will continue for a two-year term commencing January 1, 2007. During this term the Director of Human Resources shall convene a committee of management employees to review the Pay for Performance System and recommend improvements. SECTION 2. The City agrees to adjust management salary ranges and to adjust the salaries of management employees according to the schedule shown in Exhibit "A". SECTION 3. The City agrees to increase the cafeteria contribution to $710 per month effective December 1,2006, and to $790 per month effective December 1,2007. SECTION 4: The Pay for Performance feature providing lump sum payments continues to be suspended for those employees at the top of their salary range. SECTION 5. The City shall continue to provide employees in those classifications listed in Exhibit"A"certain fringe benefits as set forth in Exhibit`B", fully incorporated by reference. SECTION 6. The Director of Finance and Information Technology shall adjust the appropriate accounts to reflect the compensation changes. Attachment 1 Page 2 of 2 Resolution No. (2007 Series) Upon motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of , 2007. ATTEST: Audrey Hooper, City Clerk Mayor David F. Romero APPROVED AS TO FORM: Cityey Jonathan Lowell GARESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES\2007\ManagementComp2007.DOC I �.r1 n r u U Attachment 1 EXHIBIT"A" Page 1 of 8 Salary Range Listing - Management Employees 2% Salary increase effective January 2007 Range Low Range High Job Salary Position Title Bi- Monthly Bi- Monthly Class Range Weekly Weekly 2010 220 City Administrative Officer $4,654 $10,084 $5,819 $12,608 2020 210 City Attorney $4,250 $9,209 $5,311 $11,507 2600 279 Police Chief $3,887 $8,422 $4,860 $10,531 2510 267 Assistant City Administrative Officer $3,845 $8,332 $4,808 $10,418 2610 267 Fire Chief $3,845 $8,332 $4,808 $10,418 2530 267 Director of Finance and Information Technology $3,845 $8,332 $4,808 $10,418 2560 267 Director of Public Works $3,845 $8,332 $4,808 $10,418 2550 270 Director of Community Development $3,668 $7,947 $4,585 $9,934 2580 270 Director of Utilities $3,668 $7,947 $4,585 $9,934 2540 261 Director of Human Resources $3,472 $7,523 $4,341 $9,406 2590 261 Director of Parks& Recreation $3,472 $7,523 $4,341 $9,406 2520 255 City Clerk $3,040 $6,586 $3,801 $8,234 3106 352 Deputy Dir of Public Works/City Engineer $3,193 $6,917 $3,991 $8,648 3050 350 Assistant City Attorney $3,040 $6,586 $3,801 $8,234 3103 350 Deputy Dir of Community Development $3,040 $6,586 $3,801 $8,234 3104 350 Deputy Dir of Community Development $3,040 $6,586 $3,801 $8,234 3102 350 Deputy Dir of Utilities/Wastewater $3,040 $6,586 $3,801 $8,234 3101 350 Deputy Dir of Utilities/Water $3,040 $6,586 $3,801 $8,234 3108 350 Deputy Director of Public Works $3,040 $6,586 $3,801 $8,234 3010 350 Finance Manager $3,040 $6,586 $3,801 $8,234 3180 350 Information Technology Manager $3,040 $6,586 $3,801 $8,234 3080 345 Chief Building Official $2,722 $5,898 $3,403 $7,373 3085 345 City Traffic Engineer $2,722 $5,898 $3,403 $7,373 3120 345 Economic Development Manager $2,722 $5,898 $3,403 $7,373 3200 345 Natural Resources Manager $2,722 $5,898 $3,403 $7,373 3099 335 Construction Engineering Mgr-New $2,609 $5,653 $3,260 $7,063 3130 335 Fire Marshall $2,609 $5,653 $3,260 $7,063 3340 335 Supervising Civil Engineer $2,609 $5,653 $3,260 $7,063 3355 335 Telecommunications Supervisor $2,609 $5,653 $3,260 $7,063 3098 325 Construction Engineering Mgr-Old $2,441 $5,289 $3,052 $6,612 3210 325 Neighborhood Services Manager $2,441 $5,289 $3,052 $6,612 3220 325 Parking Manager $2,441 $5,289 $3,052 $6,612 G:\RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES\2007\ManagementComp2007.DOC 0-4 , -1 Attachment 1 EXHIBIT"A„ Page 2 of 8 Salary Range Listing - Management Employees 2% Salary increase effective January 2007 Range Low Range High Job Salary Position Title Bi- Monthly Bi- Monthly Class Range Weekly Weekly 3032 325 Principal Administrative Analyst $2,441 $5,289 $3,052 $6,612 3260 325 Principal Transportation Planner $2,441 $5,289 $3,052 $6,612 3237 325 Public Works Administrative Services Mgr $2,441 $5,289 $3,052 $6,612 3290 325 Recreation Manager $2,441 $5,289 $3,052 $6,612 3320 325 Risk Manager $2,441 $5,289 $3,052 $6,612 3335 325 Senior Civil Engineer $2,441 $5,289 $3,052 $6,612 3360 325 Transit Manager $2,441 $5,289 $3,052 $6,612 3380 325 Utilities Engineer $2,441 $5,289 $3,052 $6,612 3400 325 Water Projects Manager $2,441 $5,289 $3,052 $6,612 3460 325 Water Treatment Plant Supervisor $2,441 $5,289 $3,052 $6,612 3410 325 WRF Plant Supervisor $2,441 $5,289 $3,052 $6,612 3020 315 Accounting Supervisor $2,301 $4,986 $2,877 $6,234 3145 315 GIS Supervisor $2,301 $4,986 $2,877 $6,234 3167 315 Housing Programs Manager $2,301 $4,986 $2,877 $6,234 3245 315 Human Resources Analyst II. $2,301 $4,986 $2,877 $6,234 3170 315 Industrial Waste Coordinator $2,301 $4,986 $2,877 $6,234 3100 315 Revenue Supervisor $2,301 $4,986 $2,877 $6,234 3030 315 Senior Administrative Analyst $2,301 $4,986 $2,877 $6,234 3325 315 Senior Planner $2,301 $4,986 $2,877 $6,234 3370 315 Utilities Conservation Coordinator $2,301 $4,986 $2,877 $6,234 3420 315 Wastewater Collection Supervisor $2,301 $4,986 $2,877 $6,234 3430 315 Water Distribution Supervisor $2,301 $4,986 $2,877 $6,234 3450 315 Water Supply Supervisor $2,301 $4,986 $2,877 $6,234 3070 305 Facilities Maintenance Supervisor $2,125 $4,603 $2,655 $5,753 3350 305 Fleet Maintenance Supervisor $2,125 $4,603 $2,655 $5,753 3160 305 Golf Course Supervisor $2,125 $4,603 $2,655 $5,753 3240 305 Human Resources Analyst 1 $2,125 $4,603 $2,655 $5,753 3040 305 PW Maintenance Supervisor-Parks $2,125 $4,603 $2,655 $5,753 3236 305 PW Maintenance Supervisor-Urban Forest& $2,125 $4,603 $2,655 $5,753 Contract Services 3300 305 Recreation Supervisor $2,125 $4,603 $2,655 $5,753 3330 305 Streets Maintenance Supervisor $2,125 $4,603 $2,655 $5,753 3029 303 Administrative Analyst II $2,030 $4,398 $2,538 $5,498 3028 302 Administrative Analyst $1,845 $3,998 $2,304 $4,992 3275 302 Ranger Services Administrator $1,845 $3,998 $2,304 $4,992 GARESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES\2007\ManagementComp2007.DOC .r Attachment 1 EXHIBIT"A" Page 3 of 8 Salary Range Listing - Management Employees 3% Salary increase effective July 2007 (includes 4.5%for CAO effective 4/5/07.) Range Low Range High Job Salary Position Title Bi- Monthly Bi- Monthly Class Range Weekly Weekly 2010 220 City Administrative Officer $5,010 $10,855 $6,263 $13,571 2020 210 City Attorney $4,378 $9,485 $5,470 $11,852 2600 279 Police Chief $4,004 $8,674 $5,006 $10,846 2510 267 Assistant City Administrative Officer $3,960 $8,581 $4,952 $10,730 2610 267 Fire Chief $3,960 $8,581 $4,952 $10,730 2530 267 Director of Finance and Information Technology $3,960 $8,581 $4,952 $10,730 2560 267 Director of Public Works $3,960 $8,581 $4,952 $10,730 2550 270 Director of Community Development $3,778 $8,186 $4,723 $10,232. 2580 270 Director of Utilities $3,778 $8,186 $4,723 $10,232 2540 261 Director of Human Resources $3,576 $7,748 $4,471 $9,688 2590 261 Director of Parks & Recreation $3,576 $7,748 $4,471 $9,688 2520 255 City Clerk $3,131 $6,784 $3,915 $8,483 3106 352 Deputy Dir of Public Works/City Engineer $3,289 $7,126 $4,111 $8,907 3050 350 Assistant City Attorney $3,131 $6,784 $3,915 $8,483 3103 350 Deputy Dir of Community Development $3,131 $6,784 $3,915 $8,483 3104 350 Deputy Dir of Community Development $3,131 $6,784 $3,915 $8,483 3102 350 Deputy Dir of Utilities/Wastewater $3,131 $6,784 $3,915 $8,483 3101 350 Deputy Dir of Utilities/Water $3,131 $6,784 $3,915 $8,483 3108 350 Deputy Public Works Director $3,131 $6,784 $3,915 $8,483 3010 350 Finance Manager $3,131 $6,784 $3,915 $8,483 3180 350 Information Technology Manager $3,131 $6,784 $3,915 $8,483 3080 345 Chief Building Official $2,804 $6,075 $3,505 $7,594 3085 345 City Traffic Engineer $2,804 $6,075 $3,505 $7,594 3120 345 Economic Development Manager $2,804 $6,075 $3,505 $7,594 3200 345 Natural Resources Manager $2,804 $6,075 $3,505 $7,594 3099 335 Construction Engineering Mgr-New $2,687 $5,822 $3,358 $7,275 3130 335 Fire Marshall $2,687 $5,822 $3,358 $7,275 3340 335 Supervising Civil Engineer $2,687 $5,822 $3,358 $7,275 3355 335 Telecommunications Supervisor $2,687 $5,822 $3,358 $7,275 3098 325 Construction Engineering Mgr-Old $2,514 $5,447 $3,14.4 $6,811 3210 325 Neighborhood Services Manager $2,514 $5,447 $3,144 $6,811 3220 325 Parking Manager $2,514 $5,447 $3,144 $6,811 GARESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES\2007\ManagementComp2007.DOC ^ , r q U :J Attachment 1 EXHIBIT"A" Page 4 of 8 Salary Range Listing - Management Employees 3% Salary increase effective July 2007 Range Low Range High Job Salary Position Title Bi- Monthly Bi- Monthly Class Range Weekly Weekly 3032 325 Principal Administrative Analyst $2,514 $5,447 $3,144 $6,811 3260 325 Principal Transportation Planner $2,514 $5,447 $3,144 $6,811 3237 325 Public Works Administrative Services Mgr $2,514 $5,447 $3,144 $6,811 3290 325 Recreation Manager $2,514 $5,447 $3,144 $6,811 3320 325 Risk Manager $2,514 $5,447 $3,144 $6,811 3335 325 Senior Civil Engineer $2,514 $5,447 $3,144 $6,811 3360 325 Transit Manager $2,514 $5,447 $3,144 $6,811 3380 325 Utilities Engineer $2,514 $5,447 $3,144 $6,811 3400 325 Water Projects Manager $2,514 $5,447 $3,144 $6,811 3460 325 Water Treatment Plant Supervisor $2,514 $5,447 $3,144 $6,811 3410 325 WRF Plant Supervisor $2,514 $5,447 $3,144 $6,811 3020 315 Accounting Supervisor $2,370 $5,135 $2,963 $6,421 3145 315 GIS Supervisor $2,370 $5,135 $2,963 $6,421 3167 315 Housing Programs Manager $2,370 $5,135 $2,963 $6,421 3245 315 Human Resources Analyst II $2,370 $5,135 $2,963 $6,421 3170 315 Industrial Waste Coordinator $2,370 $5,135 $2,963 $6,421 3100 315 Revenue Supervisor $2,370 $5,135 $2,963 $6,421 3030 315 Senior Administrative Analyst $2,370 $5,135 $2,963 $6,421 3325 315 Senior Planner $2,370 $5,135 $2,963 $6,421 3370 315 Utilities Conservation Coordinator $2,370 $5,135 $2,963 $6,421 3420 315 Wastewater Collection Supervisor $2,370 $5,135 $2,963 $6,421 3430 315 Water Distribution Supervisor $2,370 $5,135 $2,963 $6,421 3450 315 Water Supply Supervisor $2,370 $5,135 $2;963 $6,421 3070 305 Facilities Maintenance Supervisor $2,189 $4,742 $2,735 $5,925 3350 305 Fleet Maintenance Supervisor $2,189 $4,742 $2,735 $5,925 3160 305 Golf Course Supervisor $2,189 $4,742 $2,735 $5,925 3240 305 Human Resources Analyst 1 $2,189 $4,742 $2,735 $5,925 3040 305 Public Works Maintenance Supervisor-Parks $2,189 $4,742 $2,735 $5,925 3236 305 Public Works Maintenance Supervisor-Urban $2,189 $4,742 $2,735 $5,925 Forest&Contract Services 3300 305 Recreation Supervisor $2,189 $4,742 $2,735 $5,925 3330 305 Streets Maintenance Supervisor $2,189 $4,742 $2,735 $5,925 3029 303 Administrative Analyst II $2,091 $4,530 $2,614 $5,664 3028 302 Administrative Analyst $1,900 $4,117 $2,373 $5,142 3275 302 Ranger Services Administrator $1,900 $4,117 $2,373 $5,142 G:\RESOLLTTIONS AND ORDINANCES\2007\ManagementComp2007.DOC 1 C�' Attachment 1 EXHIBIT"A„ Page 5 of 8 Salary Range Listing - Management Employees 2% Salary increase effective January 2008 Range Low Range'High Job Salary Position Title Bi- Monthly Bi- Monthly Class Range Weekly Weekly 2010 220 City Administrative Officer $5,110 $11,072 $6,388 $13,841 2020 210 City Attorney _ $4,466 $9,675 $5,579 $12,090 2600 279 Police Chief $4,084 $8,848 $5,106 $11,063 2510 267 Assistant City Administrative Officer $4,039 $8,752 $5,051 $10,944 2610 267 Fire Chief $4,039 $8,752 $5,051 $10,944 2530 267 Director of Finance and Information Technology $4,039 $8,752 $5,051 $10,944 2560 267 Director of Public Works $4,039 $8,752 $5,051 $10,944 2550 270 Director of Community Development. $3,854 $8,349 $4,817 $10,437 2580 270 Director of Utilities $3,854 $8,349 $4,817 $10,437 2540 261 Director of Human Resources $3,648 $7,903 $4,560 $9,881 2590 261 Director of Parks & Recreation $3,648 $7,903 $4,560 $9,881 2520 255 City Clerk $3,194 $6,920 $3,993 $8,652 3106 352 Deputy Dir of Public Works/City Engineer $3,355 $7,269 $4,193 $9,085 3050 350 Assistant City Attorney $3,194 $6,920 $3,993 $8,652 3103 350 Deputy Dir of Community Dev $3,194 $6,920 $3,993 $8,652 3104 350 Deputy Dir of Community Dev $3,194 $6,920 $3,993 $8,652 3102 350 Deputy Dir of Utilities/Wastewater $3,194 $6,920 $3,993 $8,652 3101 350 Deputy Dir of Utilities/Water $3,194 $6,920 $3,993 $8,652 3108 350 Deputy Public Works Director $3,194 $6,920 $3,993 $8,652 3010 350 Finance Manager $3,194 $6,920 $3,993 $8,652 3180 350 Information Technology Manager $3,194 $6,920 $3,993 $8,652 3080 345 Chief Building Official $2,860 $6,197 $3,575 $7,746 3085 345 City Traffic Engineer $2,860 $6,197 $3,575 $7,746 3120 345 Economic Development Manager $2,860 $6,197 $3,575 $7,746 3200 345 Natural Resources Manager $2,860 $6,197 $3,575 $7,746 3099 335 Construction Engineering Mgr-New $2,741 $5,938 $3,425 $7,421 3130 335 Fire Marshall $2,741 $5,938 $3,425 $7,421 3340 335 Supervising Civil Engineer $2,741 $5,938 $3,425 $7,421 3355 335 Telecommunications Supervisor $2,741 $5,938 $3,425 $7,421 3098 325 Construction Engineering Mgr-Old $2,564 $5,556 $3,207 $6,948 3210 325 Neighborhood Services Manager $2,564 $5,556 $3,207 $6,948 3220 325 Parking Manager $2,564 $5,556 $3,207 $6,948 G:\RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES\2007\ManagementComp2007.DOC Attachment 1 EXHIBIT"A" Page 6 of 8 Salary Range Listing - Management Employees 2% Salary increase effective January 2008 Range Low Range High Job Salary Position Title Bi- Monthly Bi- Monthly Class Range Weekly Weekly 3032 325 Principal Administrative Analyst $2,564 $5,556 $3,207 $6,948 3260 325 Principal Transportation Planner $2,564 $5,556 $3,207 $6,948 3237 325 Public Works Administrative Services Mgr $2,564 $5,556 $3,207 $6,948 3290 325 Recreation Manager $2,564 $5,556 $3,207 $6,948 3320 325 Risk Manager $2,564 $5,556 $3,207 $6,948 3335 325 Senior Civil Engineer $2,564 $5,556 $3,207 $6,948 3360 325 Transit Manager $2,564 $5,556 $3,207 $6,948 3380 325 Utilities Engineer $2,564 $5,556 $3,207 $6,948 3400 325 Water Projects Manager $2,564 $5,556 $3,207 $6,948 3460 325 Water Treatment Plant Supervisor $2,564 $5;556 $3,207 $6,948 3410 325 WRF Plant Supervisor $2,564 $5,556 $3,207 $6,948 3020 315 Accounting Supervisor $2,417 $5,238 $3,022 $6,548 3145 315 GIS Supervisor $2,417 $5,238 $3,022 $6,548 3167 315 Housing Programs Manager $2,417 $5;238 $3,022 $6,548 3245 315 Human Resources Analyst II $2,417 $5,238 $3,022 $6,548 3170 315 Industrial Waste Coordinator $2,417 $5,238 $3,022 $6,548 3100 315 Revenue Supervisor $2,417 $5,238 $3,022 $6,548 3030 315 Senior Administrative Analyst $2,417 $5,238 $3,022 $6,548 3325 315 Senior Planner $2,417 $5,238 $3,022 $6,548 3370 315 Utilities Conservation Coordinator $2,417 $5,238 $3,022 $6,548 3420 315 Wastewater Collection Supervisor $2,417 $5,238 $3,022 $6,548 3430 315 Water Distribution Supervisor $2,417 $5,238 $3,022 $6,548 3450 315 Water Supply Supervisor $2,417 $5,238 $3,022 $6,548 3070 305 Facilities Maintenance Supervisor $2,233 $4,838 $2,790 $6,044 3350 305 Fleet Maintenance Supervisor $2,233 $4,838 $2,790 $6,044 3160 .305 Golf Course Supervisor $2,233 $4,838 $2,790 $6,044 3240 305 Human Resources Analyst 1 $2,233 $4,838 $2,790 $6,044 3040 305 Public Works Maintenance Supervisor-Parks $2,233 $4,838 $2,790 $6,044 3236 305 Public Works Maintenance Supervisor-Urban $2,233 $4,838 $2,790 $6,044 Forest&Contract Services 3300 305 Recreation Supervisor $2,233 $4,838 $2,790 $6,044 3330 305 Streets Maintenance Supervisor $2,233 $4,838 $2,790 $6,044 3029 303 Administrative Analyst II $2,133 $4,621 $2,666 $5,777 3028 . 302 Administrative Analyst I $1,938 $4,199 $2,420 $5,244 3275 302 Ranger Services Administrator $1,938 $4,199 $2,420 $5,244 GARESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES\2007\ManagementComp2007.DOC Attachment 1 EXHIBIT"A„ Page 7 of 8 Salary Range Listing - Management Employees 3% Salary increase effective July 2008 Range Low Range High Job Salary Position Title BI- Monthly Bi- Monthly Class Range Weekly Weekly 2010 220 City Administrative Officer $5,263 $11,404 $6,580 $14,257 2020 210 City Attorney $4,600 $9,967 $5,746 $12,450 2600 279 Police Chief $4,207 $9,114 $5,259 $11,395 2510 267 Assistant City Administrative Officer $4,160 $9,014 $5,203 $11,272 2610 267 Fire Chief $4,160 $9,014 $5,203 $11,272 2530 267 Director of Finance and Information Technology $4,160 $9,014 $5,203 $11,272 2560 267 Director of Public Works $4,160 $9,014 $5,203 $11,272 2550 270 Director of Community Development $3,970 $8,601 $4,962 $10,750 2580 270 Director of Utilities $3,970 $8,601 $4,962 $10,750 2540 261 Director of Human Resources $3,757 $8,141 $4,697 $10,176 2590 261 Director of Parks&Recreation $3,757 $8,141 $4,697 $10,176 2520 255 City Clerk $3,290 $7,128 $4,113 $8,911 3106 352 Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer $3,456 $7,487 $4,319 $9,357 3050 350 Assistant City Attorney $3,290 $7,128 $4,113 $8,911 3103 350 Deputy Dir of Community Dev $3,290 $7,128 $4,113 $8,911 3104 350 Deputy Dir of Community Dev $3,290 $7,128 $4,113 $8,911 3102 350 Deputy Dir of Utilities/Wastewater $3,290 $7,128 $4,113 $8,911 3101 350 Deputy Dir of Utilities/Water $3,290 $7,128 $4,113 $8,911 3108 350 Deputy Public Works Director $3,290 $7,128 $4,113 $8,911 3010 350 Finance Manager $3,290 $7,128 $4,113 $8,911 3180 350 Information Technology Manager $3,290 $7,128 $4,113 $8,911 3080 345 Chief Building Official $2,946 $6,383 $3,682 $7,978 3085 345 City Traffic Engineer $2,946 $6,383 $3,682 $7,978 3120 345 Economic Development Manager $2,946 $6,383 $3,682 $7,978 3200 345 Natural Resources Manager $2,946 $6,383 $3,682 $7,978 3099 335 Construction Engineering Mgr- New $2,823 $6,117 $3,528 $7,643 3130 335 Fire Marshall $2,823 $6,117 $3,528 $7,643 3340 335 Supervising Civil Engineer $2,823 $6,117 $3,528 $7,643 3355 335 Telecommunications Supervisor $2,823 $6,117 $3,528 $7,643 3098 325 Construction Engineering Mgr-Old $2,641 $5,723 $3,303 $7,156 3210 325 Neighborhood Services Manager $2,641 $5,723 $3,303 $7,156 3220 325 Parking Manager $2,641 $5,723 $3,303 $7,156 G:\RESOLLTTIONS AND ORDINANCES\2007\ManagementComp2007.DOC , ► 3 Attachment 1 EXHIBIT"A" Page 8 of 8 Salary Range Listing - Management Employees 3% Salary increase effective July 2008 Range Low Range High Job Salary Position Title Bi- Monthly Bi- Monthly _ Class Range Weekly Weekly 3032 325 Principal Administrative Analyst $2,641 $5,723 $3,303 $7,156 3260 325 Principal Transportation Planner $2,641 $5,723 $3,303 $7,156 3237 325 Public Works Administrative Services Mgr $2,641 $5,723 $3,303 $7,156 3290 325 Recreation Mgr $2,641 $5,723 $3,303 $7,156 3320 325 Risk Manager $2,641 $5,723 $3,303 $7,156 3335 325 Senior Civil Engineer $2,641 $5,723 $3,303 $7,156 3360 325 Transit Manager $2,641 $5,723 $3,303 $7,156 3380 325 Utilities Engineer $2,641 $5,723 $3,303 $7,156 3400 325 Water Projects Manager $2,641 $5,723 $3,303 $7,156 3460 325 Water Treatment Plant Supervisor $2,641 $5,723 $3,303 $7,156 3410 325 WRF Plant Supervisor $2,641 $5,722 $3,303 $7,157 3020 315 Accounting Supervisor $2,490 $5,394 $3,113 $6,744 3145 315 GIS Supervisor $2,490 $5,394 $3,113 $6,744 3167 315 Housing Programs Manager $2,490 $5,394 $3,113 $6,744 3245 315 Human Resources Analyst II $2,490 $5,394 $3,113 $6,744 3170 315 Industrial Waste Coordinator $2,490 $5,394 $3,113 $6,744 3100 315 Revenue Supervisor $2,490 $5,394 $3,113 $6,744 3030 315 Senior Administrative Analyst $2,490 $5,394 $3,113 $6,744 3325 315 Senior Planner $2,490 $5,394 $3,113 $6,744 3370 315 Utilities Conservation Coordinator $2,490 $5,394 $3,113 $6,744 3420 315 Wastewater Collection Supervisor $2,490 $5,394 $3,113 $6,744 3430 315 Water Distribution Supervisor $2,490 $5,394 $3,113 $6,744 3450 315 Water Supply Supervisor $2,490 $5,394 $3,113 $6,744 3070 305 Facilities Maintenance Supervisor $2,300 $4,983 $2,874 $6,226 3350 305 Fleet Maintenance Supervisor $2,300 $4,983 $2,874 $6,226 3160 305 Golf Course Supervisor $2,300 $4,983 $2,874 $6,226 3240 305 Human Resources Analyst 1 $2,300 $4,983 $2,874 $6,226 3040 305 Public Works Maintenance Supervisor-Parks $2,300 $4,983 $2,874 $6,226 3236 305 Public Works Maintenance Supervisor-Urban $2,300 $4,983 $2,874 $6,226 Forest&Contract Services 3300 305 Recreation Supervisor $2,300 $4,983 $2,874 $6,226 3330 305 Streets Maintenance Supervisor $2,300 $4,983 $2,874 $6,226 3029 303 Administrative Analyst 11 $2,197 $4,760 $2,746 $5,950 3028 302 Administrative Analyst 1 $1,996 $4,325 $2,493 $5,401 3275 302 Ranger Services Administrator $1,996 $1,997 $2,493 $5,401 G:\RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES\2007\Managementcomp2007.DOC f , Attachment I EXHIBIT"B„ Page 1 of 5 APPOINTED OFFICIALS AND MANAGEMENT FRINGE BENEFITS 2007-08 Section A Medical. Dental.Eve Care The City shall establish and maintain medical, dental and eye care insurance plans for coverage by department head and management employees and their dependents. The City reserves the right to choose the method of insuring and plans to be offered. The City has elected to participate in the Ca1PERS Health Benefit Program with the"unequal contribution option" at the PERS minimum contribution rate, currently$80.80 per month for active employees and $20.30 per month for retirees. The City's contribution toward retirees shall be increased by 5%per year of the City's contribution for the active employees until such time as contributions for employees and retirees are equal. Employees with proof of medical insurance elsewhere are not required to participate in the medical insurance plan and may receive the unused portion of the City's contribution (after dental and vision insurance is deducted) in cash in accordance with the City's cafeteria plan. Those employees will be assessed $16.00 per month to be placed in the Retiree Health Insurance Account. This account will be used to fund the City's contribution toward retiree premiums and the City's costs for the Public Employees' Contingency Reserve Fund and Administrative Costs. However, there is no requirement that these funds be used exclusively for this purpose, nor any guarantee that they will be sufficient to fund retiree health costs, although they will be used for employee benefits. Employees will be required to participate in the City's dental and vision plans at the employee- only rate. Should they elect to cover dependents in the City's dental and vision plans, they may do so, even if they do not have dependent coverage for medical insurance. Employees shall participate in term life insurance of$4,000 through payroll deduction as a part of the cafeteria plan. Section B Cafeteria Plan Contribution Effective in December 2006 (for the January 2007 premium)the City shall contribute$710 per month for cafeteria plan benefits for each regular, full-time employee covered by this resolution. Less than full-time employees shall receive a prorated share of the City's contribution. Effective in December 2007 (for the January 2008 premium) the City shall contribute$790 per month. The City agrees to continue its contribution to the cafeteria plan for two (2)pay periods in the event that an employee has exhausted all paid time off due to an employee's catastrophic illness. Attachment 1 EXHIBIT"B" Page 2 of 5 Section C Life and Disability Insurance The City shall provide the following special insurance benefits in recognition of management responsibilities: 1. Long-term disability insurance providing 66 2/3%of gross salary(maximum benefit $7,500 per month)to age 65 for any sickness or accident, subject to the exclusions in the long-term disability policy, after a 30-day waiting period. 2. In addition to $4,000 term life insurance purchased by the employee through the cafeteria plan, $100,000 term life insurance for department heads and $50,000 term life insurance for management employees, including accidental death and dismemberment. Section D Retirement The City shall provide the California Public Employees' Retirement System's (Ca1PERS) 2.7% at 55 plan to all eligible employees including the amendments permitting conversion of unused sick leave to additional retirement credit, the 1959 survivor's benefit (Level Four), one year final compensation, and pre-retirement Option 2 death benefit. The Police and Fire Chiefs shall receive the same retirement benefits as sworn personnel in their departments. The City agrees to pay the employee's contribution to Ca1PERS (8% for miscellaneous, 9% for safety). These amounts paid by the City are employee contributions and are paid by the City to satisfy the employee's obligation to contribute the current percentage of salary to Ca1PERS. An employee has no option to receive the contributed amounts directly instead of having them paid by the City to Ca1PERS on behalf of the employee. It is further understood and agreed that the payment of the employee's CalPERS contribution is made subject to IRS approval and reporting procedures. The City shall report as salary all Employer-Paid Member Contributions (EPMC)to CalPERS for the purposes of retirement credit in accordance with Government Code Section 20636 (c) (4). Section E Supplemental Retirement The City shall contribute I%of salary for management employees and 2%of salary for department heads to a defined contribution supplemental retirement plan established in accordance with sections 401 (a) and 501 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and California Government Code sections 53215-53224. Section F Vacation Vacation leave is governed by section 2,36.440 of the Municipal Code, except that it may be taken after the completion of the sixth calendar month of service since the benefit date. Vacation GARESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES\2007\ManagementComp2007.DOC I \\J/ Attachment 1 EXHIBIT`B„ Page 3 of 5 leave shall be accrued as earned each payroll period provided that not more than twice the annual rate may be carried over to a new calendar year. However, if the City Administrative Officer determines that a department head has been unable to take vacation due to the press of City business,the City Administrative Officer may approve a two-month extension of maximum vacation accrual. The City Administrative Officer may, within two years of appointing a department head, increase the rate of vacation accrual to a maximum of 120 hours per year. Vacation schedules for management employees shall be based upon the needs of the City and then, insofar as possible, upon the wishes of the employee. A department head may not deny a management employee's vacation request if such denial will result in the loss of vacation accrual by the employee, except that, a department head may approve a two-month extension of maximum vacation accrual. However, in no event shall more than one such extension be granted in any calendar year. Department head and management employees are eligible, once annually in December, to request payment for up to 40 hours of unused vacation leave provided that an employee's overall performance and attendance practices are satisfactory. Section G Administrative Leave Department heads shall be granted up to 80 hours of administrative leave per calendar year. Department heads shall have the option of taking such leave as additional paid leave or receiving cash for up to 80 hours at year end upon approval of the City Administrative Officer. Management employees shall be granted up to 48 hours of administrative leave per calendar year. Administrative leave hours shall be pro-rated when a department head or management employee is appointed or leaves employment during the calendar year. The employee's final check will be adjusted to reflect the pro-rated hours. Department Heads and Managers are considered exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act(FLSA) and not eligible for overtime payment. In general,management employees are expected to work the hours necessary to successfully cant'out their duties and frequently must return to work or attend meetings and events outside their normal working hours. However, when specifically authorized by the department head due to extraordinary circumstances, a management employee may receive overtime payment of time and one-half for hours worked above and beyond what would be considered normal work requirements during an emergency event lasting at least eight(8)hours. GARESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES\2007\ManagementComp2007.DOC ' Attachment I EXHIBIT`B„ Page 4 of 5 Section H Holidays Department heads and management employees shall receive 11 fixed plus 2 floating holidays per year. The floating holidays shall be accrued on a semi-monthly basis and added to the vacation accrual. Section I Sick Leave Sick leave is governed by section 2.36.420 of the Municipal Code. An employee may take up to 16 hours per year of sick leave if required to be away from the job to personally care for a member of his/her immediate family as defined in Section 2.36.420. This may be extended to 40 hours per year if the family member is part of the employee's household and to 56 hours if a household family member is hospitalized and the employee submits written verification of such hospitalization. If the family member is a child,parent, spouse, or registered domestic partner, an employee may use up to 48 hours annually to attend to the illness of the child, parent, spouse, or registered domestic partner, instead of the lesser maximums above, in accordance with Labor Code Section 233. In conjunction with existing leave benefits, department head and management employees with one year of City service who have worked at least 1,280 hours in the previous year may be eligible for up to 12 weeks of Family/Medical Leave in accordance with the federal Family and Medical Leave Act and the California Family Rights Act. Sick leave may be used to be absent from duty due to the death of a member of the employee's immediate family as defined in Section 2.36.420,provided such leave shall not exceed forty working hours for each incident. The employee may be required to submit proof of relative's death before being granted sick leave pay. False information concerning the death or relationship shall be cause for discharge. Upon termination of employment by death or retirement, a percentage of the dollar value of the employee's accumulated sick leave will be paid to the employee, or the designated beneficiary or beneficiaries according to the following schedule: (A) Death—25% (B) Retirement and actual commencement of Ca1PERS benefits: (1) After ten years of continuous employment— 10% (2) After twenty years of continuous employment— 15% Section J Workers' Compensation Leave An employee who is absent from duty because of on-the-job injury in accordance with State workers' compensation law and is not eligible for disability payments under Labor Code Section 4850 shall be paid the difference between his/her base salary and the amount provided by workers' compensation law during the first ninety(90)business days of such temporary disability absence. Eligibility for workers' compensation leave requires an open workers' compensation claim. GARESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES\2007\ManagementComp2007.DOC Attachment 1 EXHIBIT"B" Page 5 of 5 Section K Vehicle Assignment For those department heads who require the use of an automobile on a regular 24-hour basis to perform their normal duties, the City will, at City option, provide a City vehicle or an appropriate allowance for the employee's use of a personal automobile. The use of a personal automobile for City business will be eligible for mileage reimbursement in accordance with standard City policy. Section L Layoffs In accordance with Section 2.36.320 of the Personnel Rules, the City Council of San Luis Obispo shall determine when and in what position classifications layoffs are to occur. Section M Appointed Officials The fringe benefits outlined in this exhibit for department heads apply to appointed officials, except where they have been modified by council resolution. GARESOLLMONS AND ORDINANCES\2007\ManagementComp2007.DOC 1.9 Attachment 2 Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. (2007 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ADJUSTING COMPENSATION FOR THE CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 9037 (2000 Series), the City Council appointed Ken Hampian as City Administrative Officer(CAO); and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 9783 (2006 Series) the City Council established compensation for CAO, Ken Hampian; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a performance evaluation on March 15, 2007, in accordance with the Appointed Officials' Performance Process as modified in August of 2002; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Effective April 5, 2007, the salary range and the CAO's salary shall be increased to $13,175.00 per month. SECTION 2. All other compensation and benefits afforded the CAO under Management Compensation Resolution No. (2007 Series) and the CAO Employment Agreement (Resolution No. 9037, 2000 Series), not superseded by the above, shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. The City Council shall evaluate the performance of the CAO annually. On motion of Council Member, seconded by Council Member, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: G:\RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES\2007\CAO Resoluti=2007.doc OAttachment 2 Page 2 of 2 Resolution No. (2007 Series) Page 2 The foregoing Resolution was adopted this day of April, 2007. MAYOR DAVID F. ROMERO ATTEST: AUDREY HOOPER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: JO LOWELL, CITY ATTORNEY GARESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES\2007\CAO Resolution2007.doc /1�