HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-16-2016 Agenda Packet
Tuesday, August 16, 2016
6:00 PM
REGULAR MEETING
Council Chamber
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo Page 1
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Jan Marx
ROLL CALL: Council Members John Ashbaugh, Carlyn Christianson, Dan
Rivoire, Vice Mayor Dan Carpenter, and Mayor Jan Marx
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Christianson
INTRODUCTIONS
1. CARRIE GALLAGHER - CITY CLERK (LICHTIG – 5 MINUTES)
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA (not to exceed 15
minutes total)
The Council welcomes your input. You may address the Council by completing a speaker slip
and giving it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. At this time, you may address the Council
on items that are not on the agenda. Time limit is three minutes. State law does not allow the
Council to discuss or take action on issues not on the agenda, except that members of the
Council or staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons
exercising their public testimony rights (gov. Code sec. 54954.2). Staff may be asked to
follow up on such items.
CONSENT AGENDA
A member of the public may request the Council to pull an item for d iscussion. Pulled items
shall be heard at the close of the Consent Agenda unless a majority of the Council chooses
another time. The public may comment on any and all items on the Consent Agenda within the
three minute time limit.
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda August 16, 2016 Page 2
2. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
Recommendation
Waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.
3. MINUTES OF MAY 17, JUNE 14, JUNE 21, AND JUNE 23, 2016 (PRICE / MAIER)
Approve the Minutes of the City Council meetings of May 17, June 14, June 21, and June
23, 2016.
4. REVIEW OF A MILLS ACT HISTORIC PRESERVATION AGREEMENT FOR
THE MASTER LIST HISTORIC KIMBALL HOUSE (CODRON / OETZELL)
Recommendation
As recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee, adopt a Resolution entitled “A
Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving a
Historic Property Preservation Agreement between the City and the owner of the Kimball
House at 690 Islay Street.”
5. MARGARITA LIFT STATION REPLACEMENT, SPECIFICATION NO. 91214
(MATTINGLY / METZ)
Recommendation
1. Approve plans and specifications for the Margarita Lift Station Replacement,
Specification No. 91214 and authorize staff to advertise for bids; and
2. Approve a Budget Amendment Request to transfer $152,000 from Sewer Fund Working
Capital to the construction phase of the project; and
3. Authorize the City Manager to award the contract if the lowest responsible bid is within
the Engineer's estimate of $762,000.
6. APPROVAL OF THE FINAL MAP FOR TRACT 2428-1, 3000 CALLE MALVA (TR
121-13) (CODRON / DOSTALEK)
Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo,
California, approving the Final Map for Tract 2428-1 (3000 Calle Malva, TR 121-13),” and
authorize the Mayor to execute a Subdivision Agreement and a Private Drainage Easement
Agreement.
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda August 16, 2016 Page 3
7. CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CITYGATE ASSOCIATES, LLC
FOR COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES DELIVERY AND STAFFING REVIEW OF
THE SAN LUIS OBISPO POLICE DEPARTMENT (CANTRELL)
Recommendation
Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a Consultant Services Agreement with
Citygate Associates, LLC (“Citygate”), in a form approved by the City Attorney, for a
comprehensive services delivery and staffing review of the Police Department for $68,500.
8. AUTHORIZE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR CAPITAL FACILITIES IMPACT
FEE PROGRAM NEXUS STUDY (CODRON / FOWLER)
Recommendation
1. Authorize the issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a Capital Facilities Impact
Fee Program Nexus Study; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a consultant services agreement if proposals are
received within the available budget for the project.
9. MEADOW PARK LIGHTING REPLACEMENT, SPECIFICATION NO. 91323
(GRIGSBY / MCGUIRE)
Recommendation
1. Award a contract to Electricraft, Inc. in the amount of $81,726 for the “Meadow Park
Lighting Replacement, Specification No. 91323”; and
2. Approve the transfer of $22,500 from the CIP Completed Projects Account to the project
construction account.
10. UNCLAIMED MONEY POLICY (JOHNSON / WARNER)
Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, approving the City’s policy for the escheatment of unclaimed money.”
11. RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE CITY STAFF TO APPLY FOR FEDERAL
TRANSIT FUNDS (GRIGSBY / ANGUIANO)
Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, authorizing the Public Works Director, or his designee, to execute and
file Federal grant applications with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and to fulfill
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda August 16, 2016 Page 4
any related grant applications, certifications, assurances, forms, agreements, and associated
documents on behalf of the City.”
PUBLIC HEARINGS
12. WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY PROJECT – ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT CERTIFICATION AND FUNDING APPLICATION REQUEST
(MATTINGLY / HIX – 45 MINUTES)
Recommendation
1. Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Water
Resources Recovery Facility Project,” and;
2. Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, supporting the pursuit of Low Interest Clean Water State Revolving
Fund Grants and Loans and authorizing staff to submit the environmental component of
the Clean Water State Revolving Fund Finance Package,” and;
3. Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, pledging the City Council’s support for the Water Resource
Recovery Facility Project and desire to partner with local, state and federal agencies to
implement the project.”
STUDY SESSION
13. PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING FRAMEWORK AND DRAFT
POLICIES: STUDY SESSION (CODRON / FOWLER - 60 MINUTES)
Recommendation
Participate in a study session on public infrastructure financing and receive and file the
background memorandum and reports.
COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
(Not to exceed 15 minutes) Council Members report on conferences or other City activities.
Time limit—3 minutes each.
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda August 16, 2016 Page 5
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(Not to exceed 15 minutes) At this time, any Council Member or the City Manager may ask a
question for clarification, make an announcement, or report briefly on his or her activities. In
addition, subject to Council Policies and Procedures, they may provide a reference to staff or
other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the Council at a
subsequent meeting concerning any matter, or take action to direct staff to place a matter of
business on a future agenda. (Gov. Code Sec. 54954.2)
ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for September 6, 2016 at 6:00 p.m., in the
Council Chamber, respectively, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
LISTENING ASSISTIVE DEVICES are available for the hearing impaired--please see City Clerk.
The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the
public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to
persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or
accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City
Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7107.
City Council regular meetings are televised live on Charter Channel 20. Agenda related
writings or documents provided to the City Council are available for public inspection in the
City Clerk’s Office located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California during normal
business hours, and on the City’s website www.slocity.org. Persons with questions concerning
any agenda item may call the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100.
Page intentionally left
blank.
San Luis Obispo Page 1
Council Minutes - DRAFT
Tuesday, May 17, 2016
Regular Meeting of the City Council
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, May
17, 2016 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, by Mayor Marx.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members John Ashbaugh*, Carlyn Christianson, Dan Rivoire, Vice
Mayor Dan Carpenter, and Mayor Jan Marx.
*Council Member Ashbaugh arrived at 4:05 p.m.
Council Members
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Derek Johnson,
Assistant City Manager; and John Paul Maier, Assistant City Clerk; were present
at Roll Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as
indicated in the minutes.
Mayor Jan Marx announced she would recuse herself from Item #1 due a potential conflict of
interest (business interest). Mayor Marx left the dais at 4:02 p.m. Vice Mayor Carpenter
presided.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. CONSIDERATION OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (VESTING
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #3083) LOCATED AT ORCUTT AND TANK FARM
ROADS IN THE ORCUTT AREA SPECIFIC PLANNING AREA (OASP) AND
CONSIDERATION OF AN INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION (IS-MND), AS A TIER OFF THE OASP FINAL EIR (2010) (WEST
CREEK)
David Watson, Consulting Project Planner, provided an overview of the staff report and
outlined the recommendations.
3.a
Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: a - Minutes of May 17, June 14,21,23, 2016 (1437 : Minutes of May 17, June 14, 21, & 23, 2016)
San Luis Obispo City Council DRAFT Minutes of May 17, 2016 Page 2
The applicant’s representatives, Aaron Abbot (Robbins Reed) and Pam Ricci (RRM Design
Group) described the proposed subdivision and project details including bicycle parking,
creek corridor and linear parks, the parkland development fee credit and plans for
maintaining open space and parkland lots for public city use.
Brief Council questions followed.
Public Comments:
Speaking in favor of the project were Erik Justesen, RRM Design Group CEO and
President, Dave Greg, property owner and San Luis Obispo resident Steve Delmartini.
---End of Public Comments---
Council questions and discussion followed. Council Member Christianson proposed the
following amendment to Condition 112 regarding the parklands development fee credit:
. Parklands Development Fee Credit.
“In exchange for development of the "West Creek neighborhood parks" (described as
Lots 68, 69, 71, 72), or such other configuration of lots as finally agreed upon by the city,
the subdivider shall be entitled to a parklands development fee credit of $250,000 the
allowed one-half of the overall parkland fee for improving and maintaining the
referenced lots for public city use. The credit amount shall be considered by the Parks and
Recreation Commission with their recommendation to the City Council prior to
recordation of a final map. The Parks and Recreation Commission shall be responsible for
Final Design Review of the referenced parks prior to construction.”
ACTION: MOTION: BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECONDED BY
COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, CARRIED 4:0:1 (MARX RECUSED) to:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 10714 (2016 Series), entitled “A Resolution of the City
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, adopting a mitigated negative
declaration of environmental determination for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
3083 creating 77 lots for property located at 1299 Orcutt Road (SBDV-1769-2015,
Tract #3083 a.k.a. “West Creek.”; and
2. Adopt a Resolution No. 10715 (2016 Series), entitled “A Resolution of the City
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving Vesting Tentative
Tract Map No. 3083 creating 77 lots for property located at 1299 Orcutt Road
(SBDV-1769-2015, Tract #3083 a.k.a. “West Creek.” as amended (Condition 112
modified). Note: This condition was later renumbered 109).
Provide direction, as follows:
3. To be considered by the Architectural Review Commission during Final Design
Review of the project as follows:
a. Consider prohibiting a swimming pool as part of the project; and,
b. Provide special attention to reducing heights of retaining walls in the final
design.
Mayor Marx returned to the dais at 5:08 p.m. Council adjourned to Closed Session.
3.a
Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: a - Minutes of May 17, June 14,21,23, 2016 (1437 : Minutes of May 17, June 14, 21, & 23, 2016)
San Luis Obispo City Council DRAFT Minutes of May 17, 2016 Page 3
CLOSED SESSION
PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM
There were no public comments on the Closed Session agenda.
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section
54956.9:
No. of potential cases: One.
A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the legislative body of the local agency on the
advice of its legal counsel, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant
exposure to litigation against the local agency. The existing facts and circumstances exposing
the City to litigation include allegations by the group California River Watch in a letter to the
City from its counsel, Jack Silver, that the City has committed violations of the Clean Water
Act. A copy of the letter is available upon request from the City Clerk’s Office.
At 6:00 p.m., the Council reconvened in Open Session. All Council Members were present.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Vice Mayor Carpenter led the Pledge of Allegiance.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Christine Dietrick announced that there were no reportable actions from the
Closed Session.
2. INTRODUCTION OF NEW HIRES IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Community Development Director Codron introduced the following employees:
Rebecca Cox, Supervising Administrative Assistant
Elizabeth Farrington, Code Enforcement Technician II
Paula Frojae, Building Inspector I
Gary McNanna, Code Enforcement Technician II
John Mezzapesa, Code Enforcement Officer I
3. MAYOR'S AWARDS FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE
Mayor Marx and Council Members presented the Mayor's Awards for Community Service
to San Luis Obispo High School students for completing eighty hours or more of community
service.
3.a
Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: a - Minutes of May 17, June 14,21,23, 2016 (1437 : Minutes of May 17, June 14, 21, & 23, 2016)
San Luis Obispo City Council DRAFT Minutes of May 17, 2016 Page 4
4. PROCLAMATION - NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK
Public Works Director Daryl Grigsby and Utilities Director Carrie Mattingly accepted the
proclamation declaring May 15-21, 2016 as "National Public Works Week." Public Works
Director Grigsby introduced new or promoted employees.
5. PRESENTATION BY COURTNEY KIENOW REPRESENTING CAL POLY,
REGARDING AN UPDATE ON CAL POLY INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
Mayor Marx announced that the Update has been moved to a date uncertain, as the presenter
has become ill. Staff will work with Cal Poly to make sure the information that was to be
discussed tonight is made available to the public on the City’s website.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Nicole Moore, Los Osos, Leadership San Luis Obispo Class 24 provided an update on the Class
Project at City Hall (drought tolerant planting project in front of the Little Theater).
David Brody, San Luis Obispo, asked the Council to discuss the issue of climate change.
Cal Poly Students Daniela Czerny, Alice Reed, Matt Boer, Vittorio Monteverdi, Trevor Marston,
Sam Lanino, Paccal Purro, Justin Rajah, Haley Stegall, Natalie Montoya and Annalee Akin
urged the City to collaborate with Cal Poly Associated Students Inc. (ASI) on the development
of an event registration policy.
Michelle Tasseff, San Luis Obispo, supported the comments of the Cal Poly students and spoke
in favor of building more affordable work/force housing.
Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, provided personal opinions about how the country is being
run and how national elections are being held.
Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding affordable housing needs and climate
change.
Cheryl McLean, San Luis Obispo, shared concerns regarding carbon emissions and climate
change; and urged the Council to consider limits on non-residential retail/commercial
development.
Cal Poly student Kyle Jordan remarked that rent and housing prices in San Luis Obispo are out
of control and advocated for high density and affordable housing.
Police Chief Cantrell reported that staff plans to work closely with Cal Poly ASI and the Student
Community Liaison Committee (SCLC) this Fall in developing an event registration program to
improve neighborhood civility.
Assistant City Manager Johnson provided a brief update on a proposal for 1101 Monterey Street
(also known as the Santa Rosa infill project).
3.a
Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: a - Minutes of May 17, June 14,21,23, 2016 (1437 : Minutes of May 17, June 14, 21, & 23, 2016)
San Luis Obispo City Council DRAFT Minutes of May 17, 2016 Page 5
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Comments:
Dominique Tartaglia, Chamber of Commerce, and Michelle Tasseff, Human Relations
Commission Chairperson, spoke in support of Item 13 (Directed Giving Campaign).
Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, objected to the approval of Items 14 (Banking Services) and
asked that Item 22 (CalRecycle Program) be pulled because it was added to the agenda three
days before the meeting.
Steve Delmartini, San Luis Obispo Police Department RoundTable, encouraged the approval of
Item 9 (Body Worn Camera Program).
Utilities Director Mattingly explained the need for adding Item 22 to the agenda (deadline for a
grant) and added that it is simply a continuation of an existing grant.
Council Member Ashbaugh pulled Item 8 for a question and 12 to suggest a minor correction.
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0 to approve Consent Calendar Items 6 through 22.
6. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
CARRIED 5-0 to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.
7. MINUTES OF MARCH 15, MARCH 22, AND MARCH 23, 2016
CARRIED 5-0 to approve the Minutes of the City Council meetings of March 15, March 22,
and March 23, 2016.
8. NOVEMBER 8, 2016 REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION
This item was pulled by Council Member Ashbaugh for question regarding language in the
draft resolution. Staff explained.
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECONDED BY
COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE CARRIED 5:0 to adopt the Resolutions and confirm the
setting of a Special Meeting on Thursday, December 1, 2016 at twelve o’clock noon.
1. Adopted Resolution No. 10716 (2016 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council
of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, calling and giving notice of the holding of a
General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2016, for the election
of certain officers as required by the provisions of the City Charter and adopting
regulations for Candidates’ Statements.”; and
2. Adopted a Resolution No. 10717 (2016 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, requesting the San Luis Obispo
Board of Supervisors to consolidate the General Municipal Election on Tuesday,
November 8, 2016, with the Statewide General Election to be held on that date.”; and
3.a
Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: a - Minutes of May 17, June 14,21,23, 2016 (1437 : Minutes of May 17, June 14, 21, & 23, 2016)
San Luis Obispo City Council DRAFT Minutes of May 17, 2016 Page 6
3. Confirmed the setting of a Special Meeting on Thursday, December 1, 2016 at twelve
o’clock noon to adopt a Resolution certifying the results of the election and to administer
oaths of office to the newly elected Mayor and Council Members.
9. 2016 U.S. DOJ FEDERAL BODY WORN CAMERA PROGRAM EXPANSION AND
IMPLEMENTATION GRANT
CARRIED 5-0 to:
1. Authorize staff to pursue a grant application submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, for federal fiscal years 2016-2018
in a total amount not to exceed $150,000, with the City providing a 50% match (no more
than $75,000) for body worn camera program expansion and implementation; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary grant documents, and appropriate the
grant amount into the Police Department’s budget upon grant award.
10. DESIGN SERVICES FOR CALLE JOAQUIN LIFT STATION REPLACEMENT,
SPEC. NO. 91133, CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 5
CARRIED 5-0 to:
1. Approve a contract amendment of $13,089 for additional Design Services for the Calle
Joaquin Siphon and Lift Station Replacement, Spec. No. 91133; and
2. Adopt Resolution No. 10718 (2016 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of
the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving a mitigated negative declaration of
environmental impact for the Calle Joaquin Lift Station and Siphon Project.”
11. AMENDMENT OF CONTRACT FOR CONSULTING SERVICES TO CONTINUE
PROCESSING THE SAN LUIS RANCH PROJECT
CARRIED 5-0 to authorize the Community Development Director to amend a contract with
John F. Rickenbach Consulting to include revised scope of work adding an additional
$85,725 at a total cost not to exceed $146,475 for Phase Two processing of the San Luis
Ranch project.
12. ORDINANCE NO. 1629 (SECOND READING) - AMEND TABLE 9 OF SECTION
17.22.010 OF THE CITY’S MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING REGULATIONS)
CONDITIONALLY PERMITTING A NIGHT CLUB LAND USE WITHIN THE
BUSINESS PARK (B-P) ZONE IN THE AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
(SLO BREW)
This item pulled by Council Member Ashbaugh to vote No and to note need for correction
on pg. 257 (correction of a minor typographical error).
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, SECONDED BY MAYOR
MARX, CARRIED 4:1 (ASHBAUGH VOTING NO) to:
3.a
Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: a - Minutes of May 17, June 14,21,23, 2016 (1437 : Minutes of May 17, June 14, 21, & 23, 2016)
San Luis Obispo City Council DRAFT Minutes of May 17, 2016 Page 7
Adopt Ordinance No. 1629 (2016 Series) entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the
City of San Luis Obispo, California, amending Table 9 of Section 17.22.010 of the City’s
Municipal Code (Zoning Regulations) conditionally permitting a night club land use within
the Business Park (B-P) Zone in the Airport Area Specific Plan Area (Code-1316-2015)”, as
amended to correct a minor typographical error.
13. DIRECTED GIVING CAMPAIGN – “MAKE CHANGE COUNT” METER
DONATION PROGRAM
CARRIED 5-0 to approve a permanent continuance of the “Make Change Count” meter
donation program.
14. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR BANKING SERVICES
CARRIED 5-0 to approve the issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for banking
services to be sent to all bank and savings and loan institutions with full-service branches
located in the City of San Luis Obispo.
15. MAINTENANCE WORK JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2016, SPECIFICATION NO.
91446
CARRIED 5-0 to:
1. Approve Special Provisions for Maintenance Work Job Order Contract 2016,
Specification No. 91446; and
2. Authorize staff to advertise for bids and authorize the City Manager to award the
contract to the lowest responsible bidder.
16. AMENDMENT TO CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH MNS ENGINEERS FOR LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD AT US 101
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SPECIFICATION NO. 99821
CARRIED 5-0 to authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 3 to the
Construction Management Services Agreement with MNS Engineers, dated July 1, 2014,
increasing the contract by $175,806, bringing the total contract allowable monthly
cumulative payments from $2,650,224 to $2,826,030 for the remainder of the contract.
17. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) CURB RAMPS 2016
PROJECT, SPECIFICATION NO. 91445
CARRIED 5-0 to:
1. Approve Plans and Specifications for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Curb Ramps 2016 Project, Specification No. 91445; and
2. Authorize staff to advertise for bids and authorize the City Manager to award the contract
if the lowest responsible bid is within the Engineer’s Estimate of $118,000.
3.a
Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: a - Minutes of May 17, June 14,21,23, 2016 (1437 : Minutes of May 17, June 14, 21, & 23, 2016)
San Luis Obispo City Council DRAFT Minutes of May 17, 2016 Page 8
18. ROADWAY SEALING 2016, SPECIFICATION NO. 91311
CARRIED 5-0 to:
1. Approve plans and specifications for the Roadway Sealing 2016 Project, Specification No.
91311; and
2. Authorize staff to advertise for bids and authorize the City Manager to award the contract if
the lowest responsible bid is within the Engineer’s Estimate of $1,199,705.
19. AUTHORIZE USE OF FUNDS FOR CONTINUING LITIGATION
CARRIED 5-0 to authorize the City Attorney to execute a Second Amendment to the Legal
Services Agreement with the law firm of Jarvis, Fay, Doporto (Original Agreement dated
March 31, 2015; First Amendment dated August 17, 2015) increasing the not to exceed
amount from $50,000 to $75,000, for the City’s legal defense in the case of Palacios, et al.
v. Nielsen, et al., as authorized by the City Council and reported out of closed session on
March 31, 2015.
20. CORRECTION TO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 19, 2016
CARRIED 5-0 to approve the corrected minutes of January 19, 2016.
22. PARTICIPATION IN THE CALRECYCLE BEVERAGE CONTAINER
RECYCLING PAYMENT PROGRAM
CARRIED 5-0 to adopt Resolution No. 10719 (2016 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the
City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, authorizing submittal of application
for payment programs and related authorizations,” offered by CalRecycle.
BUSINESS ITEMS
21. ANNUAL REPORT REGARDING RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTION PROGRAM
Community Development Director Michael Codron, Code Enforcement Supervisor Teresa
Purrington and Anne Schneider Chief Building Official provided an in-depth staff report.
Mayor Marx called for a recess at 9:04 p.m. The meeting resumed at 8:15 p.m.
Council questions to staff followed regarding vacancy rates, informational materials to
explain the Rental Housing Inspection Program (RHIP) to tenants, properties subject to
inspection, and exemptions.
Public Comments:
The following San Luis Obispo residents, property owners and/or business persons spoke in
opposition to the Rental Housing Inspection Program: Edward Rogell, Lesa Gofourth, Steve
Ferrario, David Baldwin, Kabe Alkebulan, Trenton Matson, David Levitsky, Eric Kam,
3.a
Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: a - Minutes of May 17, June 14,21,23, 2016 (1437 : Minutes of May 17, June 14, 21, & 23, 2016)
San Luis Obispo City Council DRAFT Minutes of May 17, 2016 Page 9
Barry Jones, Simón Laurie, David Spiva, Andrew Follick (SLOU40), Teddy Burton,
LynAnne Wiest, Kevin Rice, and Brett Strickland.
The following San Luis Obispo residents and business owners or representatives offered
suggestions for improvements to the RHIP: Andy Pease, Matt Roberts, Judy Lewelling,
Sylvia Drucker, Michelle Tasseff, Charlene Rosales (Chamber of Commerce), Andrew
Brown, Carolyn Smith, and Graham Updegrove.
Steve Delmartini, San Luis Obispo, spoke in favor of extending the amnesty period and
asked several questions for clarification about the RHIP: Does it apply to condominiums
and Planned Developments; are smoke alarms and carbon monoxide detectors tested; and
can a den or office be used as a bedroom.
Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, spoke off topic.
---End of Public Comments---
Chief Building Official Schneider responded to questions raised by Mr. Delmartini noting
that the ordinance defines “homes” and added that a condominium, if developed as a single-
family home would be subject to the RHIP. She explained that inspections include verifying
that safety measures (including smoke and carbon monoxide detectors) are in place, but they
are not tested. She also pointed out that the inspections are not to determine high occupancy,
but to determine if the property has been altered to create additional living space.
Council discussion ensued.
Council Member Carpenter stated that he had opposed the adoption of the ordinance and he
continues to object to it because it is overreaching, invades people’s privacy, is
discriminatory and has unintended consequences, including driving tenants out of town. He
added that he could not support the extension of the amnesty because he doesn’t support the
RHIP.
Council Member Rivoire remarked that he could not vote in favor of the policy directions
because he has deep concerns about the RHIP. He urged the Council majority to consider
different ways to evaluate the RHIP; and suggested several metrics and enhancements to the
inspection checklist.
Council feedback on the RHIP followed, as reflected in the Action below.
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECONDED BY
COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON CARRIED 3:2 (CARPENTER AND RIVOIRE
VOTING NO) to:
1. Received and filed the annual report regarding the Rental Housing Inspection Program.
(RHIP); and
2. Adopted Resolution No. 10720 (2016 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council
of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, extending the deadline for the amnesty period
for waiver of the special investigation fee and clarifying the interpretation and scope of
3.a
Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: a - Minutes of May 17, June 14,21,23, 2016 (1437 : Minutes of May 17, June 14, 21, & 23, 2016)
San Luis Obispo City Council DRAFT Minutes of May 17, 2016 Page 10
the definition of “Residential Rental Dwelling Unit” in section 15.10.020 of the San Luis
Obispo Municipal Code.”
By Council consensus, staff was directed to add tracking of rental costs and vacancy
rates; summary of inspections of properties with history of Code Enforcement; the
number of displacements or relocations (red tags issued); enhance “Frequently Asked
Questions” based on input received from correspondence and during public testimony;
develop a leave behind on tenants’ rights; evaluate changes to the checklist to clarify
which items relate directly to habitability, and return with an update in May 2017.
LIAISON REPORTS
Council Liaison written reports were received from Council Member Ashbaugh and Mayor
Marx.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor Marx announced a meeting on May 24, 2016 from 6-8 p.m. San Luis Obispo Council of
Government (SLOCOG) will conduct an open meeting at Los Ranchos Elementary School about
the congestion on Broad/Hwy 227 between Orcutt and Crestmont.
Council Member Ashbaugh announced a meeting on May 18, 2016 regarding neighborhood
crime issues in the Bishop’s Peak School area. He also mentioned an upcoming community
service fair at Cal Poly.
ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned to a Special Meeting to be held on Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 8:30 a.m. in the
Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose
of conducting a Closed Session related to labor negotiations.
The Regular City Council Meeting of June 7, 2016 was previously cancelled. Consequently, the
next Regular City Council Meetings is scheduled for Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 4:00 p.m. and
6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, respectively, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
__________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim City Clerk
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2016
3.a
Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: a - Minutes of May 17, June 14,21,23, 2016 (1437 : Minutes of May 17, June 14, 21, & 23, 2016)
Council Minutes - DRAFT
Tuesday, June 14, 2016
Regular Meeting of the City Council
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, June 14,
2016 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California,
by Mayor Marx.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members John Ashbaugh, Carlyn Christianson, Dan Rivoire, Vice Mayor
Dan Carpenter, and Mayor Jan Marx.
Council Members
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Derek Johnson,
Assistant City Manager; and John Paul Maier, Assistant City Clerk; were present
at Roll Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as
indicated in the minutes.
BUSINESS ITEMS
1. 2016-17 WATER ENTERPRISE FUND REVIEW
Water Division Manager Floyd and Utilities Deputy Director Hix presented the staff report
and outlined the recommendations, as amended via an agenda correspondence. Brief
Council questions followed.
Public Comments:
Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, voiced objections to the adding fluoride to drinking
water.
---End of Public Comments---
3.a
Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: a - Minutes of May 17, June 14,21,23, 2016 (1437 : Minutes of May 17, June 14, 21, & 23, 2016)
San Luis Obispo City Council DRAFT Minutes of June 14, 2016 Page 2
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER CHRISTIANSON AND CARRIED 5-0 to:
1. Review and accept the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Water Enterprise Fund report; and
2. Conceptually approve the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Water Enterprise Fund budget, as
amended (remove the extraneous line on page 23, Table entitled “Changes in Financial
Position – Water Fund”), with final action with the adoption of the 2016-17 Financial
Plan Supplement; and
3. Approve the transfer of revenue collected for new development meters to the
expenditure account for applicable meter purchases on a quarterly basis.
2. FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND REVIEW
Utilities Deputy Director Hix provided an update on the Water Resource Recovery Facility
Project. Brief Council questions followed.
Public Comments:
Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, spoke about sewage and the drought.
---End of Public Comments---
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER RIVOIRE AND CARRIED 5-0 to
1. Review and accept the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Sewer Enterprise Fund financials; and
2. Conceptually approve the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Sewer Enterprise Fund budget, with final
action with the adoption of the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Financial Plan Supplement.
3. 2016-17 TRANSIT ENTERPRISE FUND REVIEW
Transit Manager Anguiano and Administrative Analyst Betz provided the staff report and
recommendations, as amended.
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER CHRISTIANSON AND CARRIED 5-0 to:
1. Review and accept the Fiscal Year (FY) 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund Report; and
2. Conceptually approve the FY 2016-17 Transit Enterprise Fund budget, with the
adoption of the 2015-17 Financial Plan Supplement; and
3. Approve a four-year contract, with First Transit, Inc. to operate and maintain the City’s
Transit system, as amended (correct discrepancy in Section 23 “Changes” per staff
recommendation outlined in Agenda Correspondence dated June 14, 2016) and
authorize the Mayor to execute the same; and
3.a
Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: a - Minutes of May 17, June 14,21,23, 2016 (1437 : Minutes of May 17, June 14, 21, & 23, 2016)
San Luis Obispo City Council DRAFT Minutes of June 14, 2016 Page 3
4. Authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager’s designee, to execute a one-year
agreement extension as amended with Cal Poly for continuation of the Subsidy
Agreement for Free Fare ridership on SLO Transit; and
5. As part of Short Range Transit Plan consideration (August, 2016), bring forward final
recommendations for service changes and capital improvement investments; and
6. Approve the appropriation of grant money, in the amount of $186, 636, for the upgrade
of the SLO Transit Automatic Vehicle Location system.
4. FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND REVIEW
Administrative Analyst Betz and Parking Services Supervisor Fuchs provided the staff
report and summarized the recommendations, as amended. Deputy Director Bochum
responded to brief Council questions.
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY VICE
MAYOR CARPENTER, CARRIED 5-0 to:
1. Review and discuss the Fiscal Year (FY) 2016-17 Parking Fund Review; and
2. Conceptually approve the FY 2016-17 Parking Enterprise Fund Budget, with final
actions with the adoption of the FY 2016-17 Financial Plan Supplement, as amended
(amendments to the financial position table); and to direct staff to allocate $100,000 to
the 2016-17 land use parking demand model; and
3. Adopt Resolution 10720 (2016 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the
City of San Luis Obispo, California approving an increase in Parking Citation Fines.”
5. 2014-15 CENTRAL SERVICE COST ALLOCATION PLANS AND COST OF
SERVICE FEE STUDY
Assistant City Manager/Interim Finance Director Johnson presented the staff report and
recommendations.
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to:
Simultaneous with the adoption of the 2015-17 Financial Plan:
1. Approve the 2014-15 Central Service Cost Allocation Plans dated May 2016; and
2. Approve the Cost of Service Study completed in December 2014 and updated in May
2016.
Mayor Marx called for a recess at 5:36 p.m. Mayor Marx called the meeting back to order at
6:00 p.m. All Council Members were present.
3.a
Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: a - Minutes of May 17, June 14,21,23, 2016 (1437 : Minutes of May 17, June 14, 21, & 23, 2016)
San Luis Obispo City Council DRAFT Minutes of June 14, 2016 Page 4
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council Member Christianson led the Pledge of Allegiance.
INTRODUCTIONS
6. CHRIS MILLER, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE PERFORMING ARTS
CENTER SAN LUIS OBISPO (PAC)
City Manager Lichtig introduced Chris Miller, Managing Director of the Performing Arts
Center San Luis Obispo (PAC), who summarized key goals and objectives for his first six
months with the PAC.
APPOINTMENTS
7. SHORT-TERM APPOINTMENT TO THE HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION
(HRC)
Interim City Clerk Lee Price provided a brief report.
ACTION: MOTION BY MAYOR MARX, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER
ASHBAUGH, CARRIED 5-0 to:
1. Approve a leave of absence for HRC Commissioner Maria Troy; and
2. Appoint Nancy Welts to the HRC for a short-term appointment of up to six (6) months
effectively immediately.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Jessica Darin, new Chief of Staff Cal Poly SLO, introduced herself.
Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, San Luis Obispo, announced her intention to run for City Council.
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, urged the Council to consider the impacts of climate change and
to preserve trees.
Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, shared concerns about the national electoral vote counting
process.
Bob Kerwin, Arroyo Grande resident and Chair of the San Luis Obispo Chapter of SCORE,
expressed appreciation to the Council for financial support and explained that the non-profit is
stepping up efforts to support local businesses.
Kevin Akiva Werbalowsky, San Luis Obispo, shared his personal story about being evicted.
3.a
Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: a - Minutes of May 17, June 14,21,23, 2016 (1437 : Minutes of May 17, June 14, 21, & 23, 2016)
San Luis Obispo City Council DRAFT Minutes of June 14, 2016 Page 5
CONSENT AGENDA
Items 12, 14 and 16 were pulled by members of the public for comments, as follows:
James Papp, Cultural Heritage Committee Member, spoke in favor of the approval of Item 16 and
mentioned that the Committee is also looking at the historic nature of that particular area of San
Luis Obispo.
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, read a statement written and submitted by San Luis Obispo
resident Allan Cooper regarding Item 12 (on file as agenda correspondence).
Lydia Mourenza, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding Item 14 and asked the Council to adopt a
procedure for using consultants on a rotational basis, particularly in the Community Development
Department.
---End of Public Comments---
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY
COUNCILMEMBER RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0 TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR
AS FOLLOWS:
8. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
CARRIED 5-0 to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinaces as appropriate.
9. MINUTES OF APRIL 5, 2016
CARRIED 5-0 to approve the Minutes of the City Council meeting of April 5, 2016.
10. ADDITION OF THE CONTRIBUTING HISTORIC PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1214
MILL STREET TO THE MASTER LIST OF HISTORIC RESOURCES AS “THE
THERESA TORRES TRUE HOUSE”
CARRIED 5-0 to adopt Resolution No. 10721 (2016 Series), entitled “A Resolution of the
City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, adding the property located at 1214
Mill Street to the Master List of Historic Resources, HIST-2842-2019.”
11. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY’S COLLECTION OF FIRE AND
LIFE SAFETY INSPECTION FEES
CARRIED 5-0 to adopt Resolution 10722 (2016 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California authorizing the San Luis Obispo County
Auditor to collect fees for 2016-17 Fire and Life Safety Inspections of multi-dwelling
properties containing three or more dwelling units on the secured property tax roll pursuant to
California Government Code Section 54988.”
3.a
Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: a - Minutes of May 17, June 14,21,23, 2016 (1437 : Minutes of May 17, June 14, 21, & 23, 2016)
San Luis Obispo City Council DRAFT Minutes of June 14, 2016 Page 6
12. REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE 2015 GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL REPORT
(GENP-3108-2016)
CARRIED 5-0 to accept the 2015 General Plan Annual Report.
13. SINSHEIMER PARK PLAYGROUND; SPECIFICATION NO. 90650
CARRIED 5-0 to:
1. Approve plans and specifications for the Sinsheimer Park Playground Project (Project),
Specification No. 90650; and
2. Authorize staff to advertise for construction bids and authorize the City Manager to
award a contract if the lowest responsible bid is less than the Engineer’s Estimate of
$529,700; and
3. Authorize the transfer of funds from the following accounts to the project’s construction
phase account:
a. $184,923 from the Play Equipment Replacement Master Account (91103)
b. $322,023 from the Playground Equipment 13-14 Account (91246)
c. $161,672 from the Santa Rosa Skate Park Account (90752)
d. $62,889 from the Completed Projects General Fund Account
4. Approve a California Multiple Award Schedule (CMAS) agreement purchase with
Miracle Recreation Equipment Company in an amount not-to-exceed $165,000 for the
purchase of play equipment for the Sinsheimer Park Playground project and authorize
the Finance Director to execute a purchase order following the bid opening; and
5. Approve a purchase with Columbia Cascade Company in an amount not to exceed
$25,000 for the purchase of two embankment slides.
14. REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS - LAND SURVEYING, ARCHITECTURE,
CIVIL ENGINEERING, AND PROPERTY ACQUISITION
CARRIED 5-0 to:
1. Approve the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to provide:
a. Land Surveying Services, Specification No. 50410.2016.LS
b. Architecture Design Services, Specification No. 50410.2016.AD
c. Civil Engineering Services, Specification No. 50410.2016.CE
d. Property Acquisition Services, Specification No. 50410.2016.ROW; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute agreements with selected consulting firms; and
3. Authorize the Finance and Informaiton Technology Director to execute and amend
Purchase Orders for individual consultant services contracts in an amount not-to-exceed
the authorized project budget.
3.a
Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: a - Minutes of May 17, June 14,21,23, 2016 (1437 : Minutes of May 17, June 14, 21, & 23, 2016)
San Luis Obispo City Council DRAFT Minutes of June 14, 2016 Page 7
15. APPROVAL OF THE FINAL MAP FOR TRACT 2784, 625 TORO STREET
(TR 176-05)
CARRIED 5-0 to adopt Resolution No. 10723 (2016 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the
City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving the Final Map for Tract
2784 (625 Toro Street, TR 176-05),” and authorized the Mayor to execute a Subdivision
Agreement.
16. ADDITION OF THE PROPERTY AT 535 HIGUERA TO THE MASTER LIST OF
HISTORIC RESOURCES AS “THE ROBERT POLLARD HOUSE”
CARRIED 5-0 to adopt Resolution No. 10724 (2016 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the
City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California , adding the property at 535 Higuera
Street to the Master List of Historic Resources as “The Robert Pollard House” (HIST-2793-
2016).”
17. MICROSOFT OFFICE 365 UPGRADE
CARRIED 5-0 to:
1. Approve a purchase order for the purchase of Microsoft Office 365 Government Plan
subscription licenses from Dell Computer Corporation in an amount not to exceed
$140,500 per year for the next three years; and
2. Authorize waiver of formal bids to cooperatively purchase Microsoft Office 365
licensing using the County of Riverside’s Microsoft Enterprise Agreement #01E73134
as allowed under 3.24.060 E. of the City of San Luis Obispo Muncipal Code; and
3. Authorize the Finance and Information Technology Director to approve future
purchase orders for years two and three; and
4. Approve a contact in the amount of $45,000 to Planet Technologies for the migration
of City email to the Microsoft Government Cloud using GSA Contract # GS-35F-
0360J.
18. CONTROL SYSTEMS FLEET EXPANSION, SPECIFICATION NO. 91458
CARRIED 5-0 to:
1. Authorize the Finance and Information Technology Director to expand the City Fleet
by two vehicles; and
2. Authroize the Finance and Information Technology Director to execute a purchase order
to Toyota of San Luis Obispo in the amount of $67,178.06 for the purchase of two 2016
Toyota Crew Cab 4 x 4 pickups.
3.a
Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: a - Minutes of May 17, June 14,21,23, 2016 (1437 : Minutes of May 17, June 14, 21, & 23, 2016)
San Luis Obispo City Council DRAFT Minutes of June 14, 2016 Page 8
19. URBAN FOREST CONTRACT SERVICES
CARRIED 5:0 to:
1. Approve Request for Proposal for "Urban Forestry Contract Services;" and
2. Authroize staff to advertise for proposals; and
3. Authorize the City Manager to execute agreements with the selected contractor in an
amount not-to-exceed the authorized budget.
20. REQUEST FOR CONTINUED USE OF ON-CALL LIST FOR LEGAL SERVICES
CARRIED 5-0 to:
1. Authorize the City Attorney’s continued use of the current on-call list for contract legal
support; and
2. Authorize the City Attorney to review and accept cost of living increase proposals from
firms and attorneys on the current on-call list for contract legal support.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
21. ADOPTION OF THE 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (UWMP) AND
AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN, WATER AND WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
Utilities Director Mattingly, Utilities Project Manager Metz and Utilities Services
Technician Boerman provided an indepth staff report. Council questions to staff followed.
Public Comments:
Dia Hurd, San Luis Obispo, read a written statement from San Luis Obispo resident Bob
Shanbrom criticizing the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and urging a building
moratorium (on file as Agenda Correspondence).
Bob Lucas, San Luis Obispo, read a prepared statement encouraging the Council to consider
climate change on the City’s water resources (on file as Agenda Correspondence).
Steve Barasch read a prepared statement sharing concerns regarding water resources (on file
as Agenda Correspondence).
Mila Vuyovich-LaBarre, San Luis Obispo said that the UWMP fails to take climate change
into account and called for an immediate cessation of water connections.
Paul Rhys, San Luis Obispo, expressed concern about the drought and urged conservation.
3.a
Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: a - Minutes of May 17, June 14,21,23, 2016 (1437 : Minutes of May 17, June 14, 21, & 23, 2016)
San Luis Obispo City Council DRAFT Minutes of June 14, 2016 Page 9
Cheryl McLean, San Luis Obispo, provided reactions to the staff presentation and urged the
Council to not wait to implement measures to reduce water use.
---End of Public Comments---
Staff responded to Council questions.
Council Member Ashbaugh proposed some changes to “Table 1. Water Shortage Response
Stages” (page 590 of the agenda packet), specifically in the Severe and Extreme stages.
Discussion ensued.
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY MAYOR
MARX, CARRIED 5-0 to approve amendments to “Water Shortage Response Stages”, as
outlined in Table 1 of the Staff Report (Stage Severe: Strike: “Additional outdoor irrigation
restrictions may be added (such as no spray irrigation).” Add:“Water Offset Program for new
connections may be increased. Outdoor irrigations may be prohibited or further restricted for
all uses. Stage Extreme to include the same language.)
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0 to:
1. Adop Resolution No. 10725 (2016 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of
the City of San Luis Obispo, California approving amendments to the Water and
Wastewater Management Element of the General Plan (GENP-3215-2016)”; and
2. Adopt Resolution No. 10726 (2016 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council
of the City of San Luis Obispo, California approving the 2015 Update to San Luis
Obispo’s Urban Water Management Plan,” and authorizing staff to make any necessary
changes to make the UWMP internally consistent with changes to Table 1.
Mayor Marx called for a recess at 8:12 p.m. Mayor Marx called the meeting bck to order at
8:21 p.m.
BUSINESS ITEMS
22. ADOPTION OF 2016-2017 GANN LIMIT AND 2015-17 FINANCIAL PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET
City Manager Lichtig presented the Budget Message and expressed appreciation to staff.
Assistant City Manager Johnson, Parks and Recreation Director Stanwyk and Budget
Manager Bradford provided details. Council questions followed.
Public Comments:
The following San Luis Obispo residents urged the Council to consider allocating funds for a
park in the anholm/Cerro San Luis (North Broad) area of town: Cheryl McLean, Dia Hurd,
Bob Mourenza, Richard Schmidt, Mike Clark and Mila Vuyovich LaBarre.
3.a
Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: a - Minutes of May 17, June 14,21,23, 2016 (1437 : Minutes of May 17, June 14, 21, & 23, 2016)
San Luis Obispo City Council DRAFT Minutes of June 14, 2016 Page 10
Mila Vuyovich-LaBarre also urged Council to look at low-cost bus stop benches; consider
improvements to the south on/off ramp at Los Osos Valley Road to replicate the northbound
interchange; and to expedite Laguna Lake dredging and to transfer the dredge to Sunny Acres.
Alec Flatos, Firefighter/Paramedic, speaking on behalf of San Luis Obispo City Firefighters
Local 3523 President Pro Tem Matthew Polkow, submitted agenda correspondence
addressing concerns regarding the Significant Operating Program Change proposed regarding
Fire Department staffing.
Steve Barasch, San Luis Obispo, submitted a compilation of miscellaneous budget records
regarding the City’s investments and Measure Y projects and expressed concerns.
Carolyn Smith, San Luis Obispo, voiced objections to the purchase of new software, argued
that there are other more important priorities and asked the Council to ask their constituents
how they want the City’s money spent.
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, urged the Council to allocate funds carefully.
Sandra Rowley, Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN), expressed appreciation for
recent sidewalk and street repairs and encouraged traffic calming in the Kentucky and Taft
area to improve safety.
Camille Small, San Luis Obispo, read a prepared statement submitted by resident Allan
Cooper objecting to the acquisition of the Enterprise Resource Planning system.
Don Hendrick, San Luis Obispo, spoke off topic.
Charlene Rosales, Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of the staff recommendations.
Leslie Halls, San Luis Obispo, expressed objections to the Significant Operating Program
Changes and the funding for a new park. She urged the Council to spend the City’s tax
revenues on what had been agreed upon, including paying down debts to CalPERS and for
bonds. Brett Strickland of San Luis Obispo agreed and added that if there is left over money
(from Measure Y funds) than perhaps the tax is not necessary.
Russell Brown, San Luis Obispo, urged the Council to seek more citizen input in the
supplemental budget process.
Paul Rys, San Luis Obispo, shared concern about the unfunded pension liability and suggested
the Council have a discussion about it. He also mentioned other important community needs,
including multi-modal transportation and safety improvements and water resource-related
measures.
---End of Public Comments---
Staff responded to comments raised during Public Comment and to questions from the
Council.
3.a
Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: a - Minutes of May 17, June 14,21,23, 2016 (1437 : Minutes of May 17, June 14, 21, & 23, 2016)
San Luis Obispo City Council DRAFT Minutes of June 14, 2016 Page 11
Mayor Marx suggested the Council consider establishing a set aside for a park acquisition in
the North Broad area of the City by allocating $900,000. Council discussion ensued. Council
Members Christianson and Rivoire voiced objections urging the Council to defer the proposal
to the goal setting process to allow for more community engagement.
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND MAYOR MARX
BY CARRIED 3-2 (CHRISTIANSON AND RIVOIRE VOTING NO) to:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 10727 (2016 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council
of the City of San Luis Obispo, California adopting the Appropriations Limit for 2016-
17,” in compliance with Article XIII B of the State Constitution, Gann Spending
Limitation Initiative”; and
2. Receive the 2015-17 Financial Plan Supplemental Budget Report, including Major City
Goals and Other Important Objectives progress report and the Five Year Forecast
update; and
3. Adopt Resolution No. 10728 (2016 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council
of the City of San Luis Obispo, California approving the 2015-17 Financial Plan
Supplement, adopting the 2016-17 Budget, and amending the Fund Balance and
Reserve Policy,” as amended (shift $900,000 from the proposed General Fund CIP
Infrastructure Designation to the Parkland Development Fund for acquisition of
parkland in the Broad Street area near Highway 101 and Foothill Boulevard) and
authorizing Staff to make any other changes necessary to reflect Council direction.
LIAISON REPORTS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Council Members Ashbaugh, Christianson and Rivoire; and Mayor Marx provided travel
disclosures.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m. The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled
for Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California.
__________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim City Clerk
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2016
3.a
Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: a - Minutes of May 17, June 14,21,23, 2016 (1437 : Minutes of May 17, June 14, 21, & 23, 2016)
Council Minutes - DRAFT
Tuesday, June 21, 2016
Regular Meeting of the City Council
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, June 21,
2016 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California,
by Mayor Marx.
ROLL CALL
Present: Council Members John Ashbaugh, Carlyn Christianson, Dan Rivoire, Vice Mayor Dan
Carpenter, and Mayor Jan Marx.
Absent: None
Staff: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Derek Johnson, Assistant
City Manager; and John Paul Maier, Assistant City Clerk; were present at Roll Call.
Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated in the
minutes.
BUSINESS ITEMS
1. CITYGATE REPORT ON SOUTHERN CITY DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS ON FIRE
EMERGENCY RESPONSE SERVICES
Fire Chief Olson and Citygate Associates Public Safety Principal Gary narrated a PowerPoint
presentation entitled “Fire Master Plan Update.” Staff responded to Council questions.
Public Commenst:
None.
---End of Public Comments---
Council discussion followed.
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to:
1. Approve the updated Fire Master Plan; and
3.a
Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: a - Minutes of May 17, June 14,21,23, 2016 (1437 : Minutes of May 17, June 14, 21, & 23, 2016)
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of June 21, 2016 – DRAFT Page 2
2. Provide City staff direction to incorporate into the revised Airport Area Specific Plan
(AASP) financial solutions to any funding gaps that may exist by the provision of essential
City services in the southern City prior to the General Fund’s capacity to fully support
those services; and
3. Direct Staff to return with amendments to the Safety Element to align with the Fire Master
Plan goals; and
4. Determine that the Fire Master Plan is covered by the general rule and exempt under
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15061 (b) 3 that CEQA applies
only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the
environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity
in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to
CEQA.
ADJOURN TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 21, 2016
3.a
Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: a - Minutes of May 17, June 14,21,23, 2016 (1437 : Minutes of May 17, June 14, 21, & 23, 2016)
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of June 21, 2016 – DRAFT Page 3
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, June 21,
2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California,
by Mayor Marx.
ROLL CALL
Present: Council Members John Ashbaugh, Carlyn Christianson, Dan Rivoire, Vice Mayor Dan
Carpenter, and Mayor Jan Marx.
Absent: None
Staff: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Derek Johnson, Assistant
City Manager; and John Paul Maier, Assistant City Clerk; were present at Roll Call.
Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated in the
minutes.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council Member John Ashbaugh led the Pledge of Allegiance.
INTRODUCTIONS
2. INTRODUCTION OF NEW HIRES IN ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE AND
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
Assistant City Manager and Interim Finance and Information Technology Director Johnson
introduced the following employees:
Marcus Carloni, Special Projects Manager – Administration
Kelly Medina, Administrative Assistant III – Finance and Information Technology
Michael Reniere, Accounting Assistant III - Finance and Information Technology
PRESENTATIONS
3. PRESENTATION BY JOEL NEEL REPRESENTING CAL POLY, REGARDING AN
UPDATE ON CAL POLY INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
Joel Neel, representing Cal Poly provided a presentation regarding an Update on Cal Poly
Infrastructure Projects.
3.a
Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: a - Minutes of May 17, June 14,21,23, 2016 (1437 : Minutes of May 17, June 14, 21, & 23, 2016)
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of June 21, 2016 – DRAFT Page 4
APPOINTMENTS
4. NOMINATION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CENTRAL COAST
COMMISSION FOR SENIOR CITIZENS (CCCSC), AREA AGENCY ON AGING
Assistant City Clerk Maier provided a detailed staff report and responded to Council
questions.
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to approve as recommended by Mayor Marx,
to nominate Julie Cox to serve a term beginning on July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018, as
the City of San Luis Obispo’s representative to the Central Coast Commission for Senior
Citizens Area Agency on Aging Board of Directors.
5. APPOINTMENTS TO VARIOUS CITY ADVISORY BODIES
Assistant City Clerk Maier provided a detailed staff report and responded to Council
questions.
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE MAYOR CARPENTER, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to approve the recommendations of the Council
Liaison Subcommittees:
1. Confirm the appointments of Ken Tasseff and Christopher Coates to the Citizens’ Revenue
Enhancement Oversight Commission to complete three-year terms each expiring June 30,
2019; and
2. Confirm the reappointment of Ken Kienow to the Citizens’ Revenue Enhancement
Oversight Commission to complete a one-year term expiring June 30, 2017; and
3. Confirm the appointments of Greg Avakian and Keri Schwab to the Parks and Recreation
Commission to complete unexpired terms each through March 31, 2020; and
4. Confirm the appointment of Rodney Thurman to the Parks and Recreation Commission to
complete an unexpired term through March 31, 2018; and
5. Confirm the appointment of Daniel Knight to the Planning Commission to complete an
unexpired term through March 31, 2017; and
6. Confirm the appointment of Richard Alan Bate to the Tree Committee to complete an
unexpired term through March 31, 2017.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Sharon Kimball, League of Women Voters of San Luis County, spoke about best practices of
civility and civil discourse during an election year.
3.a
Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: a - Minutes of May 17, June 14,21,23, 2016 (1437 : Minutes of May 17, June 14, 21, & 23, 2016)
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of June 21, 2016 – DRAFT Page 5
Eva Ulz, History Center of San Luis Obispo County, expressed concerns regarding the limited
space in the History Center’s galleries and spoke about the City’s 1994 Downtown Concept Plan
related to the expansion of the History Center.
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns regarding the preservation of trees within the
City.
Sheri Boles, California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), introduced herself as the City’s
Liaison to the CPUC and announced a public meeting to be held on August 23, 2016 in the Council
Chamber, introducing a new area code.
Eric Daniels, Pacific Gas & Electric, spoke about the proposal of PG & E relicensing operations
of the Diablo Power Plant through 2025.
Tom Jones, Pacific Gas & Electric, spoke about the proposal regarding the approval of the renewal
and announced that there are two regulatory approvals with the State Lands Commission and
Public Utilities Commission.
The following San Luis Obispo residents expressed concerns related to the proposed 71 Palomar
project: Robert Monge, Al Lipper, Aurora Lipper, Barbara Remillard, Edward Benson, and Mila
Vujovich-La Barre.
Lydia Mourenza, San Luis Obispo, spoke about her letter submitted as public comment and urged
that City staff audio record the advisory meetings.
Peter Crough, San Luis Obispo, submitted a speaker card and wished not to speak.
Bob Shanbrom, San Luis Obispo, spoke about a surge in crimes in the neighborhood and urged
the City Council to devote additional resources to the Police Department.
Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns with elections related to electronic vote
counting machines.
Steve Barasch, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns related to the water resources in the City and
urged the City Council to consider water rationing thresholds, considering an increasing
population.
Camille Small, San Luis Obispo, urged the City Council to add neighborhood wellness as a new
goal for goal setting in the City.
Cheryl McLean, San Luis Obispo, expressed support to Ms. Mourenza’s request of recording all
advisory bodies.
By consensus, the City Council directed staff to agendize consideration of an MOU with the City
and History Center, regarding the use of a City property to a date uncertain.
3.a
Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: a - Minutes of May 17, June 14,21,23, 2016 (1437 : Minutes of May 17, June 14, 21, & 23, 2016)
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of June 21, 2016 – DRAFT Page 6
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Comments:
Gordon Hensley, San Luis Obispo, expressed support to Item 8.
John Holloman, San Luis Obispo, read a letter describing an unjust imposition related to code
violations (Item 9) and request for permits at his property.
Steve Barasch, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns related to Items 7, 9, 11, 12, and 15 and urged
the City Council to deliberate these items.
Leslie Halls, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns related to fines of delinquent code enforcement
(Item 9) and additional insurance for liability related to Item 12.
Mark Morrison, San Luis Obispo, voiced concerns related to the code enforcement process (Item
9), describing the delay in process of notification of fines to tenants.
Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns related to use, availability, and access of
recycled water hydrants (Item 10).
June McIvor, San Luis Obispo, expressed support to Item 15 and urged the City Council to
consider an increase of 25,000.
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER ASHBAUGH, CARRIED 5-0 to approve Consent Agenda Items 6 thru 16, with the
removal of Item 7 and 15 for separate consideration, and with Vice Mayor Carpenter registering a
no vote on Items 9 and 11.
6. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
CARRIED 5-0 to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.
7. SLO AIRPORT COLLABORATIVE PLANNING GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND
ISSUES DOCUMENT AND TECHNICAL ADVISORY COLLABORATIVE (TAC)
OPERATING FRAMEWORK
CARRIED 5-0 to:
1. Adopt a Resolution 10729 (2016 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the
City of San Luis Obispo, California, adopting the SLO Airport Collaborative Planning
Goals, Objectives and Issues Document and Technical Advisory Collaborative (TAC)
Operating Frame Work”; and
2. Authorize the Mayor to enter into and sign a Memorandum of Understanding on
collaborative land use planning in the vicinity of the San Luis Obispo County Regional
Airport.
3.a
Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: a - Minutes of May 17, June 14,21,23, 2016 (1437 : Minutes of May 17, June 14, 21, & 23, 2016)
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of June 21, 2016 – DRAFT Page 7
8. PROPOSITION 1 STORMWATER GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION AND
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR STORMWATER RESOURCES PLAN
CARRIED 5-0 to:
1. Authorize a grant application to the State Water Resources Control Board’s Proposition
1 Stormwater Grant Program; and
2. Authorize the City Manager or her designee to execute any other required grant
application-related documentation; and
3. Authorize the issuance of a Request for Proposals, Specification No. 91489, for
Consultant Services for the preparation of a Stormwater Resource Plan; and
4. Authorize the City Manager to award the contract if bids are within the project budget
of $45,000.
9. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COLLECTION OF DELINQUENT CODE
ENFORCEMENT FINES
CARRIED 4-1 (VICE MAYOR CARPENTER VOTING NO) to adopt a Resolution 10730
(Series 2016) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo,
California, authorizing the San Luis Obispo County Auditor to assess amounts due on
delinquent administrative fines as special assessments against the properties pursuant to
California Government Code Section 53069.4(a).”
10. WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY AERATION BLOWER
REPLACEMENT PROJECT-SPECIFICATION NO. 91448
CARRIED 5-0 to:
1. Authorize staff to advertise a Request for Proposals (RFP) for aeration blower
replacement for the Water Resource Recovery Facility, Specification No. 91448; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to award the contract if the lowest proposal is within the
Engineer’s Estimate of $320,000.
11. COLLECTION OF DELINQUENT SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
ACCOUNTS
CARRIED 4-1 (VICE MAYOR CARPENTER VOTING NO) to:adopt Resolution 10731
(Series 2016) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo,
California, authorizing the San Luis Obispo County Assessor to assess amounts due on
delinquent solid waste collection and disposal accounts as liens against the properties
pursuant to California Government Code Section 25828, et seq.”
3.a
Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: a - Minutes of May 17, June 14,21,23, 2016 (1437 : Minutes of May 17, June 14, 21, & 23, 2016)
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of June 21, 2016 – DRAFT Page 8
12. AUTHORIZATION TO MOVE FROM THE CALIFORNIA JOINT POWERS
INSURANCE AUTHORITY (CJPIA) PRIMARY INSURANCE PROGRAM TO THE
EXCESS INSURANCE PROGRAM FOR LIABILITY COVERAGE
CARRIED 5-0 to:
1. Authorize the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Coverage (MOC) when final
with the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA) to participate in the Excess
Insurance Program for liability insurance coverage, subject to final approval as to form and
substance by the City Manager and City Attorney; and
2. Adopt a Resolution 10732 (2016) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, approving execution of agreement for participation in the
California Joint Powers Insurance Authority’s Excess Insurance Program”; and
3. Authorize the City Manager to execute agreement with Carl Warren for third party
administration services for the liability insurance program, subject to final approval as to
form and substance by the City Manager and City Attorney.
13. FISCAL YEAR 2016-19 ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL SERVICES CONTRACT
WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
CARRIED 5-0 to approve and authorize the Mayor to execute a three-year contract with the
County of San Luis Obispo for the continued provision of Animal Care and Control Services
from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2019 in the amount of $146,307 for the first year, with annual
adjustments thereafter.
14. CORRUGATED METAL PIPE (CMP) REPLACEMENTS 2015, SPECIFICATION
NO. 91268
CARRIED 5-0 to:
1. Approve plans and specifications for "CMP Replacements 2015, Specification No.
91268”; and
2. Authorize staff to advertise for bids and authorize the City Manager to award the contract
if the lowest responsible bid is within the Engineer’s Estimate of $244,100
15. CONTRIBUTION TO LEADERSHIP SAN LUIS OBISPO L 25 FUND
CARRIED 4-1 (MAYOR MARX VOTING NO) to authorize the City Manager to allocate
$25,000 to the Leadership San Luis Obispo (Leadership SLO) L 25 Fund, based on a
determination by the City Council that there are ongoing contributions and benefits to the
City and local community derived from leadership opportunities provided by the Leadership
SLO program.
3.a
Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: a - Minutes of May 17, June 14,21,23, 2016 (1437 : Minutes of May 17, June 14, 21, & 23, 2016)
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of June 21, 2016 – DRAFT Page 9
16. CITY COUNCIL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND TRANSFER
CARRIED 5-0 to authorize staff to transfer funds from Mayor Jan Marx’s professional
development account to Council Member John Ashbaugh’s professional development
account for expenses related to attendance at the 2016 International Town Gown Association
Annual Conference.
Mayor Marx called for a recess at 8:20 p.m. Mayor Marx called the meeting back to order at 8:30
p.m.
BUSINESS ITEMS
17. COUNTY WIDE TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PLAN
Public Works Director Grigsby introduced James Worthley of San Luis Obispo Council of
Governments who provided a brief presentation related to needs of transportation in the
City.
Leslie Halls, San Luis Obispo, submitted a speaker card and was not present during public
comment.
Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, expressed opposition to Item 17.
The following San Luis Obispo residents expressed support to Item 17: Charlene Rosales,
Chamber of Commerce and Mila Vujovich-La Barre.
Vice Mayor Carpenter voiced concerns with an additional sales tax to business owners and
low income earners in the community. Mr. Carpenter urged for an alternative approach,
such as a road surcharge on a registration for fuel efficient cars.
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER CHRISTIANSON 4-1 (VICE MAYOR CARPENTER VOTING NO) to adopt
a Resolution 10733 (Series 2016) of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo,
California, approving the 2016 San Luis Obispo County Self-Help Transportation
Investment Plan and recommendation to the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors
to place a 9-year Transportation Sales Tax Measure on the November 8, 2016 General
Election Ballot.”
18. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE 2015-2016
Economic Development Manager Lee Johnson provided a brief report on the Economic
Development Strategic Plan Update.
Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns with Item 18 and spoke off topic.
Charlene Rosales, Chamber of Commerce, expressed support to Item 18.
3.a
Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: a - Minutes of May 17, June 14,21,23, 2016 (1437 : Minutes of May 17, June 14, 21, & 23, 2016)
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of June 21, 2016 – DRAFT Page 10
By consensus, the City Council received and filed the Economic Development Strategic Plan
Update.
19. ACTIVITY REPORT FOR THE NATURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION
PROGRAM FOR 2016
Natural Resources Manager Hill and City Biologist Otte provided a brief report on the Natural
Resources Protection Program.
Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns regarding delays of dredging Laguna
Lake.
By consensus, the City Council received and filed the Natural Resources Protection Program
Annual Activity Report for 2016.
LIAISON REPORTS
Council Liaison written reports were received from Mayor Marx.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
The City Council directed staff to schedule a Special Meeting for Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 4:30
p.m. to consider a letter regarding approval of a lease extension from the State Lands Commission
and for PG&E to continue support of operations in Diablo Canyon Power Plant through 2025.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. to a Special Meeting to be held on Thursday, June 23,
2016 at 4:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber, respectively at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California for the purpose of conducting a Special Meeting to consider a letter regarding approval
of a lease extension from the State Lands Commission and for PG&E to continue support of
operations in Diablo Canyon Power Plant through 2025.
The next Regular City Council Meeting of July 5, 2016 was previously cancelled. Consequently,
the next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the
Council Chamber, respectively, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
__________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim City Clerk
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2016
3.a
Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: a - Minutes of May 17, June 14,21,23, 2016 (1437 : Minutes of May 17, June 14, 21, & 23, 2016)
Council Minutes - DRAFT
Thursday, June 23, 2016
Special Meeting of the City Council
CALL TO ORDER
A Special Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Thursday, June
23, 2016 at 4:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, by Mayor Marx.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members John Ashbaugh, Dan Rivoire, Vice Mayor Dan Carpenter, and
Mayor Jan Marx.
Council Members
Absent: Council Member Carlyn Christianson
City Staff
Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Derek Johnson,
Assistant City Manager; and John Paul Maier, Assistant City Clerk; were present
at Roll Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as
indicated in the minutes.
BUSINESS ITEMS
1. CONSIDERATION OF A CITY LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR PACIFIC GAS &
ELECTRIC’S REQUEST TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS
COMMISSION FOR AN EXTENSION OF A LEASE FOR AN OCEAN INTAKE
AND OUTFALL STRUCTURE AT THE DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT
Economic Development Manager Johnson provided a brief background regarding Pacific
Gas & Electric’s announcement.
The following San Luis Obispo residents expressed support to Item 1: Carl Dudley,
David Baldwin (Southern California Pipe Trades), David Weisman (Alliance for Nuclear
Responsibility), Emma Karim (Chamber of Commerce), and Joi Sullivan (Economic
Vitality Corporation).
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER ASHBAUGH, CARRIED 4-0 to direct staff to send a letter to the State Lands
Commission regarding Pacific Gas & Electric’s request for an extension of a lease for an
ocean intake and outfall structure at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) in light of
Pacific Gas & Electric’s recent announcement of its contingent agreement not to seek
3.a
Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: a - Minutes of May 17, June 14,21,23, 2016 (1437 : Minutes of May 17, June 14, 21, & 23, 2016)
San Luis Obispo City Council DRAFT Minutes of June 23, 2016 Page 2
renewal of its Nuclear Regulatory Commission licenses, with the following amendments:
1. Paragraph 1 - On June 21st, the same day as the Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E)
announcement, the City Council agreed to hold a special meeting on the June 23rd to
receive input from our community and to discuss what input we should provide to the
State Lands Commission.
2. Paragraph 2 - Given PG&E’s business decision to close the DCPP, the City supports
the joint proposal that the expiration of the State Lands Commission Leases should
coincide with the expiration of the current Nuclear Regulatory Commission licenses,
as long as the plant can be operated safely until that point in time.
3. Paragraph 2 - The City would like to ensure that opportunities are provided to all
impacted communities to propose possible additional mitigations or alternative
solutions regarding the closure and decommissioning process.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 4:47 p.m. The Regular City Council Meeting of July 5, 2016 was
previously cancelled. Consequently, the next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for
Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, respectively, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California.
__________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim City Clerk
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2016
3.a
Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: a - Minutes of May 17, June 14,21,23, 2016 (1437 : Minutes of May 17, June 14, 21, & 23, 2016)
Page intentionally left
blank.
Meeting Date: 8/16/2016
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF A MILLS ACT HISTORIC PRESERVATION AGREEMENT
FOR THE MASTER LIST HISTORIC KIMBALL HOUSE
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee, adopt a resolution (Attachment A)
approving a Mills Act Historic Preservation Contract between the City and the owner of the
Kimball House at 690 Islay Street, under the terms described in the contract.
SITE DATA
Applicant and
Property Owner
John Poremba
General Plan Medium Density Residential
Zoning Medium Density Residential,
Historical Preservation (R-2-H)
Site Area 8,700 sq. ft.
Historic Status Master List Resource:
Kimball House,
Old Town Historic District
Environmental
Status
Categorically Exempt
(CEQA Guidelines §15331)
DISCUSSION
The owner of the Kimball House at 690 Islay has submitted an application to enter into a Mills
Act historic preservation agreement with the City for the improvement and preservation of the
historic Kimball House in exchange for property tax relief.
The Mills Act Program
The Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Program enables California cities to enter into contracts
with owners of historical property to provide them with tax relief in exchange for an agreement
to actively participate in the restoration and maintenance of historical resources. A Mills Act
4
Packet Pg. 39
contract is effective for an initial 10-year period, and then is automatically extended annually for
an additional year. After the initial term, either the City or the owner may, by written notice,
decide not to renew the contract. During the effective term of the contract, the property owner
must improve or rehabilitate the property, maintain the property consistent with the Secretary of
the Interior’s Standards, and provide visibility of the historical resource from the public right-of-
way.
The Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) of the General Plan describes the City’s
goals and policies for the protection of cultural resources. It is the City’s policy that significant
historic resources be rehabilitated and preserved (COSE §3.3). Participation in the Mills Act
Program is one of the means by which the City encourages the maintenance and restoration of
historic properties (COSE §3.6.2). A property must be on the City’s Master List of Historic
Resources in order to be enrolled in the program. Currently there are 52 properties participating
in the program, with the last request approved by the Council in January, 2016.
The Kimball House
The Kimball House is a two-story, single-family residence, built in 1902 by Willard S. Kimball
and his wife, Carrie. Mr. Kimball was an attorney, and was instrumental in securing a horse-
drawn streetcar route in the City. The building is historically significant for its architectural style,
described as Colonial Revival with Neo-Classical pediments and detailing, and for its association
with the economic and industrial history of the City’s early development.1 The architect,
however, is unknown. The exterior is covered with clapboard siding, with wood shingles and
fish-scaling on gable roof ends. The site includes granite curbing, a low wall of Bishop’s Peak
granite along the street frontages, and a granite hitching post in the right-of-way. The property
appears to be in excellent condition.
Proposed Improvements
Several improvements have been identified by the applicant for inclusion in the proposed historic
preservation agreement for this property. Recommended improvements to be included in the
agreement for this property are included in Exhibit A of the draft Mills Act Contract
(Attachment B) and summarized below:
Replace front entry stairs to reflect the style of the home
Modify the modern driveway to a more traditional look and style
Modify the modern entry sidewalk to appear more consistent with the historical character
of the property
Replace siding on the rear addition with more siding more appropriate to the building’s
historic character, including the possible addition of a window
Remove an undated rear deck and kitchen entry addition to restore an appearance similar
to original design
Restore the enclosed porch modification to an original appearance
Remove overgrown landscaping to improve the view of house from street; enhance and
maintain landscaping and courtyard area
Ongoing preservation and maintenance of existing historic wood structure and siding
1 Historic Resources Inventory form; Community Development Department historic property record (“yellow file”)
for 690 Islay
4
Packet Pg. 40
Ongoing preservation and maintenance of existing historic windows, including stained
glass windows
Periodic painting to preservation and maintain historic character
Repair or replace building mechanical ventilation systems
Repair and maintenance of flat roof section to prevent water damage
Interior painting
Under the terms of the agreement, all work must be completed within the initial 10 year contract
term, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Improvements made to the
property must be consistent with applicable historical preservation standards and guidelines. It
should be noted that the City reviews properties that are subject to Mills Act Contracts every five
years to confirm that improvements made to the property are consistent with the terms of the
contract and with the City’s historic preservation program standards and policies.
Cultural Heritage Committee Recommendation
The Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed the application and the terms of the draft contract at
a public hearing on June 27th, 2016. The Committee, by unanimous vote, recommended that the
Council approve the contract. The staff report and the Committee’s adopted resolution are
attached to this report (Attachment D).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Entering into a “Mills Act Contract” with the owners of historic property is not subject to the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a project as
defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15378 (Definitions). Implementation of the Mills Act is a
government fiscal activity which does not involve commitment to any specific project resulting
in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment.
FISCAL IMPACT
Estimated Tax Relief
Under a Mills Act Contract, the value of property is assessed using a “capitalization of income”
method described in the California Revenue and Taxation Code. The “Restricted Value” may be
significantly lower than the current assessed value of the property, resulting in tax savings to the
property owner. This tax savings represents the financial incentive to invest in rehabilitation,
restoration, and maintenance of the historic resource. By this method of valuation, it is estimated
that the property owner may realize a total tax savings of about $95,850 over the initial 10-year
period of the contract (see Attachment E). About 3.36% of property taxes are allocated to the
City for the 2015/2016 fiscal year,2 and so the tax savings may have an impact to the City of
about $3,200 over the initial 10-year period of the contract. This is an approximate calculation;
actual costs and values are calculated by the County Assessor after the contract is agreed upon.
2 Property Tax Perspective, Fiscal Year July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2015 ; County of San Luis Obispo [ONLINE at
http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/AC/Digital/Property+Tax/Perspective/2015-16+Property+Tax+Perspective.pdf,
accessed July 20, 2016]
4
Packet Pg. 41
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue review of this request to a future date for additional analysis or research; or
2. Do not enter into a Mills Act Historic Preservation Contract with the property owner. This
alternative is not recommended. The contract provides a tax relief incentive that is a tool for
achieving the City’s goals for historical preservation.
Attachments:
a - Draft Resolution
b - Draft Historic Property Preservation Agreement
c - Vicinity Map
d - CHC Agenda Report and Resolution (June 27, 2016)
e - Historical Property Valuation Example
4
Packet Pg. 42
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX (2016 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A HISTORIC PROPERTY
PRESERVATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE
OWNER OF THE KIMBALL HOUSE AT 690 ISLAY STREET
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo is authorized by California
Government Code § 50280 et seq. (known as “the Mills Act”) to enter into contracts with the
owners of qualified historical properties to provide for appropriate use, maintenance, and
rehabilitation such that these historic properties retain their historic characteristics; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Resolution No. 9136 (2000 Series),
establishing the Mills Act Historic Property Tax Incentive Program as an on-going historic
preservation program to promote the preservation, maintenance and rehabilitation of historic
resources through financial incentives; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has designated this
property as a historic resource of the City of San Luis Obispo pursuant to the policies in the
City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the owner possesses fee title in and to that certain qualified real property,
together with associated structures and improvement thereon, located on Assessor’s Parcel
Number 003-532-017, located at 690 Islay Street, San Luis Obispo, California, also described as
the Kimball House (hereinafter referred to as the “historic property”); and
WHEREAS, the City and owner, for their mutual benefit, now desire to enter into this
agreement to limit the use of the property to prevent inappropriate alterations and to ensure that
character-defining features are preserved and maintained in an exemplary manner, and repairs
and improvements are completed as necessary to carry out the purposes of California
Government Code, Chapter 1, Part 5 of Division 1 of Title 5, Article 12, Sec. 50280 et seq., and
to qualify for an assessment of valuation pursuant to Article 1.9, Sec. 439 et seq. of the Revenue
and Taxation Code; and.
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted
a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on June 27, 2016, for the purpose of reviewing the proposed historic property
preservation agreement, and recommended that the Council enter into the agreement; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a hearing on August 16, 2016, in the Council
Chamber at 990 Palm Street of the City of San Luis Obispo as part of its regularly scheduled
meeting for the purpose of considering approval of the historic preservation agreement, and has
duly considered all evidence, including the record of the Cultural Heritage Committee hearing
4.a
Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: a - Draft Resolution (1424 : Historic Property Preservation Agreement: 690 Islay)
Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 2
and recommendation, testimony of the applicant and interested parties, and the evaluation and
recommendation by staff, present at said hearing.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the
following findings:
1. Conservation and Open Space Element program 3.6.2 states that the City will participate
in financial assistance programs such as property tax reduction programs that encourage
maintenance and restoration of historic properties.
2. The Kimball House, located at 690 Islay Street, has been recognized as a historic asset in
the community by its designation as a Master List Historic Property. As such,
maintaining the structure will meet the City’s goals for historic preservation listed in
policies 3.3.1 through 3.3.5 of the Conservation and Open Space Element.
SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The City Council has determined that the
above actions do not constitute a project, as defined by § 15378 of the California Environmental
Quality Act and are exempt from environmental review.
SECTION 3. Historic Preservation Agreement Approved. The City Council hereby
approves the "Historic Preservation Agreement Between the City of San Luis Obispo and the
Owner of the Historic Property Located at 690 Islay Street", and entered into between the City
and owner, John Poremba.
SECTION 4. Community Development Director Authorized to Sign Agreement for
City. The City Council hereby authorizes the Community Development Director to execute said
agreement on behalf of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo.
SECTION 5. Recordation of the Agreement. No later than twenty (20) days after the
parties enter into said agreement, the City Clerk shall cause the agreement to be recorded in the
Office of the County Recorder of the County of San Luis Obispo.
Upon motion of Council Member ________, seconded by Council Member ________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 16th day of August, 2016.
4.a
Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: a - Draft Resolution (1424 : Historic Property Preservation Agreement: 690 Islay)
Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 3
___________________________________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
__________________________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
______________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim City Clerk
4.a
Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: a - Draft Resolution (1424 : Historic Property Preservation Agreement: 690 Islay)
HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE OWNER OF THE HISTORIC BUILDING
LOCATED AT 690 ISLAY STREET, IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this ________ day of ________ , 2016, by and
between the City of San Luis Obispo, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the
“City”), and John Poremba (hereinafter referred to as “Owner”), and collectively referred to as
the “parties.”
Section 1. Description of Preservation Measures. The Owner, his heirs, or assigns hereby
agree to undertake and complete, at his expense, the preservation, maintenance, and
improvements measures described in “Exhibit A” attached hereto.
Section 2. Effective Date and Term of Agreement. This agreement shall be effective and
commence upon recordation and shall remain in effect for an initial term of ten (10) years
thereafter. Each year upon the anniversary of the agreement’s effective date, such initial term
will automatically be extended as provided in California Government Code Section 50280
through 50290 and in Section 3, below.
Section 3. Agreement Renewal and Non-renewal.
a. Each year on the anniversary of the effective date of this agreement (hereinafter
referred to as “annual renewal date”), a year shall automatically be added to the
initial term of this agreement unless written notice of non-renewal is served as
provided herein.
b. If the Owner or the City desire in any year not to renew the agreement, the Owner
or the City shall serve written notice of non-renewal of the agreement on the other
party. Unless such notice is served by the Owner to the City at least ninety (90)
days prior to the annual renewal date, or served by the City to the Owner at least
sixty (60) days prior to the annual renewal date, one (1) year shall automatically
be added to the term of the agreement as provided herein.
c. The Owner may make a written protest of the notice. The City may, at any time
prior to the annual renewal date, withdraw its notice to the Owner of non-renewal.
d. If either the City or the Owner serves notice to the other party of non-renewal in
any year, the agreement shall remain in effect for the balance of the term then
remaining.
4.b
Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: b - Draft Historic Property Preservation Agreement (1424 : Historic Property Preservation Agreement: 690 Islay)
Historic Property Preservation Agreement
690 Islay Street
Page 2
Section 4. Standards and Conditions. During the term of this agreement, the historic property
shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. Owner agrees to preserve, maintain, and, where necessary, restore or rehabilitate
the building and its character-defining features, including: the building’s general
architectural form, style, materials, design, scale, proportions, organization of
windows, doors, and other openings; interior architectural elements that are
integral to the building’s historic character or significance; exterior materials,
coatings, textures, details, mass, roof line, porch, and other aspects of the
appearance of the building’s exterior, as described in Exhibit A, to the satisfaction
of the Community Development Director or his designee.
b. The building’s interior closely relates to the property’s eligibility as a qualified
historic property. The Owner agrees to allow pre-arranged tours on a limited
basis, to the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee.
c. All building changes shall comply with applicable City specific plans, City
regulations and guidelines, and conform to the rules and regulations of the Office
of Historic Preservation of the California Department of Parks and Recreation,
namely the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and
Standards and Guidelines for Historic Preservation Projects. Interior remodeling
shall retain original, character-defining architectural features such as oak and
mahogany details, pillars and arches, special tile work, or architectural
ornamentation to the greatest extent possible.
d. The Community Development Director shall be notified by the Owner of changes
to character-defining exterior features prior to their execution, such as major
landscaping projects and tree removals, exterior door or window replacement,
repainting, remodeling, or other exterior alterations requiring a building permit.
The Owner agrees to secure all necessary City approvals and/or permits prior to
changing the building’s use or commencing construction work.
e. Owner agrees that property tax savings resulting from this agreement shall be
used for property maintenance and improvements as described in Exhibit A.
f. The following are prohibited: demolition or partial demolition of the historic
building; exterior alterations or additions not in keeping with the standards listed
above; dilapidated, deteriorating, or unrepaired structures such as fences, roofs,
doors, walls, windows; outdoor storage of junk, trash, debris, appliances, or
furniture visible from a public way; or any device, decoration, structure, or
vegetation which is unsightly due to lack of maintenance or because such feature
adversely affects, or is visually incompatible with, the property’s recognized
historic character, significance, and design as determined by the Community
Development Director.
4.b
Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: b - Draft Historic Property Preservation Agreement (1424 : Historic Property Preservation Agreement: 690 Islay)
Historic Property Preservation Agreement
690 Islay Street
Page 3
g. Owner shall allow reasonable periodic examination, by prior appointment, of the
interior and exterior of the historic property by representatives of the County
Assessor, the State Department of Parks and Recreation, the State Board of
Equalization, and the City as may be necessary to determine the owner’s
compliance with the terms and provisions of this agreement.
Section 5. Furnishing of Information. The Owner hereby agrees to furnish any and all
information requested by the City which may be necessary or advisable to determine compliance
with the terms and provisions of this agreement.
Section 6. Cancellation.
a. The City, following a duly-noticed public hearing by the City Council as set forth
in Government Code Section 50285, may cancel this agreement if it determines
that the Owner has breached any of the conditions of this agreement or has
allowed the property to deteriorate to the point that it no longer meets the
standards for a qualified historic property; or if the City determines that the
Owner has failed to preserve, maintain, or rehabilitate the property in the manner
specified in Section 4 of this agreement. If a contract is cancelled because of
failure of the Owner to preserve, maintain, and rehabilitate the historic property as
specified above, the Owner shall pay a cancellation fee to the State Controller as
set forth in Government Code Section 50286, which states that the fee shall be 12
½% of the full market value of the property at the time of cancellation without
regard to any restriction imposed with this agreement.
b. If the historic building is acquired by eminent domain and the City Council
determines that the acquisition frustrates the purpose of the agreement, the
agreement shall be cancelled and no fee imposed, as specified in Government
Code Section 50288.
Section 7. Enforcement of Agreement.
a. In lieu of and/or in addition to any provisions to cancel the agreement as
referenced herein, the City may specifically enforce, or enjoin the breach of, the
terms of the agreement. In the event of a default, under the provisions to cancel
the agreement by the Owner, the City shall give written notice of violation to the
Owner by registered or certified mail addressed to the address stated in this
agreement. If such a violation is not corrected to the reasonable satisfaction of the
Community Development Director or designee within thirty (30) days thereafter;
or if not corrected within such a reasonable time as may be required to cure the
breach or default of said breach; or if the default cannot be cured within thirty
(30) days (provided that acts to cure the breach or default may be commenced
within thirty (30) days and shall thereafter be diligently pursued to completion by
the Owner); then the City may, without further notice, declare a default under the
terms of this agreement and may bring any action necessary to specifically
enforce the obligations of the Owner growing out of the terms of this agreement,
4.b
Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: b - Draft Historic Property Preservation Agreement (1424 : Historic Property Preservation Agreement: 690 Islay)
Historic Property Preservation Agreement
690 Islay Street
Page 4
apply to any court, state or federal, for injunctive relief against any violation by
the Owner or apply for such relief as may be appropriate.
b. The City does not waive any claim of default by the Owner if the City does not
enforce or cancel this agreement. All other remedies at law or in equity which are
not otherwise provided for in this agreement or in the City’s regulations
governing historic properties are available to the City to pursue in the event that
there is a breach or default under this agreement. No waiver by the City of any
breach or default under this agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver of any
other subsequent breach thereof or default herein under.
c. By mutual agreement, City and Owner may enter into mediation or binding
arbitration to resolve disputes or grievances growing out of this contract.
Section 8. Binding Effect of Agreement. The Owner hereby subjects the historic building
located at 690 Islay Street, San Luis Obispo, California, Assessor’s Parcel Number 003-532-017,
to the covenants, reservations, and restrictions as set forth in this agreement. The City and
Owner hereby declare their specific intent that the covenants, reservations, and restrictions as set
forth herein shall be deemed covenants running with the land and shall pass to and be binding
upon the Owner’s successors and assigns in title or interest to the historic property. Every
contract, deed, or other instrument hereinafter executed, covering or conveying the historic
property or any portion thereof, shall conclusively be held to have been executed, delivered, and
accepted subject to the covenants, reservations, and restrictions expressed in this agreement
regardless of whether such covenants, restrictions, and reservations are set forth in such contract,
deed, or other instrument.
Section 9. Notice. Any notice required by the terms of this agreement shall be sent to the
address of the respective parties as specified below or at other addresses that may be later
specified by the parties hereto.
To City: Community Development Director
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
To Owner: John Poremba
690 Islay Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Section 10. General Provisions.
a. None of the terms, provisions, or conditions of this agreement shall be deemed to
create a partnership between the parties hereto and any of their heirs, successors,
or assigns, nor shall such terms, provisions, or conditions cause them to be
considered joint ventures or members of any joint enterprise.
4.b
Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: b - Draft Historic Property Preservation Agreement (1424 : Historic Property Preservation Agreement: 690 Islay)
Historic Property Preservation Agreement
690 Islay Street
Page 5
b. The Owner agrees to hold the City and its elected and appointed officials,
officers, agents, and employees harmless from liability for damage or from claims
for damage for personal injuries, including death, and claims for property damage
which may arise from the direct or indirect use or activities of the Owner, or from
those of his contractor, subcontractor, agent, employee, or other person acting on
the Owner’s behalf which relates to the use, operation, maintenance, or
improvement of the historic property. The Owner hereby agrees to and shall
defend the City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents, and
employees with respect to any and all claims or actions for damages caused by, or
alleged to have been caused by, reason of the Owner’s activities in connection
with the historic property, excepting however any such claims or actions which
are the result of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of City, its officers,
agents, or employees.
c. This hold harmless provision applies to all damages and claims for damages
suffered, or alleged to have been suffered, and costs of defense incurred, by
reason of the operations referred to in this agreement regardless of whether or not
the City prepared, supplied, or approved the plans, specifications, or other
documents for the historic property.
d. All of the agreements, rights, covenants, reservations, and restrictions contained
in this agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties
herein, their heirs, successors, legal representatives, assigns, and all persons
acquiring any part or portion of the historic property, whether by operation of law
or in any manner whatsoever.
e. In the event legal proceedings are brought by any party or parties to enforce or
restrain a violation of any of the covenants, reservations, or restrictions contained
herein, or to determine the rights and duties of any party hereunder, the prevailing
party in such proceeding may recover all reasonable attorney’s fees to be fixed by
the court, in addition to court costs and other relief ordered by the court.
f. In the event that any of the provisions of this agreement are held to be
unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, or by subsequent
preemptive legislation, the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions,
or portions thereof, shall not be affected thereby.
g. This agreement shall be construed and governed in accordance with the laws of
the State of California.
Section 11. Amendments. This agreement may be amended, in whole or in part, only by a
written recorded instrument executed by the parties hereto.
4.b
Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: b - Draft Historic Property Preservation Agreement (1424 : Historic Property Preservation Agreement: 690 Islay)
Historic Property Preservation Agreement
690 Islay Street
Page 6
Section 12. Recordation and Fees. No later than twenty (20) days after the parties enter into
this agreement, the City shall cause this agreement to be recorded in the office of the County
Recorder of the County of San Luis Obispo. Participation in the program shall be at no cost to
the Owner; however the City may charge reasonable and necessary fees to recover direct costs of
executing, recording, and administering the historical property contracts.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Owner have executed this agreement on the day
and year written above.
OWNER
____________________________________ ______________________________
John Poremba Date
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
____________________________________ ______________________________
Mayor Jan Marx Date
ATTEST:
______________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
ALL SIGNATURES MUST BE NOTARIZED
4.b
Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: b - Draft Historic Property Preservation Agreement (1424 : Historic Property Preservation Agreement: 690 Islay)
Historic Property Preservation Agreement
690 Islay Street
Page 7
EXHIBIT A
MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT MEASURES
FOR THE KIMBALL HOUSE LOCATED AT 690 ISLAY STREET,
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
Owner shall preserve, maintain, and repair the historic building, including its character-defining
architectural features in good condition, to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director or designee, pursuant to a Mills Act Preservation Contract with the City of San Luis
Obispo for property located at 690 Islay Street. Character-defining features shall include, but are
not limited to: roof, eaves, dormers, trim, porches, walls and siding, architectural detailing, doors
and windows, window screens and shutters, balustrades and railings, foundations, and surface
treatments.
Owner agrees to make the following improvements and/or repairs during the term of this contract
but in no case later than ten (10) years from the contract date. All changes or repairs shall be
consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties:
Replace front entry stairs to reflect the style of the home
Modify the modern driveway to a more traditional look and style
Modify the modern entry sidewalk to appear more consistent with the historical character
of the property
Replace siding on the rear addition with more siding more appropriate to the building’s
historic character, including the possible addition of a window
Remove an undated rear deck and kitchen entry addition to restore an appearance similar
to original design
Restore the enclosed porch modification to an original appearance
Remove overgrown landscaping to improve the view of house from street; enhance and
maintain landscaping and courtyard area
Ongoing preservation and maintenance of existing historic wood structure and siding
Ongoing preservation and maintenance of existing historic windows, including stained
glass windows
Periodic painting to preservation and maintain historic character
Repair or replace building mechanical ventilation systems
Repair and maintenance of flat roof section to prevent water damage
Interior painting
4.b
Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: b - Draft Historic Property Preservation Agreement (1424 : Historic Property Preservation Agreement: 690 Islay)
Historic Property Preservation Agreement
690 Islay Street
Page 8
State of California }
County of San Luis Obispo }
On __________________ , before me _______________________________________________ ,
Date Name and Title of the Officer
personally appeared, _____________________________________________________________ ,
Name of Signer(s)
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in
his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the
person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature __________________________________
Signature of Notary Public Place Notary Seal Above
State of California }
County of San Luis Obispo }
On________________, before me,__________________________________________,
Date Name and Title of the Officer
personally appeared, _____________________________________________________,
Name of Signer(s)
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in
his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the
person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature __________________________________
Signature of Notary Public Place Notary Seal Above
A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the
document to which this certificate is attached and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the
document to which this certificate is attached and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
4.b
Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: b - Draft Historic Property Preservation Agreement (1424 : Historic Property Preservation Agreement: 690 Islay)
R-2-H
R-2-H
R-2-H
R-2-H
R-2
R-2-H
R-2-H
ISLAYB
R
O
A
D
VICINITY MAP HIST-3168-2016690 Islay St ¯
4.c
Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: c - Vicinity Map (1424 : Historic Property Preservation Agreement: 690 Islay)
Meeting Date: June 27, 2016
Item Number: 3
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of a Mills Act Historic Preservation Agreement for the Master List
historic Kimball House.
ADDRESS: 690 Islay BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
Phone: 781-7593
FILE #: HIST-3168-2016 E-mail: woetzell@slocity.org
FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
1.0 RECOMMENDATION
Forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve the applicant’s request to be a part of
the Mills Act Historic Preservation program.
2.0 SITE DATA
Applicant and
Property Owner John Poremba
General Plan Medium Density Residential
Zoning Medium Density Residential,
Historical Preservation (R-2-H)
Site Area 8,700 sq. ft.
Historic Status Master List Resource:
Kimball House,
Old Town Historic District
Environmental
Status
Categorically Exempt
(CEQA Guidelines §15331)
3.0 BACKGROUND
The owner of the Kimball House at 690 Islay has submitted an application to enter into a Mills
Act historic preservation agreement with the City. The draft Mills Act contract is being referred
to the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) for a recommendation prior to Council action.1
1 As described in § 14.01.030 (B)(8) of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance
CHC3 - 1
4.d
Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: d - CHC Agenda Report and Resolution (June 27, 2016) (1424 : Historic Property Preservation Agreement: 690 Islay)
HIST-3168-2016 (690 Islay)
Page 2
4.0 DISCUSSION
4.1 Site and Setting
The property is an 8,700 square-foot parcel at the northwest corner of Islay and Broad Streets,
within the Old Town Historic District. The neighborhood is characterized by single-family
residences, many of which are also listed historic resources.
The Kimball House is a two-story, single-
family residence, built in 1902 by Willard
S. Kimball and his wife, Carrie. Mr.
Kimball was an attorney, and was
instrumental in securing a horse-drawn
streetcar route in the City. The architect of
the building is unknown. It is a large home,
described in City records2 as Colonial
Revival in style, with Neo-Classical
pediments and detailing. The exterior is
covered with clapboard siding, with wood
shingles and fish-scaling on gable roof
ends. The site includes granite curbing, a
low wall of Bishop’s Peak granite along the street frontages, and a granite hitching post in the
right-of-way (see Attachment 4). The property appears to be in excellent condition.
5.0 MILLS ACT AGREEMENTS
Historic preservation is an important goal, as stated in the Conservation and Open Space Element
(COSE) of the City’s General Plan, and the Mills Act Program is one of the programs the City
uses to achieve this goal.3 It is one of the most effective preservation tools available, providing a
financial incentive to encourage preservation of heritage properties. Participation in the program
is limited to properties on the Master List of Historic Resources. Currently, 52 historic properties
participate in this program, with the last request approved by the Council in January, 2016.
The program allows the City to enter into a historic preservation agreement (a “Mills Act
Contract”) with owners of historic properties, who agree to preserve, maintain and in some cases,
improve the properties in return for property tax savings. These savings are an incentive to
undertake improvements and maintenance of historic properties. Improvements made to the
property under the agreement must be consistent with applicable Secretary of Interior Standards
as well as historical preservation standards and guidelines.
Historic Property Preservation Agreements are prepared using standard language provided by the
State Historic Preservation Office, conforming to the Mills Act (Govt. Code §§ 50280 – 50290).
They only differ substantively in the description of the historic property and the maintenance and
improvement programs planned by the property owner (Exhibit A of the agreement). Standard
features of the contracts include:
2 Historic Resources Inventory form; Community Development Department historic property record (“yellow file”)
for 690 Islay
3 COSE § 3.2 and § 3.6.2
Figure 1: Kimball House
CHC3 - 2
4.d
Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: d - CHC Agenda Report and Resolution (June 27, 2016) (1424 : Historic Property Preservation Agreement: 690 Islay)
HIST-3168-2016 (690 Islay)
Page 3
Assessment of the value of the historic property’s by County Assessor using a
“Capitalization of Income” method, which can result in significant property tax savings.
If the contract is canceled, the assessment is gradually increased to market value basis
over the remaining ten year contract term.
A commitment by the property owner to preserve the building and to use the tax savings
to maintain and improve it and preserve and enhance its historical value, exterior
appearance, structural condition, and longevity. Each agreement includes an exhibit
listing the maintenance and improvement measures to which the tax savings will be
applied.
The agreement is recorded, and is binding on subsequent owners, heirs, or assigns until
the agreement is canceled. There is a significant financial penalty if the agreement is
cancelled due to breach of performance.
Agreements have a minimum 10-year term and the agreement “self-renews” annually for
additional 10-year terms, so 10 years always remains on the contract until the owner or
the City decides not to renew it. Once written notice of cancellation is given, the
agreement will remain in effect for the balance of the remaining ten year term. The
agreement may be amended by mutual consent of the City and property owner.
The structure may be altered under the contract; however alterations must comply with
all City requirements and with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment
of Historic Properties, with the guiding objective being the long-term preservation of the
building’s original historical character and significance.
6.0 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
Several improvements have been identified by the applicant for inclusion in the proposed historic
preservation agreement for this property (Attachment 3). Recommended improvements to be
included in the agreement for this property are included in Exhibit A of the draft Mills Act
Contract (Attachment 5) and summarized below:
Replace front entry stairs to reflect the style of the home
Modify the modern driveway to a more traditional look and style
Modify the modern entry sidewalk to appear more consistent with the historical character
of the property
Replace siding on the rear addition with more siding more appropriate to the building’s
historic character, including the possible addition of a window
Remove an undated rear deck and kitchen entry addition to restore an appearance similar
to original design
Restore the enclosed porch modification to an original appearance
Remove overgrown landscaping to improve the view of house from street; enhance and
maintain landscaping and courtyard area
Ongoing preservation and maintenance of existing historic wood structure and siding
CHC3 - 3
4.d
Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: d - CHC Agenda Report and Resolution (June 27, 2016) (1424 : Historic Property Preservation Agreement: 690 Islay)
HIST-3168-2016 (690 Islay)
Page 4
Ongoing preservation and maintenance of existing historic windows, including stained
glass windows
Periodic painting to preservation and maintain historic character
Repair or replace building mechanical ventilation systems
Repair and maintenance of flat roof section to prevent water damage
Interior painting
7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Entering into a “Mills Act Contract” with the owners of historic property is not subject to the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a project as
defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15378 (Definitions – Project). Implementation of the Mills Act is
a government fiscal activity which does not involve commitment to any specific project resulting
in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment (Guidelines § 15378 (b) (4)).
8.0 RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the draft resolution recommending that the City Council approve and enter into a Historic
Property Preservation Agreement (Mills Act Contract) for the Master List Kimball House at 690
Islay Street.
9.0 ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue consideration of the request with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent
issues.
2. Recommend to the City Council that the City not enter into the proposed Historic Property
Preservation Agreement, based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan, Historic
Preservation Ordinance, or Historic Preservation Program Guidelines.
10.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity Map
3. Request Letter
4. Historic Resources Inventory Form
5. Draft Historic Property Preservation Agreement (Mills Act Contract)
CHC3 - 4
4.d
Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: d - CHC Agenda Report and Resolution (June 27, 2016) (1424 : Historic Property Preservation Agreement: 690 Islay)
4.d
Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: d - CHC Agenda Report and Resolution (June 27, 2016) (1424 : Historic Property Preservation Agreement: 690 Islay)
4.d
Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: d - CHC Agenda Report and Resolution (June 27, 2016) (1424 : Historic Property Preservation Agreement: 690 Islay)
Historical Property Valuation Example 1
Kimball House (690 Islay)
Determination of Restricted Value
Gross income (a)
$ 42,000.00
Anticipated vacancy and collection loss 5% $ 2,100.00
Effective Gross Income
$ 39,900.00
Anticipated operating expenses (b) 25% $ 9,975.00
Net Operating Income (c)
$ 29,925.00
Restricted Capitalization Rate 10.254%
Interest rate 4.25%
Risk 4%
Property tax 1.004%
Amortization 1%
Restricted Value (d)
$ 291,837.33
Estimated Tax Comparison
Net Assessed Value (e)
$ 1,246,833.00
Tax on Assessed Value
$ 12,518.20
Tax on Restricted Value
$ 2,930.05
Estimated tax saving, annual
$ 9,588.16
Estimated tax savings, total
$ 95,881.57
Over 10-year initial term
Notes
(a) Annual Gross Income, estimated as $ 3,500 monthly fair rent
(b) Estimated as 25% of Effective Gross Income
(c) Effective Gross Income less operating expenses
(d) Net Operating Income divided by the Restricted Capitalization Rate
(e) Value may include improvements on the property which are not related to its historic value
(e.g., garage, additional units)
1 Patterned after the example in Guidelines for the Assessment of Enforceably Restricted Historical Property,
provided by the California State Board of Equalization, accessed online December 11, 2015 at
http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/lta05035.pdf.
4.e
Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: e - Historical Property Valuation Example (1424 : Historic Property Preservation Agreement: 690 Islay)
Page intentionally left
blank.
Meeting Date: 8/16/2016
FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director
Prepared By: Jennifer Metz, Utilities Project Manager
SUBJECT: MARGARITA LIFT STATION REPLACEMENT, SPECIFICATION NO.
91214
RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve plans and specifications for the Margarita Lift Station Replacement, Specification
No. 91214 and authorize staff to advertise for bids; and
2. Approve a Budget Amendment Request to transfer $152,000 from Sewer Fund Working
Capital to the construction phase of the project; and
3. Authorize the City Manager to award the contract if the lowest responsible bid is within the
Engineer's estimate of $762,000.
DISCUSSION
Background
The Margarita Lift Station, and its associated 230 feet of six-inch cast iron force main, serves
properties east of South Higuera Street adjacent to Margarita Avenue and was put into service in
1971. At 45 years old, it is operating beyond its life expectancy. Due to the age and condition of
the lift station, budget for the design of a replacement station was identified in the Capital
Program in the 2013-15 Financial Plan. The City Council authorized a request for proposals and
the City Manager awarded a contract for design services to replace the lift station in November
2013 and March 2014, respectively. Construction funding for the project was identified in the
2015-17 Financial Plan, Capital Improvement Plan.
The existing Margarita Lift Station is located along the Margarita Avenue street frontage
adjacent to the Margarita Apartments which are owned and managed by the San Luis Obispo
Housing Authority (HASLO). The new Margarita Lift Station will be located on an easement
obtained by the City from HASLO. The City and HASLO collaborated on the project’s fencing,
lighting, sound attenuation, service access, and the connection of recycled water for irrigation on
the property. The old station will be abandoned and the property upon which it was located will
become part of the Margarita Apartments landscaping.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction of existing structures and
facilities).
5
Packet Pg. 62
CONCURRENCES
The Public Works Department has reviewed the plans and special provisions and provided
comments that have been incorporated; Community Development concurs with the
environmental review findings.
FISCAL IMPACT
$950,000 was budgeted for design, easement acquisition, construction, and construction
management services from the Sewer Fund for this project in the 2015-17 Financial Plan (page
3-67 of the Capital Improvement Plan). Additional funding in the amount of $152,000 is required
to support updated cost estimates for construction and construction management services due to
the project’s complexity including limited site area and duration of equipment procurement. The
Engineer’s estimate for project construction is $762,000.
Original Project Budget $950,000
Increased Construction Estimate (including contingencies) $127,500
Increased Construction Management Estimate $24,500
Proposed Project Budget $1,102,000
Additional funding for the proposed project budget is recommended to come from Sewer Fund
Working Capital. The Sewer Fund Working Capital balance as of July 15, 2016 is $12,030,620.
ALTERNATIVES
Deny or defer approval to advertise. The City Council may choose to deny or defer the approval
to advertise this project. If Council elects to defer the project, Utilities would continue to work to
maintain the station in operable condition. Efforts already made to prolong the life of the station
include repairs to the floor of the sump pump due to leaks in 1995; cathodic protection to extend
the life of the structure in 1996; additional leaks were repaired on the floor and walls in 2010. If
the station is run to failure requiring emergency replacement, emergency construction costs and
impacts to the adjacent housing and the environment would be significant.
Attachments:
a - Council Reading File - Margarita Lift Station Planset-Full Size 051016
b - Council Reading File - 100% Special Provisions and Tech Specs
5
Packet Pg. 63
Meeting Date: 8/16/2016
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Diane Dostalek, Senior Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF THE FINAL MAP FOR TRACT 2428-1, 3000 CALLE
MALVA (TR 121-13)
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution approving the Final Map for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva, and authorize the
Mayor to execute a Subdivision Agreement and a Private Drainage Easement Agreement.
DISCUSSION
Background
Tract 2428 (TR 121-13) is located at 3000 Calle Malva (Attachment A, Vicinity Map). A vesting
tentative map for Tract 2428 was originally approved by the City Council on July 3, 2007, by
Resolution No. 9917 (Series 2007) as TR 98-06. Revised conditions that superseded the previous
tentative map conditions were approved by Council on April 15, 2014, by Resolution No. 10514
(2014 Series) (Attachment B). The tentative map (excerpts included as Attachment C) contained
a total of 178 lots consisting of 165 single-family lots, five lots for up to 26 units of affordable
housing, two lots for six market-rate condominium units, five lots for riparian open space, and
one 71-acre hillside lot for permanent open space.
Subsequent to Council’s approval of the revised conditions, the applicant proposed to reduce the
original 178 lots down to 172 lots for constructability and marketability purposes. The new lot
configuration includes a total of 172 lots consisting of 161 single-family lots, five lots for up to
26 units of affordable housing, five lots for riparian open space, and one 71-acre hillside lot for
permanent open space. An exhibit showing the old lot configuration and numbering and the new
lot configuration and numbering is attached (Attachment D). This change to the tentative map is
minor and is consistent with the intent and spirit of the original tentative map. The tentative map
conditions of approval refer to the old lot numbering, so Attachment D is helpful in interpreting
the conditions based on the new lot numbering.
Tract 2428 will be recorded in three phases (Attachment E, Phasing Plan). Tract 2428-1 is the
first phase of Tract 2428 and will create 45 single-family lots (Lots 1-14, 72 to 80, and 86
to 107), two lots for riparian open space (Lots 81 and 84), one 71-acre hillside lot to be dedicated
to the City for permanent open space (Lot 172), and one Remainder lot for the future phases.
Environmental Issues
There is a protected species of plant located on Tract 2428 called adobe sanicle. Although some
6
Packet Pg. 64
of the plants are located in areas to be designated as open space, others are located on lots
intended to be developed. The subdivider is cooperating with the Department of Fish & Wildlife
by applying for an “incidental take permit”. As part of that process, the subdivider is funding
studies to analyze the feasibility of propagating the species and growing them elsewhere as well
as relocating the plants on site. Additional information regarding the ability to transplant and/or
relocate the plants is expected to be available no later than the time Phase 3 is proposed to be
developed. In the meantime, there is a small portion of adobe sanicle located within Phase 1 in
the vicinity of Lot 92 and San Vincenzo Drive. The subdivider’s engineer is preparing revised
plans for this area in order to temporarily or permanently avoid the adobe sanicle at this location
Affordable Housing
Condition #77 of the tentative map required subdivider to dedicate the affordable housing lots
prior to or concurrent with the second phase of the map. A Notice of Requirements reiterating
this requirement is being recorded concurrently with the Phase 1 map. The lots currently
proposed to be dedicated are Lots 165 to 169. The Notice of Requirements states that if any
portion of Lots 165 to 169 is impacted by adobe sanicle that cannot be relocated, then additional
lots or reconfigured lots will need to be dedicated to meet the affordable housing requirements
for Tract 2428.
Prado Road Bike Path
Condition #1 of the tentative map required subdivider to construct a Class 1 bike path connecting
the existing terminus of Prado Road to Broad Street at the Damon-Garcia Sports Field, subject to
available right-of-way. At this time, the subdivider and the City have been unsuccessful at
negotiating with the property owner to acquire the right-of-way for the bike path. Therefore, this
condition is being deferred to the next phase of the map and is included in the previously
mentioned Notice of Requirements.
South Hills Natural Reserve and Cell Tower Access
Condition #75 of the tentative map required subdivider to dedicate the 71-acre open space lot in
fee to the City prior to or concurrent with the first phase of the map. Lot 172 is being offered in
fee to the City on the Tract 2428-1 map. There are several entities, including the City, that have
easements on Lot 172 to access cell towers at the top of the hill. The easements needed to be
revised to accommodate the phased construction of Tract 2428 and the new streets. Revised
easement agreements between those entities and the current owner of Lot 172 (the subdivider)
have all been recorded, including one for the City. The City’s relocated easement includes the
addition of public bicycle and pedestrian access along this route. Once the City becomes the fee
owner of Lot 172, any leaseholder payments for the cell towers will be directed to the City
instead of the subdivider.
Approving the Final Map
The tentative map has an initial two-year life per Municipal Code Section 16.10.150. With the
automatic extensions granted by the State Legislature per Sections 66452.21, 66452.22,
66452.23, and 66452.24 of the Subdivision Map Act, and a City-granted extension of two years,
this vesting tentative map now has an expiration date of July 3, 2018. Modifying the tentative
map conditions did not extend the life of the map. All phases of the map must record prior to
expiration of the tentative map. Additional time extensions are allowed.
6
Packet Pg. 65
The final map for Tract 2428-1 is ready to be approved and recorded. Pursuant to Section
16.14.080 of the Municipal Code, the Public Works Director has determined that the final map is
in substantial compliance with the tentative map and approved modifications thereof.
Section 66474.1 of the Subdivision Map Act states that “a Legislative body shall not deny
approval of a final or parcel map if it has previously approved a tentative map for the proposed
subdivision and if it finds that the final or parcel map is in substantial compliance with the
previously approved tentative map.” The approval of a final map is considered a ministerial
action.
Appropriate securities will be submitted prior to map recordation to guarantee completion of the
required subdivision improvements as shown in the Subdivision Agreement (Attachment F). The
resolution approving the final map (Attachment G) also authorizes the Mayor to sign the
Subdivision Agreement requiring the Subdivider to complete the subdivision improvements.
Private Drainage Easement
There are some concrete drainage channels being constructed on Lot 172 to divert water flowing
down the slope away from the new residential lots and into the existing drainage channels. The
concrete channels are to be maintained by the Toscano Homeowner’s Association (HOA). An
easement agreement (Attachment I) has been prepared outlining terms of subdivider’s and
HOA’s responsibilities with regards to constructing and maintaining the channels on the City
property. Resolution No. 5370 (1984 Series) authorizes the Mayor to accept easements on behalf
of the City, but there is no similar resolution authorizing the Mayor to grant easements on public
property. Therefore, the resolution approving the Tract 2428-1 final map also authorizes the
Mayor to sign the Private Drainage Easement Agreement.
CONCURRENCES
The Public Works Department and the Natural Resources Manager concur with the
recommended action.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Approval of the final map is statutorily exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to Section 15268(b)(3) Ministerial Projects (approval of final subdivision
maps) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (State CEQA Guidelines). Therefore, no
further environmental review is required.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no significant financial impact to the City associated with approving the final map for
Tract 2428-1. However, the public improvements that will be constructed with this phase will result
in an increase in maintenance costs for the public streets, public utilities, open space, and other
infrastructure upon acceptance of the improvements by the City. These costs will be shown in future
Financial Plans as the facilities are accepted and begin to require standard maintenance.
6
Packet Pg. 66
ALTERNATIVES
Deny approval of the final map. Denying approval of the final map can apply if findings are
made that the requirements or conditions of the tentative map have not been met or performed
(Section 66473 of the Subdivision Map Act) or if findings are made that the final map is not in
substantial compliance with the previously approved tentative map (Section 66474.1 of the
Subdivision Map Act). Because the final map is in substantial compliance with the tentative map
and all of the conditions of the map will be met or securities deposited prior to map recordation,
Sections 66474.1 and 66473 of the Subdivision Map Act require that City Council approve the
map. Therefore, denying approval of the final map is not a recommended alternative unless the
required findings are made.
Attachments:
a - Vicinity Map
b - Resolution No. 10514 (2014 Series)
c - Tentative Map
d - Revised Lot Numbering
e - Phasing Plan
f - Subdivision Agreement
g - Draft Resolution Approving Final Map
h - Exhibit 1 to attachment g
i - Private Drainage Easement Agreement
6
Packet Pg. 67
6.a
Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: a - Vicinity Map (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.b
Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: b - Resolution No. 10514 (2014 Series) (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.b
Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: b - Resolution No. 10514 (2014 Series) (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.b
Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: b - Resolution No. 10514 (2014 Series) (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.b
Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: b - Resolution No. 10514 (2014 Series) (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.b
Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: b - Resolution No. 10514 (2014 Series) (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.b
Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: b - Resolution No. 10514 (2014 Series) (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.b
Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: b - Resolution No. 10514 (2014 Series) (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.b
Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: b - Resolution No. 10514 (2014 Series) (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.b
Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: b - Resolution No. 10514 (2014 Series) (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.b
Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: b - Resolution No. 10514 (2014 Series) (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.b
Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: b - Resolution No. 10514 (2014 Series) (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.b
Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: b - Resolution No. 10514 (2014 Series) (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.b
Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: b - Resolution No. 10514 (2014 Series) (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.b
Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: b - Resolution No. 10514 (2014 Series) (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.b
Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: b - Resolution No. 10514 (2014 Series) (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.b
Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: b - Resolution No. 10514 (2014 Series) (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.b
Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: b - Resolution No. 10514 (2014 Series) (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.b
Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: b - Resolution No. 10514 (2014 Series) (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.b
Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: b - Resolution No. 10514 (2014 Series) (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.b
Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: b - Resolution No. 10514 (2014 Series) (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.b
Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: b - Resolution No. 10514 (2014 Series) (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.b
Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: b - Resolution No. 10514 (2014 Series) (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.c
Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: c - Tentative Map (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.c
Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: c - Tentative Map (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.c
Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: c - Tentative Map (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.c
Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: c - Tentative Map (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.c
Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: c - Tentative Map (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.d
Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: d - Revised Lot Numbering (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.e
Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: e - Phasing Plan (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.f
Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: f - Subdivision Agreement (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.f
Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: f - Subdivision Agreement (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.f
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: f - Subdivision Agreement (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.f
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: f - Subdivision Agreement (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.f
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: f - Subdivision Agreement (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.f
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: f - Subdivision Agreement (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.f
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: f - Subdivision Agreement (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.f
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: f - Subdivision Agreement (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
R _____
RESOLUTION NO. (2016 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE FINAL MAP FOR
TRACT 2428-1 (3000 CALLE MALVA, TR 121-13)
WHEREAS, the City Council made certain findings concerning the vesting tentative map
for Tract 2428-1, as prescribed in Resolution No. 10514 (2014 Series); and
WHEREAS, the subdivider has completed all required subdivision improvements for
this phase or will submit appropriate securities to guarantee installation of the required
subdivision improvements as shown on the approved plans for this phase prior to map
recordation, and all fees for this phase have been received or will be received prior to map
recordation, as prescribed in the Subdivision Agreement; and
WHEREAS, all conditions required per said Resolution No. 10514 (2014 Series) applicable
to this phase of Tract 2428 have been met prior to final recordation of the map; and
WHEREAS, approval of a final map is statutorily exempt under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15268(b)(3) Ministerial Projects
(approval of final subdivision maps) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (State
CEQA Guidelines).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. The final map for Tract 2428-1 as shown on the attached Exhibit 1 is found
to be in substantial conformance with the tentative map.
SECTION 2. The Subdivision Agreement for Tract 2428-1 is hereby approved.
SECTION 3. The Private Drainage Easement Agreement for Tract 2428-1 is hereby
approved and the Mayor is authorized to execute the document.
SECTION 4. Approval of the final map for Tract 2428-1 is hereby granted.
SECTION 5. The Mayor and City staff are authorized to take action necessary to carry out
the intent of this resolution.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by ________________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
6.g
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: g - Draft Resolution Approving Final Map (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
Resolution No. (2016 Series) Page 2
The foregoing resolution was adopted this ______ day of _______________ 2016.
________________________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
______________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
______________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim City Clerk
6.g
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: g - Draft Resolution Approving Final Map (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
www.tetratech.com865 Aerovista Place, Suite 230San Luis Obispo, CA 93401(805) 542-90526.h
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: h - Exhibit 1 to attachment g (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
www.tetratech.com865 Aerovista Place, Suite 230San Luis Obispo, CA 93401(805) 542-9052N0SCALE:100' 200' 400'1" = 200'6.h
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: h - Exhibit 1 to attachment g (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
www.tetratech.com865 Aerovista Place, Suite 230San Luis Obispo, CA 93401(805) 542-9052N0SCALE:50' 100'200'1" = 100'6.h
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: h - Exhibit 1 to attachment g (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
SEE SHEET 5Nwww.tetratech.com865 Aerovista Place, Suite 230San Luis Obispo, CA 93401(805) 542-90520SCALE:20' 40'80'1" = 40' 6.h
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: h - Exhibit 1 to attachment g (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
SEE SHEET 4www.tetratech.com865 Aerovista Place, Suite 230San Luis Obispo, CA 93401(805) 542-9052N0SCALE:20' 40'80'1" = 40' 6.h
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: h - Exhibit 1 to attachment g (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
Nwww.tetratech.com865 Aerovista Place, Suite 230San Luis Obispo, CA 93401(805) 542-90520SCALE:10' 20'40'1" = 20' 6.h
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: h - Exhibit 1 to attachment g (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
www.tetratech.com865 Aerovista Place, Suite 230San Luis Obispo, CA 93401(805) 542-90526.h
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: h - Exhibit 1 to attachment g (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.i
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: i - Private Drainage Easement Agreement (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.i
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: i - Private Drainage Easement Agreement (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.i
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: i - Private Drainage Easement Agreement (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.i
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: i - Private Drainage Easement Agreement (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.i
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: i - Private Drainage Easement Agreement (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.i
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: i - Private Drainage Easement Agreement (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.i
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: i - Private Drainage Easement Agreement (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
6.i
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: i - Private Drainage Easement Agreement (1410 : Final Map Approval for Tract 2428-1, 3000 Calle Malva)
Page intentionally left
blank.
Meeting Date: 8/16/2016
FROM: Deanna Cantrell, Police Chief
SUBJECT: CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CITYGATE ASSOCIATES,
LLC FOR COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES DELIVERY AND STAFFING
REVIEW OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO POLICE DEPARTMENT
RECOMMENDATION
Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a Consultant Services Agreement with
Citygate Associates, LLC (“Citygate”), in a form approved by the City Attorney, for a
comprehensive services delivery and staffing review of the Police Department for $68,500.
DISCUSSION
Service Delivery and staffing review
The San Luis Obispo Police Department (SLOPD) is requesting a comprehensive study to assess
the efficiency and effectiveness of Police Department operations, to identify strengths and
improvement opportunities relating to service delivery, organizational effectiveness and staffing
as well as management. Department leadership has worked and will continue to work diligently
to devise more efficient and effective operational methods. This assessment cannot be
accomplished internally with existing staff resources and an outside consultant can provide an
external perspective which is helpful in identifying opportunities to improve service.
The study will help the department determine the appropriate level of staff to adequately and
effectively respond to emergencies, investigate crime, provide other critical services, and to
proactively reduce crime as critical services to residents and visitors to San Luis Obispo.
The recent and future growth in San Luis Obispo further impacts service levels and needs to be
evaluated. The Citygate proposal will provide the Department with a review of current and future
delivery of services and recommendations for opportunities to implement and meet best practices
and appropriate staffing levels. This work plan will include all facets of operations including 1)
Field Services, 2) Crime Prevention, 3) Training, Investigations and Support Services including
Fiscal, 4) Crime Prevention, 5) Training, 6) Policy and Procedures, 7) Public Relations, 8)
Internal Affairs, 9) Professional Standards, 10) Communications / 9-1-1, and 11) other specialty
services.
Justification for Sole Source Contract
It is recommended that Citygate complete the complex analysis of Police Department Services
due to their expertise in this specific area and lack of city resources to otherwise perform the
needed work. Additionally, Citygate has an extensive background working with numerous law
7
Packet Pg. 123
enforcement agencies throughout the country and has assembled a team that knows many details
about the City and can provide technical expertise in recommending best practices and future
staffing needs. It is recommended that the City negotiate directly with Citygate to perform the
analysis. Citygate recently completed a San Luis Obispo City Fire Department study, which
included a Standards of Response Coverage planning analysis to examine the levels of fire
department services by occupancy type and land use classifications. The study assessed fire
services to both California Polytechnic State University and the incorporated areas of San Luis
Obispo. The study included fire station and staffing infrastructure triggers for additional
resources, an analysis of headquarters and prevention systems, as well as order of magnitude
costs and possible financing strategies.
As part of the Fire Department study, Citygate recently completed a review of projected growth
in the City’s current General Plan, an assessment of fire service funding sources and an SOC
(Standard of Cover) update. Significant savings can be realized by sourcing this project to
Citygate due to its in-depth knowledge of the city, future city growth and annexations, CAD
structure from working with the Fire Department, and savings from other city departments for
data research. A portion of the staffing and workload study that will be completed for the Police
Department includes response times and future growth impacts both in the city and at Cal Poly.
Having thorough knowledge of the City will save both time and money while conducting the
recommended analysis. Direct contracting for consultant services is allowed with City Council
approval per the City’s Financial Management Manual1 under these circumstances.
Scope of Work
The scope of work for such analysis would include:
1. Assess current sworn and professional (non-sworn) staff levels. Evaluate the adequacy of
staffing levels for current workload and meeting the Police Department’s goals without
curtailing service or requiring excessive overtime work. Citygate will consider existing
schedules, time for training, professional development, legal mandates, time off, lost time
from illness, injuries, and attrition.
2. Provide a structured and defensible methodology for Police Department staff to use in
projecting future staffing needs.
3. Recommend staffing levels that will allow the Police Department to maintain or increase
its current high levels of service, including: responding to all crimes and requests for
service; maintaining robust crime prevention and community service programs; and
maintaining youth services, investigation and forensic crime scene evidence collection,
crime suppression, and other services currently offered by the Police Department.
4. Analyze the impact on staffing levels and calls for service resulting from current and
future City plans for economic development and future annexations.
5. Wherever possible, use existing data for the analysis, such as the City’s General Plan and
other published planning documents, crime statistics, payroll and overtime work records,
and computer-aided dispatch data. The San Luis Obispo Police Department staff will help
provide historical data from the agency’s computer systems and other City sources.
1 If it is determined that it is in the best interest of the City for services to be provided by a specific consultant-----with contract terms, workscope
and compensation to be determined based on direct negotiations-----contract award will be made by the Council. Page 295-3
7
Packet Pg. 124
6. Use a compilation of community oriented policing, predictive policing, and data driven
policing strategies. Assess efficiencies of calls for service. Assess community-policing
efforts as an on-going strategy; leverage the performance and evaluative processes in
place, verifying the current effectiveness and efficiencies of the agency. This includes
evaluating and contrasting data to overlay response time standards, officer safety, and call
prioritization.
7. Conduct interviews with stakeholders, including, City management and Police
Department staff, to assess goals, expectations, and perceived workload levels. Public
input is a critical component of this effort. Citygate will engage public input most notably
through two meetings: one public meeting with the City’s Planning Commission and one
public meeting with the City Council. These meetings will take place early in the process
to ensure the opportunity to incorporate feedback relevant to this effort.
The final work product will be a formal report and presentation to the City Council during a
regular meeting with key policy questions and options clearly identified.
FISCAL IMPACT
Carryover funds of $68,500 from FY 2014-15 development review revenue will be used to fund
this project because the need for the study is being driven by development activity. This funding
is currently in the Police Department FY 2014-15 budget and there will be no additional fiscal
impact.
ALTERNATIVE
1. Do not approve the contract with Citygate and direct the Police Department to issue a
request for proposal. This is not recommended due to Citygate’s recent work conducted
reference SLO Fire and projected growth in the city, as well as experience performing
similar services for the City.
2. Do not conduct an analysis of police-based emergency services in the City.
Attachments:
a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16)
7
Packet Pg. 125
7.a
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
Over the last 15 years, Citygate
has performed over 280 public
safety studies.
July 14, 2016
Ms. Deanna Cantrell
Police Chief
City of San Luis Obispo
1042 Walnut Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
dcantrell@slocity.org
RE: PROPOSAL TO PERFORM A COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES DELIVERY AND STAFFING
REVIEW OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO POLICE DEPARTMENT
Dear Chief Cantrell:
Citygate Associates, LLC is pleased to present our proposal to the City of San Luis Obispo’s
Police Department to perform a Comprehensive Services Delivery and Staffing Review. This
introductory letter explains why Citygate is exceptionally qualified to perform this engagement.
First, Citygate has an extensive background in public
safety field services deployment, support services
staffing assessments, and financial analysis and
strategies. Over the last 15 years, Citygate has
performed over 280 public safety studies. Within
recent years, we have completed significant law
enforcement reviews for the cities of Santa Monica, CA; Rancho Cucamonga, CA; Brea, CA;
Glendale, AZ; Goodyear, AZ; Maricopa, AZ; and Provo, UT. We are also completing
comprehensive services delivery and staffing reviews for the Monterey County Sheriff’s Office
and the Eloy, AZ Police Department.
Second, Citygate has an extensive consulting history with San Luis Obispo. We performed a fire
services deployment study and master plan in 2009 and recently completed a fire services master
plan update which was very well received. As such, we are familiar with projected development
in planned growth areas of the City. We have also assisted the City’s Community Development
Department on several engagements, including an organizational assessment in 2013,
implementation assistance in 2014, and customer service consulting for the Building and Safety
Division in 2015. Our familiarity with San Luis Obispo’s planning and growth aspects relative to
7.a
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
Chief Cantrell
July 14, 2016
Page 2
sphere of influence and annexation potentials provides us with unique insight and experience that
will enhance the depth of this study while reducing the cost.
We look forward to the opportunity to partner with the City once again on this important
assessment of police service delivery and staffing, especially with the City’s plans for economic
development and future annexations that will impact police services.
Third, Citygate’s proposed Project Team includes Chief Sam Spiegel, who recently retired from
a distinguished career in law enforcement, not only as a Police Chief, but as an Assistant City
Manager and City Manager. Through this professional experience, Chief Spiegel understands
what it is like to sit in both of the chairs as a City Manager and a Police Chief, and therefore
intuitively relates to the potential challenges and available synergies between these two roles. He
has extensive experience in fast growth development and associated public safety impacts of
annexations and spheres of influence. Chief Spiegel will serve as Citygate’s Project Director on
this engagement.
James Lewis, the recently retired Undersheriff for Sacramento County, will serve as Citygate’s
Project Manager. After serving for over 30 years in law enforcement, James has a wide range of
experience in virtually every function of law enforcement. James was responsible for day-to-day
operation of a staff of approximately 2,100 employees, 1,390 of which were sworn, serving a
population of 1.2 million citizens in a jurisdiction covering more than 700 square miles.
Jay Corey, a Principal with Citygate, has been with the firm for 13 years and will serve as a
member of Citygate’s Project Team. He has served at the senior executive level in city
manager’s offices for over 30 years. Mr. Corey has been highly involved in performance
management and performance measurement, budgeting, scheduling, workload balancing,
costing, contracting out, and strategic financial planning.
Comm Center Solutions, including Lynn Freeman and Danita Crombach, will join our team with
public safety communications expertise. Comm Center Solutions’ experience includes personnel
issues, operations, staffing, investigations, incident reconstruction, quality assurance, Next
Generation 9-1-1, and project management. Comm Center Solutions offers balanced, insightful,
and tested solutions for 9-1-1 challenges. With over 70 years of combined service in dispatch
centers, Comm Center Solutions’ experience is unmatched.
Chief Stewart Gary, Citygate’s Public Safety Principal, will also join the team. He will serve as
the local knowledge and experience connection to help leverage the information gained in the
recently completed Fire Master Plan about southern City area growth and Cal Poly Master Plan
needs to both accelerate and provide cost savings to the police services study.
As the City will learn from our references, Citygate has an outstanding track record with our
clients. We strongly encourage the City to call our key project references—they are golden. As
the County of San Diego former CAO stated: “We work with consultants, obviously, all the time,
7.a
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
Chief Cantrell
July 14, 2016
Page 3
Citygate is supremely positioned
to offer you an independent,
objective, third-party analysis
that will be thorough, incisive,
even-handed, and fair.
but the work that Citygate did on this report is some of the best I’ve seen in my tenure here.”
(Watch the video clip at this link: www.citygateassociates.com/sdcountyvideo)
This is not an isolated comment by one client, rather
it is the rule. Time after time our clients say at the end
of public presentations, “this was the best report/study
we have ever received and now we finally understand
the issues and choices…”
As you will see while reviewing Citygate’s proposal,
our firm is supremely positioned to offer you an
independent, objective, third-party analysis that will be thorough, incisive, even-handed, and fair.
The City of San Luis Obispo will receive recommendations in our Final Report that will promote
a spirit of continuous improvement, geared to help your Police Department and City adapt to the
ever-changing conditions and expectations of local law enforcement.
* * *
As President of the firm, I am authorized to execute a binding contract on behalf of Citygate
Associates, LLC. Please feel free to contact me at our headquarters office, located in Folsom,
California at (916) 458-5100, extension 101 or via e-mail at dderoos@citygateassociates.com if
you wish further information.
Sincerely,
David C. DeRoos, MPA, CMC
President
cc: Project Team
7.a
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Proposal to Perform a Comprehensive Services Delivery and Staffing Review
Table of Contents page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Cover Letter ...................................................................................... Precedes Table of Contents
Section 1—Work Plan and Scope of Work .................................................................................1
1.1 Overview of Project ............................................................................................ 1
1.2 Scope of Work .................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Staffing Analysis Methodology .......................................................................... 2
1.4 Work Plan Task Sequence .................................................................................. 3
1.5 Final Report Components ................................................................................... 9
1.6 Study Components With Which the Police Department Must Assist .............. 10
1.7 Project Schedule ............................................................................................... 10
1.8 Sample Presentation Graphics .......................................................................... 11
Section 2—Citygate Organization and Project Team ..............................................................14
2.1 Citygate’s Project Team ................................................................................... 14
2.2 Necessary Project Team Skills ......................................................................... 14
2.3 Project Team / Project Roles ............................................................................ 15
2.4 Project Team Organization Chart ..................................................................... 20
Section 3—Summary of Related Experience .............................................................................22
3.1 Citygate Associates Project Experience ........................................................... 22
3.2 Project Descriptions ......................................................................................... 22
3.3 Client References ............................................................................................. 27
3.4 Citygate’s Distinguishing Characteristics in the Marketplace ......................... 28
Section 4—Pricing Proposal........................................................................................................29
4.1 Project Cost/Billing .......................................................................................... 29
4.1.1 Overall Project Cost ............................................................................... 29
7.a
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Proposal to Perform a Comprehensive Services Delivery and Staffing Review
Table of Contents page ii
4.2 Citygate Cost and Billing Terms ...................................................................... 29
4.3 Standard Hourly Billing Rates ......................................................................... 30
Appendices
Appendix A Code of Ethics
Appendix B Project Team Resumes
Sam Spiegel, MSM ..................................................................................................1
James Lewis .............................................................................................................6
Jay Corey, MPA .......................................................................................................7
Lynn Freeman, MA, ENP ......................................................................................10
Danita Crombach, ENP ..........................................................................................12
Eric Lind, MA ........................................................................................................16
David DeRoos, MPA, CMC ..................................................................................20
Stewart Gary, MPA ................................................................................................22
7.a
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Proposal to Perform a Comprehensive Services Delivery and Staffing Review
Section 1—Work Plan and Scope of Work page 1
SECTION 1—WORK PLAN AND SCOPE OF WORK
1.1 OVERVIEW OF PROJECT
Citygate Associates, LLC’s Work Plan to provide a Comprehensive Services Delivery and
Staffing Review of the San Luis Obispo Police Department is presented in this section. Our
Work Plan is designed to help determine how to best staff the Police Department to meet its
mission. A performance review of the current delivery of services and recommendations of
alternatives needed to meet current best practices is essential in determining the appropriate
staffing levels. As such, our Work Plan addresses all facets of field, command, and support
operations, including, but not limited to: Field Services Division, including Patrol and
Investigations; and the Support Services Division, including Fiscal, Crime Prevention, Training,
Policy and Procedures, Public Relations, Internal Affairs, Professional Standards,
Communications / 9-1-1, and other specialty services. Animal Control has been excluded from
this study.
1.2 SCOPE OF WORK
Citygate’s review of the Police Department will:
Assess current sworn and professional (non-sworn) staff levels. We will evaluate
the adequacy of staffing levels for current workload and meeting the Police
Department’s goals without curtailing service or requiring excessive overtime
work. We will consider existing schedules, time for training, professional
development, legal mandates, time off, illness, injuries, and attrition.
Provide a structured and defensible methodology for Police Department’s staff to
use in projecting future staffing needs.
Recommend staffing levels that will allow the Police Department to maintain or
increase its current high levels of service, including: responding to all crimes and
requests for service; maintaining robust crime prevention and community service
programs; and maintaining youth services, investigation and forensic crime scene
evidence collection, crime suppression, and other services currently offered by the
Police Department.
Analyze the impact on staffing levels and calls for service resulting from current
and future City plans for economic development and future annexations.
Wherever possible, use existing data for the analysis, such as the City’s General
Plan and other published planning documents, crime statistics, payroll and
overtime work records, and computer-aided dispatch data. Police Department
7.a
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Proposal to Perform a Comprehensive Services Delivery and Staffing Review
Section 1—Work Plan and Scope of Work page 2
staff will help provide historical data from the agency’s computer systems and
other City sources.
Use a compilation of community oriented policing, predictive policing, and data-
driven policing strategies. We will assess efficiencies of calls for service. We will
assess community-policing efforts as an on-going strategy; we will leverage the
performance and evaluative processes in place, verifying the current effectiveness
and efficiencies of the agency. This includes evaluating and contrasting data to
overlay response time standards, officer safety, and call prioritization.
Conduct interviews with stakeholders, including, City management and Police
Department staff, to assess goals, expectations, and perceived workload levels.
1.3 STAFFING ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
Staffing ratios in the form of officers or employees per 1,000 population and response times have
been the traditional guide for determining staffing levels. And although these indicators are still
widely used and have some value, they have been touted for decades as the appropriate measures
of “law enforcement performance.” By today’s standards in many aspects of the United States,
they are no longer recognized as the best means for measuring law enforcement outcomes. There
is a growing recognition that many of these measurements have not accurately reflected the
benefits that should be realized as a consequence of good policing.
This is because such measures capture only a small portion of the value that law enforcement can
provide, and minimally capture their accomplishments.
Current thinking about police staffing and performance reflects a move away from a more
dominant focus on inputs and toward measuring the achievement of desired outcomes. It also
reflects a greater interest in measuring overall organizational effectiveness, rather than merel y
citing various efficiencies that are often used as a poor substitute for the results or outcomes the
public expects and deserves.
To be clear, this should not become an argument in favor of simply discarding or ignoring these
more traditional measures. Such measures can be of value in comparing certain aspects of
organizations, evaluating various types of cost and performance efficiencies, and assessing
trends. However, many of those traditional measures are not the most reliable or accurate for
capturing or evaluating results and effectiveness (which we define as something that is desired
and actually accomplished as a direct result of our activities and inputs). Better and more refined
measures can and should be adopted in the future, but those will likely be of minimal value
unless known resource needs (personnel, support, and technology) and gaps are addressed first.
And that is what this comprehensive services delivery and staffing review can help provide for
the San Luis Obispo Police Department.
7.a
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Proposal to Perform a Comprehensive Services Delivery and Staffing Review
Section 1—Work Plan and Scope of Work page 3
1.4 WORK PLAN TASK SEQUENCE
Our Work Plan for the comprehensive services delivery and staffing review of the Police
Department is comprised of six (6) tasks. We intend to review our Work Plan and schedule with
the City / Police Department project team prior to beginning work. After obtaining additional
input, we will finalize our Work Plan and the accompanying schedule.
Citygate’s Work Plan has been developed consistent with our Project Team members’
experience in law enforcement management.
Task 1: Initiate and Manage the Project
Subtasks
Develop detailed Work Plan schedule for the project.
We will develop a detailed integrated work schedule and final project
timeline. These tools will assist both the consultants and Police
Department staff to monitor the progress of the study.
Conduct conference call with Police Department staff representatives to initiate
study.
A key to a successful consulting engagement is a mutual understanding of
the project’s scope and objectives. The senior members of our team will
meet with Police Department and City representatives to correlate our
understandings of the study’s scope, and ensure that our Work Plan and
project schedule are mutually agreeable.
Obtain and review City / Police Department documentation.
We will develop and submit a list of all documents relevant to this project,
including the City’s General Plan, growth forecasts, any appropriate prior
studies, Police Department documentation including (as available)
dispatch data, fleet inventory, facility condition assessments, current
personnel, equipment, other operating costs, and a myriad of other
information. We will prepare a custom list of needed documents for the
study and establish Dropbox folders for the Police Department to securely
and easily transfer all electronic files. This preliminary step in the
engagement ensures that our time on site is used effectively and
efficiently.
7.a
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Proposal to Perform a Comprehensive Services Delivery and Staffing Review
Section 1—Work Plan and Scope of Work page 4
This may require San Luis Obispo’s IT Department to give the team
members the ability to accept and install Dropbox. To assure timely
response to the document requests and establish a shared repository for
those, our experience has proven Dropbox a secure, simple means to
accomplish this.
Interview City of San Luis Obispo leadership.
To enhance our understanding of the issues at stake in this project, we will
interview via teleconference, as appropriate and directed, members of the
City Council, the City Manager, and members of City staff who frequently
interact with or have an interdependent relationship with the Police
Department.
Interview Police Department staff.
To enhance our understanding of the issues at stake in this project, we will
interview via teleconference, as appropriate and directed, the members of
the Police Department, including, but not limited to, the Chief of Police,
Command staff, and supervisor.
This usually entails the sworn manager levels of the organization (or
civilian managers), and in some cases, supervisory personnel.
Meetings
There will be two teleconference meetings during this task to kick-off the project, establish
relationships, conduct stakeholder interviews, and set the information gathering into agreement
and motion.
Task 2: Law Enforcement Services Delivery System Review
Subtasks
Conduct a complete deployment review to analyze staffing needs and service
demands.
We will begin our deployment review with an assessment of community
risks and vulnerabilities, including infrastructure, demographics, gang and
crime activity, regional anomalies, and public venues (including
entertainment). Our vulnerabilities assessment will also include an
assessment of the adequacy of Police Department technology.
7.a
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Proposal to Perform a Comprehensive Services Delivery and Staffing Review
Section 1—Work Plan and Scope of Work page 5
We will collect and analyze patrol data over a period of time to document
calls for service, response time, and self-initiated activity by beat, shift,
and day of the week.
This review will consider prior incident response statistics to measure the
effectiveness to desired goals, response time criteria, and call prioritization
relative to the current deployment plan.
Identify appropriate Departmental levels of officer availability.
Based on the above data, we will develop a graphical representation of the
officer availability by time of day and day of week. The amount of
available patrol time generally used by officers for directed patrol, special
projects, and community involvement varies from agency to agency. The
Project Team will examine the nexus between officer availability and the
Department’s Values, Vision, Mission, Goals, and industry best practices.
Perform data analysis.
Given our lengthy conversations with the City about the data availability
for this project, Citygate will rely on the San Luis Obispo Police
Department to provide a series of reports and data outputs.
We know how to assess the accuracy and reliability of data, how to
determine relevancy of data in correlation to decision making processes,
how to best convert insights into actionable content for varying analysis,
and how to structure actionable content for optimal usability without
additional workload for the client.
(Optional) Conduct employee survey.1
As an option for the Department to consider, Citygate will conduct an on-
line likert-scale survey of sworn Department members, professional staff,
and volunteers on their attitudes concerning issues including, but not
limited to, work load, scheduling, morale, reputation of the Department;
attitudes towards the philosophy of Community Policing and Problem
Solving, and other items deemed appropriate for this study.
1 The employee survey will be internet-based. The City will be responsible for photocopying, distribution, and any other charges
relating to hard copy versions of the survey, should that be needed. We assume that the survey will be created and launched in
English only. If the City desires the survey to be available in other languages, the extra time necessary to build the additional
surveys would be an additional cost.
7.a
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Proposal to Perform a Comprehensive Services Delivery and Staffing Review
Section 1—Work Plan and Scope of Work page 6
(Optional) Conduct resident survey.2
As an option for the Department to consider, Citygate will conduct a
resident survey to provide us with perspectives from the residents and
businesses in the community. Through this survey we will gain an
understanding about what services are priorities to the public, what
services are meeting expectations, and if there are any gaps between
citizen expectations and the delivery of services. The survey will be
developed in coordination with the City.
Meetings
There will be no meetings in this task.
Task 3: In-Depth Review of Department Functions and Staffing
Subtasks
Perform in-depth review of Police Department.
We will further review agency documents to examine current resource
utilization; schedules and attendance records; staff retention; and
productivity and performance measures of major units. Our previous data
analysis will be contrasted to deployment strategies and work schedules,
as described in this task.
We will conduct interviews with the following personnel: Command staff;
Officers in Charge (OICs) of the Patrol and Investigations Divisions,
Training, Administrative Services, Professional Standards, City 9-1-1 /
Center, and Field Services; and selected department managers and City
Human Resources staff.
Citygate will conduct additional interviews as determined in the kick-off
phone meeting with the Police Department and City representatives.
2 The resident survey is limited to 200 respondents. The resident survey will be internet-based and Citygate assumes the City will
pay for any necessary postage, photocopying, or data entry. We would require the assistance of the City in providing email
addresses (if possible) and developing and mailing invitation letters/postcards and other survey-related materials that may be
necessary to encourage survey participation. We assume that the survey will be created and launched in English only. If the City
desires the survey to be available in other languages, the extra time necessary to build the additional surveys would be an
additional cost.
7.a
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Proposal to Perform a Comprehensive Services Delivery and Staffing Review
Section 1—Work Plan and Scope of Work page 7
We will review the communication flow within the Department, the
current organizational structure, the span of control, unity of command,
and decision-making authority of the ranks in the Police Department.
We will review best practices regarding Community-Oriented Policing
and Problem Solving (COPPS), Intelligence-Led Policing, and Data-
Driven Policing to provide options for the best fit for the City of San Luis
Obispo.
Analyze the impact on staffing levels and calls for service resulting from
current and future City plans for economic development and future
annexations.
At a high level, we will assess whether efficiencies can be realized
through schedule changes.
Once the Police Department review is completed, Citygate will integrate
the data analysis, Police Department goals, and deployment strategies to
build integrated findings, recommendations, and implementation
strategies.
Meetings
There will be one two-day on-site trip in this task to conduct the interviews for the command
staff functions review.
Task 4: Conduct a Mid-Project Review
Subtasks
Conduct mid-project teleconference review with the City Manager, Chief of
Police, and executive staff.
We have found it productive, upon the completion of the initial service delivery
and in-depth Department review work, to conduct a mid-project review before
writing the Draft Report. The purpose of this review is to meet with the client and
principal staff to review the conclusions and tentative recommendations of the
study. This will also be an opportunity for the Police Department and consultants
to perform fact-checks and make any mid-course corrections before additional
work occurs.
The Citygate team will brief the City’s leadership team via teleconference
regarding our working opinions using PowerPoint and incident statistics.
Examples of the exhibits we provide are found in Section 1.8.
7.a
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Proposal to Perform a Comprehensive Services Delivery and Staffing Review
Section 1—Work Plan and Scope of Work page 8
Meetings
There will be a teleconference to review the overall project’s initial findings and
recommendations, and fact-check the data on which the findings are developed. Citygate will
utilize a short PowerPoint presentation to discuss the highlights of the study to date.
Task 5: Forecast Resource Needs; Conduct Final Service Deli very Models
and Prepare Draft Reports
Subtasks
The entire Citygate team will prepare a comprehensive long-range Services
Delivery and Staffing Draft Report. In the this Draft Report we will:
Summarize the strengths of the Police Department and opportunities for
improvement.
Present a review of how our approach and analyses were conducted.
Describe major findings by work unit service delivery area.
Present an explanation of improvements we identified and our integrated
recommendations for their resolution in order to improve operations.
Describe a methodology for monitoring implementation status.
Upon completion of the Services Delivery and Staffing Draft Report, an
electronic version in MS-Word will be sent to the City’s / Police Department’s
project manager for comments using the “track changes” and “insert comments”
tools in MS-Word. Our normal practice is to review a draft of our report with
management personnel to ensure that the factual basis for our recommendations is
correct and to allow time for a thorough review. In addition, we take time to
discuss any areas that require further clarification or amplification. It is during
this time that understandings beyond the written text can be communicated.
Meetings
We will schedule a teleconference meeting with Police Department leadership to discuss and
fact-check the Services Delivery and Staffing Draft Report, answer any questions, and agree on
elements for the Final Report.
7.a
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Proposal to Perform a Comprehensive Services Delivery and Staffing Review
Section 1—Work Plan and Scope of Work page 9
Task 6: Prepare and Deliver the Final Report with Executive Summary and
Recommendations
Subtasks
The process of Final Report preparation is an important one. Implicit in this
process is the need for a sound understanding of how our review was conducted,
what issues were identified, why our recommendations were made, and how
implementation should be accomplished.
Prepare Final Report and oral presentation.
Based on the results of our Draft Report review process, we will then
prepare a Final Report to the City Manager and Chief of Police. We also
will make an oral presentation using a PowerPoint presentation to the
Police Department leadership team and/or the City Council as directed.
Meetings
There will be one on-site meeting to make an oral presentation of the Final Report to the City
Council or a group of the City Manager’s choosing.
1.5 FINAL REPORT COMPONENTS
Citygate’s Comprehensive Services Delivery and Staffing Final Report will include:
1. An analysis of the efficiency of the current deployment scheme of resources and
station locations.
2. An analysis of the Department’s ability to meet the listed standards.
3. If required, recommendations for changes in deployment methods to meet the
current needs of the work units and to optimize service delivery.
4. A comprehensive analysis of current Police Department services and staffing in
Field Services Division, including Patrol and Investigations; and the Support
Services Division, including Fiscal, Crime Prevention, Training, Policy and
Procedures, Public Relations, Internal Affairs, Professional Standards,
Communications / 9-1-1, and other specialty services.
5. The analysis will be combined with a forecast of future demands into a multi-year
staffing and services plan for the Police Department.
6. Provision of supporting data and rationale for all recommendations.
7.a
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Proposal to Perform a Comprehensive Services Delivery and Staffing Review
Section 1—Work Plan and Scope of Work page 10
7. Provision of supporting statistics and other visual data to fully illustrate the
current situation and consultant recommendations. This information shall be
provided in both hard copy format and computerized format with accompanying
Microsoft PowerPoint presentation.
1.6 STUDY COMPONENTS WITH WHICH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT MUST ASSIST
The Police Department is in the best position to provide most, if not all, of the internal data
needed to complete the scope of work required for this project. Therefore, Citygate anticipates
that the Police Department will assist with this project by:
Providing electronic incident response data in a format requested by Citygate .
This will include response reporting from the CAD system, along with caseload
information from the RMS system.
Providing a series of reports and data outputs.
Identifying and making initial contact with community members that Citygate
will interview in Task 3.
Via a document request questionnaire issued by Citygate, submitting existing
Police Department documents describing organization, services, budgets,
expenses, and performance measures, if any.
Providing other Police Department data timely as requested by Citygate.
For the optional employee and resident surveys, providing email addresses and
mailing invitation letters/postcards and other survey-related materials that may be
necessary to encourage survey participation (for resident survey).
1.7 PROJECT SCHEDULE
Citygate anticipates this project will span four to five months. Citygate is available to start the
project in September, upon the award of a contract. A sample project schedule is shown below:
Work Plan Timeline
Task Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5
1: Initiate and Manage Project
2: Delivery System Review
3: In-Depth Agency Review
4: Mid-Point Project Briefing
5: Forecasting and Draft Report
6: Prepare and Deliver Final Report
On-site meeting
7.a
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Proposal to Perform a Comprehensive Services Delivery and Staffing Review
Section 1—Work Plan and Scope of Work page 11
1.8 SAMPLE PRESENTATION GRAPHICS
The following are several exhibits that illustrate the type of charts we offer in our reports.
Figure 1—Percentage of P1 and P2 Calls Responded to in 5 Minutes or Less (2011-2015)
Figure 2—Percentage of P3 Calls Responded to in 15 Minutes or Less (2011-2015)
62.9%
72.4%74.2%77.2%74.3%
46.7%
56.9%57.9%56.9%54.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Response Time Trend -Priority 1 and 2
Priority 1 Priority 2
77.3%76.5%
78.3%
88.4%88.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Response Time Trend -Priority 3
Priority 3
7.a
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Proposal to Perform a Comprehensive Services Delivery and Staffing Review
Section 1—Work Plan and Scope of Work page 12
Figure 3—Violent Crime Trend (2005-2015)
Figure 4—Response Time – Priority 1 and 2 Calls for Service
21 24 18 18 21 13 22 11 16 21 13
85 74 54 66 54 46 44 52 49
112 103
393
466
554 588
420 385
430 413
335 350 342
912
979
905
660 655
520
591
666
530
439
524
-
200
400
600
800
1,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Violent Crime Trend
Homicide Rape Robbery Agg. Assault
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23Response Time in Minutes Hour of Day
Response Time - Priority 1 and 2 Calls for Service
7.a
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Proposal to Perform a Comprehensive Services Delivery and Staffing Review
Section 1—Work Plan and Scope of Work page 13
Figure 5—Gateway Patrol Division – Calls for Service (July 1, 2014 – June 30, 2015)
Hour Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Total
00 429 393 444 509 499 642 701 3,617
01 359 349 402 465 459 652 635 3,321
02 297 321 348 341 395 510 527 2,739
03 247 245 259 251 257 374 383 2,016
04 198 169 142 149 158 224 268 1,308
05 180 143 124 164 141 167 169 1,088
06 257 304 282 260 217 191 170 1,681
07 489 572 538 473 403 275 269 3,019
08 636 657 676 581 472 374 314 3,710
09 652 763 729 652 525 484 435 4,240
10 621 632 583 565 513 427 447 3,788
11 587 596 569 546 541 450 426 3,715
12 598 699 711 598 566 442 465 4,079
13 623 698 714 660 554 457 456 4,162
14 719 736 844 725 649 596 529 4,798
15 739 782 761 731 707 514 520 4,754
16 650 734 680 622 628 509 522 4,345
17 562 637 615 576 611 535 563 4,099
18 602 635 663 591 651 497 536 4,175
19 510 606 562 571 593 575 599 4,016
20 526 537 534 565 598 642 557 3,959
21 494 537 543 552 619 648 543 3,936
22 494 587 559 575 691 814 558 4,278
23 425 481 521 522 674 777 475 3,875
Total 11,894 12,813 12,803 12,244 12,121 11,776 11,067 84,718
7.a
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Proposal to Perform a Comprehensive Services Delivery and Staffing Review
Section 2—Citygate Organization and Project Team page 14
SECTION 2—CITYGATE ORGANIZATION AND PROJECT TEAM
2.1 CITYGATE’S PROJECT TEAM
Citygate’s capabilities for this service can be simply stated: the experience and talents of our
Project Team members! We know that successful results come from Citygate’s agility to handle,
as necessary, six critical roles in cooperation with the Department team: (1) champion; (2)
stakeholder listener; (3) subject matter trainer/expert; (4) meeting facilitator; (5) coach and
content expert; and (6) final strategist/advisor.
Citygate’s team members, in their agency and consulting careers, have successfully walked the
talk on public safety review efforts by focusing on the inclusion of culture and communication
with rigorous analytic methods to build a business case that elected officials and agency
employees can both understand.
The Citygate team has a multi-disciplinary approach that includes the full range of skills required
to execute this challenging project. The diverse group of specialists comprising Citygate’s
proposed Project Team (described below) has worked on prior projects to integrate their
respective expertise into comprehensive, compelling, and creative strategies to accomplish an
agency’s objectives.
2.2 NECESSARY PROJECT TEAM SKILLS
Citygate’s team members possess the skills necessary to successfully complete this project,
including:
Law enforcement deployment principles and practices
Law enforcement staffing
Law enforcement command and organizational structure
Law enforcement performance measurement
Law enforcement investigations, special operations, and community risk
reduction
Dispatch, communications, and 9-1-1 experience
Operating and capital budgeting
City management and cost of services analysis
Fleet management
7.a
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Proposal to Perform a Comprehensive Services Delivery and Staffing Review
Section 2—Citygate Organization and Project Team page 15
Public safety technology
Safety and training
Professional standards, compliance, and auditing
Land use planning
Strategic, master, and business planning.
2.3 PROJECT TEAM / PROJECT ROLES
The qualifications of the Project Team are critical, as it is the expertise and the capabilities of the
consultants involved in the project that ultimately determine the success of the project. We have
carefully assembled the team members to provide the knowledge, depth, judgment, and
sensitivity required to perform this engagement. Please note that the role of each team member is
described in italics at the end of his biographical paragraph. Full resumes for each consultant are
presented in Appendix B. Primary members of our Project Team include the following
experienced consultants:
Chief Sam L. Spiegel, MSM, Law Enforcement Services Senior Specialist and
Project Director
Sam Spiegel retired as Chief of Police and Director of Emergency Services
for the City of Folsom, California in November of 2010. He served in that
capacity for over nine and a half years. During his tenure as Chief, he also
served as the interim City Manager / Assistant City Manager. A 39-year
veteran in law enforcement, he is recognized as a successful leader and
problem solver with strong organizational and leadership development skills.
He has proven experience working with community groups, labor unions,
departments, developers, elected boards, and both state and federal
legislators.
Throughout his tenure in law enforcement, he performed a myriad of assignments, and is a
recognized subject matter expert on Pursuit Policy, Emergency / Critical Incident Management
and 9-1-1 / Next Generation technologies. He has instructed and assisted in the development of
many training programs that included Employee and Leadership Development, Continuous
Improvement Teams, Interest Based Negotiating, Pursuit Policy Guidelines, Internal Affairs
Investigations, High Risk Stops, Role of the Executive Assistant to the Chief, and Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design. He has worked extensively on Economic
Development, Business Retention, and Planning issues in fast-paced developing communities.
He has not only overseen, but been actively engaged in all aspects of law enforcement, including
animal control, communications, and records management. He has also provided focused
leadership on inter-department collaborations during his interim City Manager tenure.
7.a
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Proposal to Perform a Comprehensive Services Delivery and Staffing Review
Section 2—Citygate Organization and Project Team page 16
As an accomplished and visionary police executive, he created the Police Service Delivery Plan
model and has authored two of these for the City of Folsom. His insight into staffing and
organizational analysis produced the plan that guided a seven-year growth of an agency whose
community growth had outpaced the staffing growth of the police department.
Appointed by the last three California Attorneys General, Chief Spiegel has served ten years on
the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications Advisory Committee (CLETS), serving
the last three years as the committee Chair. He has ten years service to the Governor’s Office of
Emergency Services, 9-1-1 Advisory Committee, a gubernatorial appointment.
He currently provides law enforcement consulting services in many areas, including
Organizational and Operational Analysis, Futures – Next Generation Technologies, Continuous
Improvement, Leadership Development, Critical Incident / Disaster Planning, Systems Analysis,
and Advocacy Navigation. He was the Project Manager for Citygate’s police department review
for the City of Glendale, AZ and is currently directing Citygate’s reviews for the City of Eloy,
AZ Police Department and Monterey County Sheriff’s Office.
Chief Spiegel will serve as the Project Director for this engagement. He will be a primary team
interviewer and, in addition to his extensive law enforcement experience, will provide annexation
and development impact experience to the team.
Undersheriff James E. Lewis, Law Enforcement Services Specialist and Project
Manager
Undersheriff James (Jamie) Lewis was hired by the Sacramento County
Sheriff’s Department in April 1985. Serving more than 30 years with
Sacramento County, James has held assignments in virtually every division
of the Department, including commands in air operations, patrol, and security
services. Currently serving as the Undersheriff, James is responsible for day-
to-day operation of a staff of approximately 2,100 employees, 1,390 of which
are sworn, serving a population of 1.2 million citizens in a jurisdiction
covering more than 700 square miles. James’ expertise spans the myriad of
law enforcement functions with an emphasis on corrections, public relations, and patrol
operations. James has a Bachelor’s degree in Law Enforcement Management, and is a graduate
of the LAPD West Point Leadership program.
Undersheriff Lewis is responsible for day-to-day management of the project, including direction
of project personnel, detailed planning and scheduling of tasks, preparation of work products,
direct participation in key activities and meetings as the key interface with the client, delegation
of activities to project consultants, and synthesis of the study data into a meaningful and useful
study report.
7.a
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Proposal to Perform a Comprehensive Services Delivery and Staffing Review
Section 2—Citygate Organization and Project Team page 17
Jay Corey, MPA, Citygate Principal
Mr. Corey is a Principal with Citygate Associates, and has been with the firm
for 13 years. Since joining Citygate, he has conducted numerous significant
operational and performance audits. Prior to his work with Citygate, he
served at the senior executive level in city manager’s offices for over 30
years. Mr. Corey has been highly involved in performance management and
performance measurement, budgeting, scheduling, workload balancing,
costing, contracting out, coordination with developers, and delivery of
complex development projects. Mr. Corey specializes in strategic financial
planning and interdepartmental coordination. Mr. Corey holds a Master’s degree in public
administration (MPA) from the University of Southern California. He received his undergraduate
education from the University of California, Davis, with a Bachelor’s degree in political science.
Mr. Corey will perform analysis as needed and co-author reports.
Comm Center Solutions, Public Safety Communications Specialists
Recognizing a void in public safety 9-1-1 professional consultants and specialists, Comm Center
Solutions was formed by Danita Crombach and Lynn Freeman as an all-inclusive consulting
agency to address any and all issues in public safety communications centers. Specializing in
providing public safety agencies with an array of services to meet the increasing challenges in
today’s public safety communications, Comm Center Solutions’ expertise includes personnel
issues, operations, staffing, investigations, incident reconstruction, quality assurance, Next
Generation 9-1-1 and project management. Comm Center Solutions offers balanced, insightful,
and tested solutions for 9-1-1 challenges. With over 70 years of combined service in dispatch
centers, Comm Center Solutions’ experience is unmatched.
The following are biographies for Danita and Lynn:
Lynn A. Freeman, MA, ENP, Public Safety Communications Specialist
Lynn Freeman is one of the principal consultants/co-founders of Comm Center
Solutions. In addition to consulting, Lynn holds the position of Deputy
Director of the Critical Support and Logistics Division for the Simi Valley
Police Department. Reporting directly to the Chief of Police, Lynn is
responsible for administrative oversight of five civilian units including:
Communications (9-1-1/Dispatch), Crime Analysis, Fiscal, Records
Management, and Fleet and Facility Management. Lynn is tasked with
development and implementation of Department’s $29 million budget and
directs staff of 40 employees, including five managers.
7.a
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Proposal to Perform a Comprehensive Services Delivery and Staffing Review
Section 2—Citygate Organization and Project Team page 18
Lynn has worked for the Simi Valley Police Department for 37 years in a variety of assignments ,
including communications manager, a position Lynn held for thirteen years, with responsibility
for oversight of day-to-day operations of the Communications Unit. Lynn has built dispatch
centers literally from the ground up including a new facility in 1998 and the total remodel of
communication centers with the most recent in 2012. In addition, Lynn has managed a multitude
of projects and upgrades including implementation of two computer aided dispatch (CAD)
systems, voice logging recorders, 9-1-1 systems and satellite/back-up facility.
Lynn is a certified Emergency Number Professional (ENP), holds a Center Manager Certificate,
Public Safety Telecommunications Certificate and Civil Litigation Certificate. Lynn’s formal
education accomplishments include an Associate’s Degree in Administrative of Justice, and
Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in Emergency Management with a minor in Public Safety
Telecommunications. Ms. Freeman works from her offices in Simi Valley, CA, and Orlando, FL.
Danita L. Crombach, ENP, Public Safety Communications Specialist
Danita Crombach is one of the principle consultants/co-founders of Comm
Center Solutions. Danita is widely recognized as a leader in many areas of
public safety communications with over 30 years of experience. Danita has
been actively involved in organizations such as the National Emergency
Number Association (NENA), most recently as President of the California
chapter of NENA (CALNENA). She is a Senior Member with the
Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials, International
(APCO), and served as Secretary for the Southern California chapter
(CPRA). Danita has also worked closely with the California State 9-1-1 Office as a member of
the Working Group and has twice been involved in determining the funding model that is used to
disseminate State Emergency Telephone Number Account (SETNA) funds to California public
safety answering points (PSAPs). Danita last served as the communications manager with the
Ventura County Sheriff’s Office, where she instituted a wide variety of changes and programs—
all designed to enhance efficiency and employee retention, while improving service to the public.
Danita is a long-standing certified Emergency Number Professional (ENP), holds a Center
Manager Certificate, Academy Instructor Certificate, Public Safety Telecommunications
Certificate, and numerous other certificates for course completion specific to public safety
communications and leadership. She was instrumental in the development of the California
POST 120-hour Basic Dispatcher Course and has been a presenter at basic, intermediate, and
advanced courses.
Comm Center Solutions will analyze the workload and needs of the Communications / 9-1-1
Center and overlay best practices for embracing the changing police dynamics and supporting
those strategies.
7.a
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Proposal to Perform a Comprehensive Services Delivery and Staffing Review
Section 2—Citygate Organization and Project Team page 19
Eric Lind, MA, Statistical and Operational Analysis Associate
Eric’s 18 years’ experience spans several industries, including 2 years in
municipal government as a performance improvement analyst. His municipal
government experience has largely focused on public safety performance
improvement projects. He has developed baseline system-wide EMS response
time capability and testing alternative models, reviewed MPDS systems and
dispatch priorities for EMS systems, and improved Public Safety dispatch
process flow. He has also performed an administrative performance
assessment of civilian police staff, a fire facilities location study, and
alternative fire service delivery modeling.
Eric has used performance improvement and business transformation techniques throughout his
career across the globe. He is skilled with developing and conducting statistical research to
answer operations questions. He is equally comfortable with survey research. Eric has two
published survey research papers, including one he developed for Rotary International.
Eric is a Lean Six Sigma Certified Black Belt and has a Bachelors and two Masters Degrees in
International Business, each from a different country.
Mr. Lind will provide statistical analysis and data verification.
David C. DeRoos, MPA, CMC, Citygate President
Mr. DeRoos has 30 years experience as a consultant to local government,
preceded by 5 years as an assistant to the City Administrator. He earned his
undergraduate degree in Political Science/Public Service (Phi Beta Kappa)
from the University of California, Davis and holds a Master of Public
Administration degree from the University of Southern California. Prior to
becoming a Principal in Citygate in 1991, he was a Senior Manager in the local
government consulting division of Ernst & Young.
Mr. DeRoos is responsible for ensuring the project is conducted smoothly and efficiently within
the schedule and budget allocated, and that project deliverables meet Citygate’s and the client’s
quality standards. Mr. DeRoos will also assist with on-site interviews.
7.a
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Proposal to Perform a Comprehensive Services Delivery and Staffing Review
Section 2—Citygate Organization and Project Team page 20
Chief Stewart W. Gary, MPA, Public Safety Principal and Local Knowledge
Connection
Chief Gary is the Public Safety Principal for Citygate Associates. Chief Gary is
the retired Fire Chief of the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department in Alameda
County, California. For the past fourteen years, he has been a lead instructor,
program content developer and consultant for the Standards of Response
Coverage process. For many years he annually taught a 40-hour course on this
systems approach for fire deployment at the California Fire Academy and he
teaches and consults across the United States and Canada on the Standards of
Response Coverage process. Over the last fourteen years, he has performed
over 280 organizational and deployment studies for departments large and small, including many
police departments. He directed Citygate’s police and fire department reviews for the City of
Glendale, AZ and Citygate’s 2009 Fire Department Master Plan and most recent 2016 Master
Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo. As such, he is familiar with the City’s projected
development in planned growth areas of the City.
Chief Gary will serve as the local knowledge and experience connection to help leverage the
information gained in the recently completed Fire Master Plan about southern City area growth
and Cal Poly Master Plan needs to both accelerate and provide cost savings to the police
services study.
2.4 PROJECT TEAM ORGANIZATION CHART
Shown on the following page is a Project Team organization chart. Citygate’s consultants adhere
to the Code of Ethics found in Appendix A.
7.a
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Proposal to Perform a Comprehensive Services Delivery and Staffing Review
Section 2—Citygate Organization and Project Team page 21
Project Team Organization Chart
City of
San Luis Obispo, CA
David DeRoos, MPA, CMC
Citygate President
Stewart Gary, MPA
Public Safety Principal &
Local Knowledge Connection
Project Oversight
Comm Center Solutions
Lynn Freeman, MA, ENP
Danita Crombach, ENP
Public Safety
Communications Specialists
Sam Spiegel, MSM
Law Enforcement Services Senior
Specialist and Project Director
James Lewis, Undersheriff
Law Enforcement Services
Specialist and Project Manager
Jay Corey, MPA
Citygate Principal
Eric Lind, MA
Statistical and
Operational Analysis
Associate
7.a
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Proposal to Perform a Comprehensive Services Delivery and Staffing Review
Section 3—Summary of Related Experience page 22
“We work with consultants,
obviously, all the time, but the
work that Citygate did on this
report is some of the best I’ve
seen in my tenure here.”
-Former San Diego County CAO
SECTION 3—SUMMARY OF RELATED EXPERIENCE
3.1 CITYGATE ASSOCIATES PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Citygate Associates, LLC, founded in 1990, is
dedicated to assisting public sector agencies to improve
services. Citygate’s Public Safety practice area conducts
deployment analyses, staffing studies, master and
strategic plans, consolidation feasibility analyses,
organizational efficiency studies, risk assessment
studies, performance audits, and GIS for cities,
counties, and districts throughout the United States.
Citygate has completed many recent projects that are very similar to the services delivery and
staffing work requested in this study. Below Citygate provides a description of our previous
related law enforcement engagements and other engagements performed for the City of San Luis
Obispo. Following the description of our related studies, we provide an integrated list of
references. For additional information, please visit our website at www.citygateassociates.com.
3.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
City of Glendale, AZ – Comprehensive Public Safety Deployment and Performance Review of
the Police and Fire Departments
Citygate completed a comprehensive Deployment and Performance Review for the Glendale, AZ
Fire and Police Departments. For the Police Department, this study included reviewing the
adequacy of the existing deployment system, scheduling, and staffing. Our report included a
detailed analysis of the response, crime, and call data that drives the recommendations for
staffing in Patrol, Investigations, and Communications as well as an assessment of the staffing of
the support functions in the Department.
City of Eloy, AZ – Comprehensive Services Delivery and Staffing Review of the Police
Department
Citygate is currently performing a comprehensive services delivery and staffing review of the
Eloy Police Department. Our review includes all facets of field, command, and support
operations, including, but not limited to: Field Services Division, including Patrol and
Investigations; and the Support Services Division, including Fiscal, Fleet, Crime Prevention,
Training, Policy and Procedures, Public Relations, Internal Affairs, Professional Standards, and
other specialty services.
7.a
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Proposal to Perform a Comprehensive Services Delivery and Staffing Review
Section 3—Summary of Related Experience page 23
Monterey County, CA – Comprehensive Services Delivery and Staffing Review of the Sheriff’s
Office
Citygate is currently performing a comprehensive services delivery and staffing review of the
Monterey County Sheriff’s Office. This study will address all facets of field, command, and
support operations, including, but not limited to: Enforcement Operations (patrol), Corrections
Operations (jail), Administration, Investigations, Internal Affairs, Professional Standards,
Training, Records, Support Services, Civil Services, Coroner Services, and other specialty
services.
City of Goodyear, AZ – Police Department Management Study
Spurred by allegations of officer misconduct, Citygate conducted a management review of the
Goodyear Police Department. The study examined the Police Department’s leadership,
management, and internal and external communication processes. The study also covered the
internal affairs program, policy development, training and development, organizational structure
and the criminal investigations division. The study resulted in numerous organizational and
policy changes in the Department.
City of Maricopa, AZ – Police Department Management and Organizational Review
Citygate completed a limited and focused engagement of the Maricopa Police Department to
review, analyze, and make actionable recommendations regarding the leadership and
management systems in the Police Department based on best practices. Specifically, Citygate
Associates examined the following areas: leadership and management practices; organizational
structure; internal affairs investigation process; disciplinary procedures; professional standards of
conduct; and the criminal investigations division. The review resulted in 29 recommendations,
16 of which were immediately implemented by the client.
City of Provo, UT – Police Department Review
Citygate completed a focused review of the Provo Police Department. This study reviewed the
Police Department’s leadership and management approach to implementing its policies regarding
the standards of conduct and ethics. Specifically, Citygate Associates examined six key areas
including: citizens’ complaint process; professional standards of conduct; officer training;
leadership and management; hiring and retention; and community relations. The study resulted in
27 specific action items designed to improve the effectiveness and performance of the Provo
Police Department.
City of Folsom, CA – Police Department Service Delivery Plan
Chief Spiegel developed the model and produced two Police Service Delivery Plans (SDP) for
the City of Folsom. This plan is still in place today, and was reviewed and revised by Chief
Spiegel until he retired in 2010. The SDP encompassed an overview and needs assessment of the
7.a
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Proposal to Perform a Comprehensive Services Delivery and Staffing Review
Section 3—Summary of Related Experience page 24
Folsom Police Department’s organizational components, responsibilities, and staffing levels. The
overview plan provided an understanding of the agency’s various divisions and bureaus, how
services are currently provided, and what resources and technologies would be required over the
next five years.
The plan examined data and trends that offered insights into Folsom’s crime picture and the
demand for police services of both sworn and professional staff. The study provided insights into
events and trends, and illustrated a range of needs for the Department that included: improved
and expanded data management (CAD and RMS) systems; the importance of improving the
application and management of existing resources; a greater ability to identify, respond to, and
monitor workload and staffing requirements; and improvements that would help in dealing with
a myriad of administrative and oversight responsibilities essential to effective and cost-efficient
policing. Most significant was that the study debunked the linear use of staffing ratios per 1,000
population for planned staffing, and provided a methodology for service delivery staffing.
While examining staffing needs and efficiencies, the plan identified several known issues that
would likely impact crime and police service demands in the near future. Those included a
noticeable growth in, or the presence of, various gang entities in the City and the region; the
importance of maintaining and expanding on crime prevention strategies; the need to stress and
improve upon succession planning and professional development within the Police Department;
and the overall importance of employing new and evolving technologies that have become
increasingly important in the course of improving the ability of police to effectively respond to
and reduce crime and disorder in the community. Chief Spiegel, who leads the proposed Citygate
Project Team, formulated this Police Department Service Delivery Plan while he was Folsom’s
Police Chief. To view a digital copy of the Service Delivery Plan, please visit:
www.citygateassociates.com/ServiceDeliveryPlan
Santa Monica, CA – Patrol Division Workload and Alternative Scheduling Plan Review
Citygate completed a far-reaching Patrol Division work load and alternative scheduling plan
review for the Santa Monica Police Department. Citygate conducted a data evaluation, literature
review, and interviews in an effort to analyze the Department’s performance and work schedule
performance impacts. Citygate’s strategic partner, The Omega Group, creators of CrimeView™,
performed data analysis for this project. The Police Chief and the City’s executive leadership are
using the findings and recommendations from Citygate’s report to make key decisions regarding
staffing, scheduling, beat configuration, and related operational and officer safety configurations
essential for the effectiveness and efficiency of the Police Department.
7.a
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Proposal to Perform a Comprehensive Services Delivery and Staffing Review
Section 3—Summary of Related Experience page 25
Rancho Cucamonga – Police Service Analysis
Citygate performed a police service analysis for the City of Rancho Cucamonga to assist in
evaluating the current police services provided to the City by the San Bernardino County
Sheriff’s Department and other potential service options. The scope of the study included
evaluating: (1) how the current contract compares to similarly situated cities that also contract for
law enforcement services; (2) if establishing an in-house police department is feasible,
considering start-up and ongoing operational costs; (3) whether there are viable law enforcement
agencies in the region that could provide law enforcement services or partners to form a JPA;
and (4) whether there is a tipping point beyond which the City should consider a police services
alternative.
Cities of Hesperia, Adelanto, Victorville, Town of Apple Valley – Public Safety JPA
Feasibility Study
Citygate conducted a feasibility study for the Cities of Hesperia, Adelanto, Victorville, and the
Town of Apple Valley to determine the potential for a Public Safety JPA to manage Police
and/or Fire services among the agencies.
Cities of Brea, Buena Park, Fullerton, La Habra, Yorba Linda, and Placentia, CA – Police
Services and Dispatch Merger Feasibility Studies
Citygate performed a police services consolidation and contract for shared services analysis. The
study addressed opportunities for improvement in (1) efficiency and effectiveness; (2) enhancing
or expanding services; (3) reducing and/or avoiding costs and duplications; (4) coordinating
regional planning and eliminating artificial boundaries; (5) standardizing services and programs;
(6) enhancing the opportunities for future grant funding; and (7) enhancing customer service.
Citygate also performed a dispatch study to evaluate opportunities for regional police including
evaluating opportunities for shared dispatching between two or more of the study partners that
might achieve improvements in some or all of the following: (1) efficiency and effectiveness; (2)
enhancing or expanding services; (3) reducing and/or avoiding costs and duplications; (4)
standardizing services and programs; (5) enhancing opportunities for future grant funding; and
(6) enhancing customer service.
Cities of Burlingame and San Mateo, CA – Police Department Consolidation Analysis
Citygate conducted a study to analyze the feasibility of merging all or a portion of the cities’
Police Service operations in order to (1) reduce costs while retaining, at a minimum, the current
service levels for each city, and (2) where possible, improve service levels without additional
costs. Thus, this study addressed the possibilities from full consolidation of the agency police
services to partial sharing of various services.
7.a
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Proposal to Perform a Comprehensive Services Delivery and Staffing Review
Section 3—Summary of Related Experience page 26
Port of Oakland, CA – Domain Awareness Center Staffing Plan Development
Citygate Associates was engaged to conduct a review of the proposed Security Operations
Monitoring (SOM) staffing plan as designed in the Port of Oakland staff’s Concept of
Operations. Our Work Plan included numerous meetings with the stakeholders to understand the
mission of the Security Operations project and the organizational challenges associated with its
operations and structure. Citygate then assisted the Port in creating an RFP and job descriptions
for the additional positions required to staff the center.
Ogden City, UT – Rotating Management and Staffing Audits (Including Police)
Citygate Associates performed general management and staffing studies for eight Ogden City
departments, including Police. Each study analyzed the management, operations, policies,
performance measurement, and procedures of the departments. We examined issues related to
the philosophy and mission; organizational structure and management systems; organizational
relationships; relationships with citizens; allocation of employees and other resources; personnel
management and training; data management; records management, communications and
information systems; facilities and equipment; management methodologies; maintenance
functions; and fiscal management of each department. Other departments reviewed by Citygate
include Fire, Community Development, Community Services, Public Works, Animal Services,
Redevelopment Agency, and Code Enforcement.
Placer County, CA – Law Enforcement Cost Study for New Developments
Citygate was contracted by Placer County to recommend a law enforcement operational plan for
each of three new developments planned for the County: Placer Vineyards, De La Salle, and
Placer Ranch. In establishing the operational plan, Citygate was asked to review and recommend
methodologies and criteria for determining an urban level of staffing, equipment and facilities for
each development, comparing the recommended operational plans to appropriate nearby
jurisdictions or developments, and finally using a methodology and criteria that could be used by
the County in assessing the law enforcement cost impact of future developments.
City of Folsom, CA – Police Chief Recruitment Assistance
Citygate assisted the City of Folsom with the recruitment of a new Police Chief by applying
character and behavior psychometric instrumentation to existing command staff as well as
potential Police Chief candidates. This process had two objectives: (1) determining the
scientifically quantifiable character and behavior of the existing command staff, and (2)
determining the character and behavior profile of Police Chief candidates and assessing the “fit”
of the recruitment candidates with the existing command staff.
7.a
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Proposal to Perform a Comprehensive Services Delivery and Staffing Review
Section 3—Summary of Related Experience page 27
City of San Luis Obispo, CA – Fire Department Deployment Study and Master Plan
Citygate performed a fire department planning study, which included a Standards of Response
Coverage planning analysis to examine the levels of fire department services by occupancy type
and land use classifications. The study included assessing fire services to California Polytechnic
State University, San Luis Obispo. The study also included fire station and staffing infrastructure
triggers for additional resources, an analysis of headquarters and prevention systems, as well as
order of magnitude costs and possible financing strategies.
Update Standards of Response Cover Plan – Citygate recently completed a review of projected
growth in the City’s current General Plan and an assessment of fire service funding sources and
an SOC update. Citygate assessed the addition of a fifth fire station, or redistribution of the
existing four stations, to serve new development in planned growth areas of the City.
3.3 CLIENT REFERENCES
Below, Citygate provides a list of references for related engagements. We strongly encourage the
City to contact these references to see why agencies continue to call on Citygate.
City of Glendale, AZ
Project: Comprehensive Public Safety
Deployment and Performance Review of the
Police and Fire Departments
Ms. Debora Black, Police Chief of Glendale, AZ
(through July 15, 2016)
(623) 930-2277
After July 18, 2016, Police Chief of Prescott, AZ
(928) 777-1900
City of Folsom, CA
Project: Police Department Service Delivery
Plan
Mr. Evert Palmer, City Manager
(916) 355-7220
City of Goodyear, AZ
Project: Police Department Management Study
Mr. Mario Saldamando, Executive Management
Assistant to the City Manager
(623) 882-7066
Santa Monica, CA
Project: Patrol Division Workload and
Alternative Scheduling Plan Review
Ms. Jacqueline Seabrooks, Police Chief
(310) 458-8384
City of Maricopa, AZ
Project: Police Department Management and
Organizational Review
Ms. Brenda Fischer, former City Manager
(702) 550-7930
7.a
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Proposal to Perform a Comprehensive Services Delivery and Staffing Review
Section 3—Summary of Related Experience page 28
3.4 CITYGATE’S DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS IN THE MARKETPLACE
In one word – trust – founded on these core values:
Ethics: We will use rational information to help elected officials make informed policy
choices. Our opinions are not for “sale” to those that might want to slant a
recommendation because they are paying for the advice.
Quality: We deliver a complete work product that meets the client’s local needs. We do
not use one-size-fits-all reports. Our reports clearly use facts to frame
appropriate recommendations that the civilian reader can understand. We do not
use industry jargon or jump to conclusions that only a law enforcement
individual would understand.
Timeliness: We will offer our clients a realistic timeline and always complete our work
within that timeline. Where we have not, it is due to the client needing more
time to schedule events or to produce background information.
Sensitivity: We will understand at the project kick-off what the stakeholder issues are and
what information will be needed to completely address them. We are careful to
respect local issues. We do not take sides. We rationally analyze information
and present policy choices. We are quiet, “backstage” experts who let the local
officials set and explain public policy.
Independence: Citygate provides a dependable independent voice (perspective, viewpoint,
evaluation, assessment). Citygate is not aligned with any special interest group
or association.
7.a
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Proposal to Perform a Comprehensive Services Delivery and Staffing Review
Section 4—Pricing Proposal page 29
SECTION 4—PRICING PROPOSAL
4.1 PROJECT COST/BILLING
Our charges are based on actual time spent by our consultants at their established billing rates,
plus reimbursable expenses incurred in conjunction with travel, printing, clerical, and support
services related to the engagement. We will undertake this study for the “not-to-exceed” total
costs presented below.
4.1.1 Overall Project Cost
Hourly Fees of Project
Team
Reimbursable
Expenses
Administration
(5% of Hourly Fees)
Total Citygate Project
Amount
$60,575 (331 hours) $4,896 $3,029 $68,500
Cost Options
Our Work Plan describes several options for obtaining additional employee input and resident
feedback. The cost for these options is presented below.
Option Cost
Employee Survey $5,000
Resident Survey $5,000
Total With All Options $78,500
4.2 CITYGATE COST AND BILLING TERMS
The price quoted above is effective for 30 days from the date of receipt for this proposal and
includes one (1) draft cycle as described in Task 5 of our Work Plan to be completed by Citygate
and the City within 10 working days. Additional Draft Report cycles or processing delays
requested by the City would be billed in addition to the contracted amount at our time and
materials rates. When changes are agreed upon, Citygate will provide up to six (6) bound color
copies of the Final Reports and one (1) reproducible master copy on CD-ROM. The Draft
Reports will be considered to be Final if there are no suggested changes within thirty (30) days
of the delivery of the Draft Reports.
If the City decides to delay our final presentation in Task 6 after acceptance of the final work
products, Citygate will accommodate such a request, but will charge two administrative hours
per month to keep the project in suspense until the presentation is delivered. If this causes the
7.a
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Proposal to Perform a Comprehensive Services Delivery and Staffing Review
Section 4—Pricing Proposal page 30
billing to exceed the contracted amount, the City will be billed for the additional hours above the
contracted amount.
We will bill monthly for time, reimbursable expenses incurred at actual costs (travel), plus a five
percent (5%) administration charge in lieu of individual charges for copies, phone, etc. Our
invoices are payable within thirty (30) days. Citygate’s billing terms are net thirty (30) days plus
two percent (2%) for day thirty-one (31) and two percent (2%) per month thereafter. Our practice
is to send both our monthly status report and invoice electronically. Once we are selected for this
project, we will request the email for the appropriate recipients of the electronic documents. Hard
copies of these documents will be provided only upon request. We prefer to receive payment by
direct deposit, if available.
We request that ten percent (10%) of the project cost be advanced at the execution of the
contract, to be used to offset our start-up costs. This advance would be credited to our last
invoice.
4.3 STANDARD HOURLY BILLING RATES
Classification Rate Consultant
Citygate President $ 225 per hour David DeRoos
Public Safety Principal and Local
Knowledge Connection $ 250 per hour Stewart Gary
Law Enforcement Services Senior
Specialist and Project Director $ 225 per hour Sam Spiegel
Law Enforcement Services Specialist
and Project Manager $ 175 per hour James Lewis
Citygate Principal $ 210 per hour Jay Corey
Statistical and Operational Analysis
Associate $ 170 per hour Eric Lind
Report Project Administrator $ 125 per hour Chad Jackson
Administrative $ 95 per hour Various
7.a
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
APPENDIX A
CODE OF ETHICS
7.a
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
Appendix A—Code of Ethics Page 1
CODE OF ETHICS
CLIENTS
1. We will serve our clients with integrity, competence, and objectivity.
2. We will keep client information and records of client engagements confidential and will use proprietary client information only with the client’s permission.
3. We will not take advantage of confidential client information for ourselves or our firms.
4. We will not allow conflicts of interest which provide a competitive advantage to one client through our use of confidential information from another client who is a direct competitor without that competitor’s permission.
ENGAGEMENTS
5. We will accept only engagements for which we are qualified by our experience and competence.
6. We will assign staff to client engagements in accord with their experience, knowledge, and expertise.
7. We will immediately acknowledge any influences on our objectivity to our clients and will offer to withdraw from a consulting engagement when our objectivity or integrity may be impaired.
FEES
8. We will agree independently and in advance on the basis for our fees and expenses and will charge fees and expenses that are reasonable, legitimate, and commensurate with the services we deliver and the responsibility we accept.
9. We will disclose to our clients in advance any fees or commissions that we will receive for equipment, supplies or services we recommend to our clients.
PROFESSION
10. We will respect the intellectual property rights of our clients, other consulting firms, and sole practitioners and will not use proprietary information or methodologies without permission.
11. We will not advertise our services in a deceptive manner and will not misrepresent the consulting profession, consulting firms, or sole practitioners.
12. We will report violations of this Code of Ethics.
The Council of Consulting Organizations, Inc. Board of Directors approved this Code of Ethics on January 8, 1991. The Institute of Management Consultants (IMC) is a division of the Council of Consulting Organizations, Inc.
7.a
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
APPENDIX B
PROJECT TEAM RESUMES
7.a
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
Appendix B—Project Team Resumes Page 1
CITYGATE ASSOCIATES, LLC CHIEF SAMUEL L. SPIEGEL, MA
Sam Spiegel retired as Chief of Police and Director of Emergency Services for the City of
Folsom, California in November of 2010. He served in that capacity for over nine and a half
years. During his tenure as Chief, he also served as the interim City Manager / Assistant City
Manager. A 39-year veteran in law enforcement, he is recognized as a successful leader and
problem solver with strong organizational and leadership development skills. He has proven
experience working with community groups, labor unions, city departments, developers, City
Councils, and both state and federal legislators.
Throughout his tenure in law enforcement, he performed a myriad of assignments, and is a
recognized subject matter expert on Pursuit Policy and Emergency / Critical Incident
Management. He has instructed and assisted in the development of many training programs that
included Employee and Leadership Development, Continuous Improvement Teams, Interest
Based Negotiating, Pursuit Policy Guidelines, Internal Affairs Investigations, High Risk Stops,
Role of the Executive Assistant to the Chief, and Crime Prevention Through Environmental
Design. He has worked extensively on Economic Development, Business Retention, and
Planning issues in fast-paced developing communities.
He holds a Master’s Degree in Management, a Bachelor’s Degree in Criminal Justice, his State
teaching credential, and is a graduate of the P.O.S.T. Command College and the FBI National
Academy.
Until his retirement, Chief Spiegel was the Chairman of the Law and Legislative Committee for
the California Police Chiefs Association, Past-President of the California Peace Officers
Association, and former member of the California Homeland Security Public Safety Advisory
Council. He has ten years service to the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, 9-1-1
Advisory Committee, a gubernatorial appointment. He previously served six years as a member
of the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training Advisory Committee.
Locally, he was the Chairman of the Sacramento Operational Area for emergency preparedness
and response, and a member of the Administrative Authority that reviews and awards grant
funding for the region.
Appointed in April of 2001, Chief Spiegel guided the growth and development of the Folsom
Police Department (FPD) from a small agency of forty-seven sworn officers to a mid-size
organization with a staff of ninety sworn personnel. During his tenure, the reputation of the
Department expanded as the leadership developed and professionalism grew. The Department is
highly regarded statewide for its innovation and expansive programs, both in the community and
public safety profession. With members of the Department now serving on State Training
committees and as faculty members for instructional institutions, FPD serves as a training
component in the innovative Patrol Training Officer Program, regarded as the premiere training
model for police officers.
Under Chief Spiegel’s leadership, the Law Enforcement Service Delivery Plan model was
created. It is still used today to guide the growth of Folsom Police Department. Other innovative
programs included the Continuous Improvement Team, Folsom Mounted Unit, Honor Guard,
Commercial Enforcement Program, Community Clergy Group, Advisory Committee on
Homeless in Folsom and many others. The City of Folsom has been the safest community in
Sacramento County for several recent years. Chief Spiegel credits that to the dedication of the
7.a
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
Appendix B—Project Team Resumes Page 2
men and woman of the Police Department and the tremendous support and collaboration of the
community.
Related Experience Includes:
Currently serving as Law Enforcement Services Senior Specialist and Project
Manager to perform a comprehensive services delivery and staffing review for the
City of Eloy, AZ.
Currently serving as Law Enforcement Services Senior Specialist and Project
Manager to perform a comprehensive services delivery and staffing review for the
Monterey County Sheriff’s Department.
Served as Police Services Senior Specialist to perform a comprehensive public
safety deployment and performance review of the Police and Fire Departments for
the City of Glendale, AZ.
Recently served as Project Manager to perform a survey and cost comparison for
recently constructed public safety facilities/projects for the City of Claremont.
Served as Law Enforcement Practice Leader for a fire and police service impacts
for the Millbrae Station area plan.
Currently serving as Law Enforcement Senior Specialist to conduct a
comprehensive community risk assessment, Standards of Cover Study and station
location and fire services deployment study for the City of Sunnyvale Public
Safety Department.
Professional Experience Includes:
2001 – 2010, Chief of Police, City of Folsom, California
Jan 1 – Oct 15, 2006, Assistant City Manager, City Manager, Chief of
Police, City of Folsom – During this period of time, in addition to Chief of
Police, was responsible for overall operations and oversight of all
departments in the City as City Manager. FY budget was $193.3 million;
$58.7 million for the General Fund, $41.3 million for Enterprise Fund
operations, $28 million for Special Revenue Funds, $12.4 million for Debt
Service Funds, and $37.9 million for Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
projects.
Chief of Police – Responsible for the planning, direction and review of all
facets of the Police Department and City policing programs. Provided
leadership and administrative direction in accordance with Federal, State
and local laws; implemented leadership program for professional
development and succession planning. Oversight of activities and
operation of the Police Department law enforcement investigations,
community policing, protection of life and property, crime prevention,
administrative support services, community outreach and public relations.
Coordinated assigned activities with other City departments and outside
agencies; updated the City-wide Emergency Operations Plan; assuming
the responsibilities as the Emergency Services Director. Provided highly
7.a
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
Appendix B—Project Team Resumes Page 3
responsible and complex administrative support to the City Manager;
exercised direct technical and functional supervisor over sworn, technical,
and clerical staff.
Supervised and participated in the development and administration of the
Police Department budget; selected, trained, motivated, and evaluated
personnel; created the Continuous Improvement Team – a cross-section
representation of all levels in the Department empowered to address, solve
and implement changes for the overall improvement of the Department
and its service to the community. Maintained and fostered positive
community relations; cooperated with local and regional law enforcement.
Was actively involved in regional law enforcement issues, training, and
collaborations. Championed diversity in the community and work place,
maintaining open, accessible and sincere communications with employees,
labor unions, department heads, community groups, and City Council.
Maintained strong presence in the community working collaboratively to
enhance the quality of life in Folsom. Annual budget: $20,000,000.
1996 – 2001, Captain, City of Corona, California
Division Commander, Administrative Services Division – which includes
Communications, Records, Administration, Community Relations - Crime
Prevention, Volunteer Services, Personnel and Training, Computer
Services, Development Plan Review, Grant Administration, Budget
Development and Fiscal Management of annual budget. Field Services
Division – (106 total personnel) which has included Community Policing
Patrol, Canine Teams, Special Response Team (SWAT), FLEX Team
(formerly Street Problem Solving & Gang Detail), Problem Oriented
Policing Team, Traffic, Reserves, Field Training Officer Program and
Mounted Unit.
1985 – 1996, Police Lieutenant, City of Corona, California - Bureau Commander
Responsible for one of six major bureaus of a department of 200 full-time
employees; performed duties of acting captain. Responsibilities included:
presentations before City committees and civic groups; department budget
development and management; administrative review and discipline; legal
liaison with city attorney; conducted sensitive internal investigations
related to city liability; field operations (patrol, traffic, special events,
canines) and criminal investigations; crime prevention; personnel hiring
and training, records and communications, professional standards and
planning. Significant achievements included: design and implementation
of Community Policing community office; assisted in design and
implementation of Department’s strategic plan; writing of federal and state
grants; initiated, developed, and delivered community policing-problem
solving training department-wide; design of department rules, regulations
and policies; enhancement of department radio/communications system;
developed, designed, and implemented critical incident/disaster plan,
protocol and training.
7.a
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
Appendix B—Project Team Resumes Page 4
1982 – 1985, Police Sergeant, City of Corona, California
Patrol & Traffic Sergeant, acting lieutenant and watch commander;
supervised traffic officers and related investigations; developed and
managed traffic citation/records system; served as liaison with city traffic
engineer on circulation planning; coordinated Department's responses to
developmental plan reviews with City planning; coordinated training of
personnel; developed training programs; conducted personnel
investigations; conducted disaster preparedness; coordinated hazardous
materials response; prepared budgets.
1974 – 1982, Police Cadet / Officer / Deputy Sheriff / Detective, City of
Corona/County of Riverside, California
Assigned to a variety of positions including Schools, Dispatch, Patrol,
Traffic and Commercial Enforcement, Traffic Accident Investigation and
Criminal Investigation.
Administrative assignments included developing municipal code
ordinances relating to traffic.
Crimes Persons and Property Detective, responsible for investigation of
major crimes including narcotics investigation; development of special
funding plans for equipment acquisition; initiated, developed and
implemented criminal intelligence program; trained new detectives; and
developed expertise as an expert witness in court.
Specific Achievements and/or Experience:
Emergency Operations Plan
Mobile Command & Communications Unit
Updating to equipment and technologies / Standardization of firearms
Dispatch upgrade
Expanding the Volunteer Program to encompass the Fire Service and CERT
Public Safety Awards and Community Recognition events
Special Activities and Awards:
Appointed by Governor Schwarzenegger to State 9-1-1 Advisory Committee
Chair, Sacramento Operational Area Council
Member six years, Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training,
Advisory Committee
Member, Governor’s Office of Homeland Security Advisory Council
Police Chief of the Year 2003 Presented by WE-TIP National
Member, C.L.E.T.S. Advisory Board – California Law Enforcement
Telecommunications System
7.a
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
Appendix B—Project Team Resumes Page 5
Presenter, League of California Cities – “Collaborative Efforts of Public Safety
and Public Works Departments”
Presenter, League of California Cities – “Collaborative Efforts of Public Safety in
the face of Terrorism”
Presenter, Views from the FBI, L.E.T.N., Standardized Emergency Management
Systems
Subject Matter Expert; Pursuit Driving Guidelines, California Commission on
P.O.S.T.
Presenter, California Commission on P.O.S.T. Chiefs, Sheriffs and Command
Officers Course, Standardized Emergency Management System, Palm Springs,
CA
Member, Riverside County Multi-Casualty Incident Planning Task Force
Presenter, California Commission on P.O.S.T. Chiefs, Sheriffs and Command
Officers Courses, New Technologies Facing Law Enforcement, Incident
Command System for Executive Staff
California Legislature; Certificates of Appreciation
American Legion, Citation for Aircraft Crash Rescue
Professional Affiliations:
American Leadership Forum
Former Law & Legislative Chairman - California Police Chiefs Association
Past President, Executive Board Member, California Peace Officers' Association
Command College Alumni Association
FBI National Academy Associates
California Public Radio Association
California Law Enforcement Association of Records Supervisors
American Radio Relay League
Police Legal Advisors, California Peace Officers Association
Corona Police Officers' Association, Former Vice-President
National Airborne Law Enforcement Association
International Association of Chiefs of Police
7.a
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
Appendix B—Project Team Resumes Page 6
CITYGATE ASSOCIATES, LLC JAMES E. LEWIS, UNDERSHERIFF
Undersheriff James (Jamie) Lewis was hired by the Sacramento County Sheriff’s department in
April 1985. Serving more than 30 years with Sacramento County, James has held assignments in
virtually every division of the Department, including commands in air operations, patrol, and
security services. Currently serving as the Undersheriff, James is responsible for day to day
operation of a staff of approximately 2100 employees, 1390 of which are sworn, serving a
population of 1.2 million citizens in a jurisdiction covering more than 700 square miles. James’
expertise spans the myriad of law enforcement functions with an emphasis on corrections, public
relations, and patrol operations.
Serving for more than 6 years as the Chief Deputy in charge of Corrections and Court Security,
James was responsible for managing two traditional incarceration facilities with an average daily
population of 4100 inmates and a jail staff of more than 600, in addition to an alternative to
traditional custody operation with an average daily population of more than 2000, which includes
Work Project, Home Detention, and alternative sentencing.
James was on the forefront of implementing the department’s response to realignment, and for
the first four years following the passage of AB-109, served as the Co-Chair to the region’s
Community Corrections Partnership (CCP). As the Co-Chair, James oversaw an influx to the
Sheriff’s Department of more than 68 percent of the CCP allocation to enhance existing and
establish new inmate programs directed at reducing recidivism. These educational, vocational,
and rehabilitative programs, which exist today, maximize opportunities for offenders to
successfully reintegrate back into the community.
James has a Bachelor’s degree in Law Enforcement Management, and is a graduate of the LAPD
West Point Leadership program.
Related Experience Includes:
Currently serving as Corrections and Law Enforcement Services Specialist to
perform a comprehensive services delivery and staffing review for the Monterey
County Sheriff’s Department.
Currently serving as Law Enforcement Services Specialist to perform a
comprehensive services delivery and staffing review for the City of Eloy, AZ.
7.a
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
Appendix B—Project Team Resumes Page 7
CITYGATE ASSOCIATES, LLC JAY M. COREY, MPA
Mr. Corey is a Principal with Citygate Associates. He has served at the senior executive level in
cities for over 30 years. Mr. Corey specializes in organizational structure and staffing issues,
financial stabilization plans, municipal wealth creation, and performance management. He
began his association with Citygate in 1999, taking leave in 2002 to be of service to the City of
Richmond as Assistant City Manager, Acting Finance Director and Interim City Manager. Mr.
Corey has been highly involved in performance management and performance measurement,
budgeting, scheduling, workload balancing, costing, contracting out, coordination with
developers, and delivery of complex development projects. Mr. Corey specializes in strategic
financial planning and interdepartmental coordination. Mr. Corey holds a Master’s degree in
public administration (MPA) from the University of Southern California. He received his
undergraduate education from the University of California, Davis, with a Bachelor’s degree in
political science.
Related Experience Includes:
Served as team leader in developing an award-winning, comprehensive five-year
capital improvement program (CIP) for the fastest growing city in the state of
California (Brentwood). In order to facilitate policy decisions, the CIP included
detailed Prioritization Criteria and a Performance Accountability Strategy. The
CIP earned the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers Award and
National Government Finance Officers Association Award of Merit.
Currently serving as Citygate Principal to perform a comprehensive services
delivery and staffing review for the City of Eloy, AZ.
Served as Project Manager for an organizational assessment of the City of San
Luis Obispo Community Development Department including the Economic
Development Program. Mr. Corey then provided technical assistance for
implementation of the Community Development Department’s Strategic Action
Plan.
Served as Project Manager for an organizational analysis and strategic plan for the
Community and Economic Development Department for the City of Salinas, CA.
Served as Project Manager for a citywide organizational and staffing review for
the City of Albany, CA. The purpose of the study was to review the City’s
organizational structure to investigate potential cost savings and service
improvements and to develop strategies for providing services in a tight fiscal
environment.
Served as the Project Manager for a citywide management assessment of the City
of Covina, California. The municipal departments included in this assessment
were: City Manager’s Office; Redevelopment and Housing; Parks and Recreation;
Development Services; Public Works; Finance; the City Clerk office; Personnel
and Risk Management; and the City Library.
Served as Project manager and Lead Consultant for a management audit for the
City of Pasadena Housing and Community Development Agency (HCDA). The
study involved a comprehensive review of the Agency including service delivery
7.a
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
Appendix B—Project Team Resumes Page 8
capabilities, resource allocation/management, use of automated support,
organizational structure, and related areas. The project also included a focused
review of the City’s development review procedures and systems. The report
identified over 60 recommendations for operational and management
improvements.
Served as Project Manager for Citygate’s performance review of the Community
Development Department for the City of Modesto, CA. Separately, Citygate
provided redevelopment and economic development technical assistance services
for the City of Modesto.
Served as Project Manager for the Fresno Redevelopment Agency’s Historic
Chinatown Project.
Served as Project Manager for Citygate’s performance audit of Sacramento
County’s Planning and Environmental Review and Assessment departments.
Served as Principal Consultant for a two-phased study in which Citygate
conducted extensive interviews regarding the effectiveness of Salt Lake City’s
planning program and processes, and based on issues identified in Phase I,
performed a detailed analysis of the planning program in Phase II.
Served as Project Manager for Citygate’s efficiency review of the Development
Permitting Programs in the Planning and Engineering Operations for the City of
Pittsburg, CA. The objective of this study was to provide an analysis of the
policies, procedures, management and operations of these development permitting
programs as they exist, and to design a creative strategy for improvement, if
needed.
Served as team leader for development of five-year capital and operating plans for
municipal water, wastewater, and solid waste operations serving what was at the
time the most rapidly growing city in the State of California. The three plans
included identification of all fixed assets, life cycle costing, development of full-
cost accounting, capital facility replacement, and successful justification of
substantial multi-year rate increases to cover operating and plant expansion costs.
Served as Project Manager for Citygate’s organizational and functional analysis
of the Department of Planning and Land Use and associated land development
services for San Diego County, CA.
Assembled and led the team of experts that developed the City of Richmond (CA)
Financial Recovery Plan which set the course for the City to eliminate its
massive operating deficit and cash flow problem. The Bond Buyer in January,
2005 reported “Moody’s Investors Service restored Richmond, California’s issuer
credit rating to investment grade this week, citing a financial turnaround for the
San Francisco Bay area city a year after it discovered a $35 million budget
deficit.”
Developed a Three-year Extraordinary Financial Plan for a Southern California
municipality (Fontana) that was facing a $13.9 million operating deficit in its $44
million general fund.
7.a
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
Appendix B—Project Team Resumes Page 9
Served as team leader in the successful structuring and issuance of over
$500,000,000 in tax exempt bonds for various projects including community
facilities (police and fire stations, city halls), streets and roads, water and
wastewater facilities, affordable housing, and economic development projects.
Served as project manager for planning and development of a 44-acre civic center
complex.
7.a
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
Appendix B—Project Team Resumes Page 10
COMM CENTER SOLUTIONS LYNN A. FREEMAN
Lynn A. Freeman is one of the principal consultants/co-founders of Comm Center Solutions. In
addition to consulting, Lynn holds the position of Deputy Director of the Critical Support and
Logistics Division for the Simi Valley Police Department. Lynn has worked for the Simi Valley
Police Department for 37 years in a variety of assignments. She started in the dispatch center as a
Public Safety 9-1-1 Dispatcher, promoted to Communications Manager and then most recently to
Deputy Director. Reporting directly to the Chief of Police, Lynn is responsible for administrative
oversight of five civilian units including: Communications (9-1-1/Dispatch), Crime Analysis,
Fiscal, Records Management, and Fleet and Facility Management. Lynn is tasked with
development and implementation of Department’s $29 million budget and directs staff of 40
employees, including five managers.
Previously, she was the communications manager at Simi Valley Police Department, a position
Lynn held from 1990 to 2013, Lynn was responsible for oversight of day-to-day operations of the
Communications Unit. In 2012, Lynn served as project co-manager for $1.6 million, highly
complex, highly efficient, fully redundant, multi-agency, regional Next Generation 9-1-1 system
serving four different locations.
Lynn has built dispatch centers literally from the ground up, including a new facility in 1998 and
the total remodel of communication centers with the most recent in 2012. In addition, Lynn has
managed a multitude of projects and upgrades, including implementation of two computer aided
dispatch (CAD) systems, voice logging recorders, 9-1-1 systems, and satellite/back-up facility.
While the communications manager, Lynn developed new positions in the Center, including shift
supervisors, initiated job-sharing opportunities, and secured part-time assistance.
Lynn was employed as a civil litigation paralegal for a personal injury law firm from 1981 to 2007.
Lynn’s responsibilities included assisting attorneys with personal injury and medical malpractice
litigation, managing a caseload of over 200 clients. Lynn’s duties included preparing court
documents, conducting research, and client communications.
Lynn is a certified Emergency Number Professional, holds a Center Manager Certificate, Public
Safety Telecommunications Certificate and Civil Litigation Certificate. Lynn’s formal education
accomplishments include an Associate’s Degree in Administrative of Justice, and Bachelor’s and
Master’s degrees in Emergency Management, with a minor in Public Safety Telecommunications.
Professional Experience Includes:
2013 – Present, Co-founder & Principal Consultant, Comm Center Solutions
Providing consulting services through comprehensive analysis to develop
realistic solutions for issues challenging public safety communications
centers and civilian law enforcement personnel.
1977 – Present, Simi Valley Police Department
Deputy Director – Police Administration, Critical Support & Logistics
(2012 – Present) – Reporting directly to the Chief of Police, responsible
for administrative oversight of five civilian units including:
Communications (9-1-1/Dispatch), Crime Analysis, Fiscal, Records
Management, and Fleet and Facility Management.
7.a
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
Appendix B—Project Team Resumes Page 11
Communications Manager (1990 – 2012) – Responsible for oversight of
day-to-day operations of the Communications Unit and all personnel
issues.
Dispatcher/Training Dispatcher (1977 – 1990) – Received, processed, and
dispatched police calls for service. Assisted officers and citizens. Trained
new personnel.
1981 – 2007 – L.M. Schulner & Associates
Civil Litigation Paralegal – Assisted attorneys with personal injury and
medical malpractice litigation.
Specific Achievements and/or Experience:
Communications Center walk-station implementation, 2009
Routing on Empirical Data (RED) project to reroute wireless 9-1-1 calls, 2006 –
2011
Operation Unveil, Opening of Air Force One at Reagan Library, 2005
Operation Serenade, President Reagan’s Funeral, 2004
Developed Tactical Dispatcher Team, 2002
Coordinated Alternate Public Safety Answer Point, East County Sheriff’s Station,
2000
Implemented Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) systems, 1994 and 2004
Developed Senior Dispatcher rank, 1997
Supervised installation of original 9-1-1 system, 1983
Managed Communications Center remodels, 1983, 1998, and 2012
Special Activities and Awards:
Meritorious Service Award, Chief’s Award, Simi Valley Police Department, 2010
Leadership Simi Valley, graduate, 2010
Civilian of the Year, Simi Valley Police Department, 2006
Chaired Recognition Committee, 2001 – 2009
Professional Affiliations:
National Emergency Number Association (NENA)
Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials, International (APCO)
Municipal Management Association of Southern California
7.a
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
Appendix B—Project Team Resumes Page 12
COMM CENTER SOLUTIONS DANITA L. CROMBACH
Recognizing a void in public safety 9-1-1 professional consultants and specialists, Danita and her
partner formed an all-inclusive consulting agency to address any and all issues in public safety
communications centers. Specializing in providing public safety agencies with an array of services
to meet the increasing challenges in today’s public safety communications, Comm Center
Solutions’ expertise includes personnel issues, operations, staffing, investigations, incident
reconstruction, quality assurance, Next Generation 9-1-1, and project management. Comm Center
Solutions offers balanced, insightful, and tested solutions for 9-1-1 challenges. With over 70 years
of combined service in dispatch centers, Comm Center Solutions’ experience is unmatched.
Danita L. Crombach is one of the principle consultants/co-founders of Comm Center Solutions.
Danita is widely recognized as a leader in many areas of public safety communications. Danita has
been actively involved in organizations such as the National Emergency Number Association
(NENA), most recently as President of the California chapter of NENA (CALNENA). She is a
Senior Member with the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials, International
(APCO), and served as Secretary for the Southern California chapter (CPRA). Danita has also been
involved with the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) and, at POST’s
request, has participated in many committees, most notably as the POST Region 8 (Ventura
County, Santa Barbara County and San Luis Obispo County) Representative on the Public Safety
Dispatcher Advisory Council (PSDAC). After completing her term, Danita was asked to remain on
the PSDAC as a legislative advisor and as a member of the Best Practices Committee.
In her role as CALNENA President, Danita ignited a groundswell of action within the public safety
communications industry, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the wireless
service providers with a filing that demonstrated a radical reduction in the delivery of accurate
wireless 9-1-1 caller information in recent years. As a result, FCC workshops were conducted,
meetings were held, and proposed rules are nearing implementation. Once finalized, the FCC will
have the ability to take enforcement action with wireless service providers that do not comply with
the rules in the specified timeline and provide the best level of service available to the public.
Danita has also worked closely with the California State 9-1-1 Office as a member of the Working
Group and has twice been involved in determining the funding model that is used to disseminate
State Emergency Telephone Number Account (SETNA) funds to California public safety
answering points (PSAPs). With a long-standing, and well deserved, reputation for partnership,
creativity and success, Danita has routinely been called upon by the State 9-1-1 Office to spearhead
pilot projects such as a $1.6 million state-of-the-art Next Generation 9-1-1 Regional Hosted
Solution in Ventura County that included four PSAPs and the Routing on Empirical Data (RED)
project to reroute wireless 9-1-1 calls to the appropriate PSAP.
In her last assignment as the communications manager with the Ventura County Sheriff’s Office,
Danita instituted a wide variety of changes and programs—all designed to enhance efficiency and
employee retention, while improving service to the public. To begin with, she replaced a sworn
captain as the Department’s first civilian manager—something she had previously done with
Inglewood Police and Fire Departments. She promptly replaced the sergeants with civilian
supervisors and restructured the chain of command. Danita also updated and eventually replaced
the computer aided dispatch (CAD) system. After overseeing fundamental and innovative changes
to recruiting and training, Danita secured significant, warranted increases in employee
7.a
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
Appendix B—Project Team Resumes Page 13
compensation. Once implemented, these changes helped recruit and retain a staff of more than 35,
including two managers and six supervisors.
Danita’s project management skills were initially developed as a supervisor with the Oxnard Police
and Fire Departments, when the communications center was moved to a new location within the
building. Following that, she was recruited and joined the project management team with the San
Jose Police and Fire Departments as they built their communications center from the ground up. As
a participant in this project, Danita worked with a team tasked with everything from equipment,
furniture and carpet selection to recruiting, hiring, and training a team of more than 190
telecommunicators, trainers, and supervisors from across the United States.
Danita is a long-standing certified Emergency Number Professional, holds a Center Manager
Certificate, Academy Instructor Certificate, Public Safety Telecommunications Certificate, and
numerous certificates for course completion specific to public safety communications and
leadership. She was instrumental in the development of the California POST 120-hour Basic
Dispatcher Course and has been a presenter at basic, intermediate, and advanced courses.
Professional Experience Includes:
2013-Present – Co-founder & Principal Consultant, Comm Center Solutions
Providing consulting services through comprehensive analysis to develop
realistic solutions for issues challenging public safety communications
centers.
1997-2014 – Communications Manager, Ventura County Sheriff’s Office
Responsible for oversight of day-to-day operations of the Communications
Center, with 35 employees, serving more than 350,000 people in five
contract cities and the unincorporated areas of Ventura County.
Collaborate with allied agency managers, State 9-1-1 Office
representatives, POST and others. Project co-manager on $1.6 million
Next Generation 9-1-1 Regional Hosted Solution. Project manager on
facility reconfiguration and upgrade in 2012. Managed projects to replace
and upgrade CAD systems, 9-1-1 phone systems, voice logging recorders,
and facility design.
1994-1997 – Communications Manager, Inglewood Police & Fire Departments
Responsible for managing daily operations and long-term planning for a
consolidated police and fire 9-1-1 emergency communications center with
23 employees and $1.2 million budget. Introduced 9-1-1 for Kids
program, implemented a quality assurance program, developed
performance standards, revised operations training manual, revised
policies and procedures manual, and replaced divisional recruitment,
testing, and selection process. Completed a $750,000 communications
center renovation, which included procuring new radio and telephone
equipment, as well as ergonomic furniture.
1992-1994 – Director of Operations, A & R Financial and Insurance
Recruited to oversee business operations of a financial services agency
with sole responsibility for improving efficiency and professionalism.
7.a
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
Appendix B—Project Team Resumes Page 14
Responsible for quality assurance, customer service, and coordinating
reporting procedures to the Peace Officers Research Association of
California (PORAC).
1989-1992 – Public Safety Communications Instructor, San Jose Police & Fire
Departments
Member of the original management team responsible for the multi-
million dollar development and start-up of the new San Jose Police and
Fire Communications Center (co-located). Also responsible for providing
supervision and formal classroom training for 190 public safety
communications employees of all levels and coordinating the Critical
Incident Stress Debriefing (CISD) program and the Communications
Training Officer (CTO) permanent curriculum committee. Responsible for
budget forecasting, course development, scheduling, labor relations,
evaluation of students, and recruiting and selecting new employees.
1989-1992 – Instructor (Part-time), Ventura College, West Valley College,
Evergreen College
Instructor for various POST-certified courses including topics such as
ethics, leadership, evaluation procedures, presentation skills, negligent
performance, communication skills, and telephone/radio procedures.
1982-1989 – Public Safety Dispatch Supervisor, Oxnard Police and Fire
Departments
Participated in consolidation of police and fire communications center.
Responsible for supervising up to five dispatchers in a consolidated
police/fire communications center. Created and implemented
communications training officer (CTO) program. Developed policies and
procedures.
Specific Achievements and/or Experience:
Influenced FCC rulemaking on the timely delivery of accurate caller location
information on wireless 9-1-1 calls
Appointed to the POST Public Safety Dispatcher Advisory Council, Region 8
Representative, Legislative Representative and Best Practices Committee
Appointed to State 9-1-1 Office Working Group to review current funding model
Elected and served as President of the California chapter of the National
Emergency Number Association (NENA)
Reduced overtime by $200,000 in early 2010 when compared to 2009
Participated as the Beta, and follow-up, site for the State of California’s Routing
on Empirical Data (RED) project
In response to emergency evacuation, oversaw renovation of a warehouse and
relocated the Sheriff’s Communications Center within 32 days, April 2006
Retained staffing by securing a 42% pay increase for dispatchers in July 2006
7.a
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
Appendix B—Project Team Resumes Page 15
Replaced the CAD system in 2002
Civilianized the supervisor positions in the SCC in 2000
Coordinated Alternate Public Safety Answer Point, East County Sheriff’s Station,
2000
Completed $750,000 communications center renovation in Inglewood within
budget and on time
Developed and implemented the San Jose Communications Training Officer
(CTO) program
Special Activities and Awards:
2009 nominee for “Superior Customer Service” and “Integrity” Management
Council Awards
2008 nominee for “Integrity” Management Council Award
Profiled in APCO, International, Magazine, January 2007
2006 Public Servant of the Year, Camarillo Chamber of Commerce
2002 recipient of the “Mentoring” Management Council Award
1996 Employee of the Year, Inglewood Police Department
Received the San Jose Police Department’s Special Achievement Award for
developing and coordinating the Communications Critical Incident Stress
Debriefing (CISD) team
Received a California State Senate Commendation in 1989 for developing a CTO
program, recruiting program and founding the Tri-Counties Communications
Association
Professional Affiliations:
National Emergency Number Association (NENA), President California chapter
(active since 1996)
Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials, International (APCO),
Senior Member and former Secretary of California chapter (active since 1986)
POST Public Safety Dispatcher Advisory Council (2010 – Present)
7.a
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
Appendix B—Project Team Resumes Page 16
CITYGATE ASSOCIATES, LLC ERIC LIND, MA
Eric’s 18 years’ experience spans several industries, including two years in municipal
government as a performance improvement analyst. His municipal government experience has
largely focused on public safety performance improvement projects. He has performed an
administrative performance assessment of civilian police staff, a fire facilities location study, and
an alternative fire service delivery modeling. He has developed baseline system-wide EMS
response time capability and testing alternative models, reviewed MPDS systems and dispatch
priorities for EMS systems, and improved Fire/EMS dispatch process flow.
Eric has used performance improvement and business transformation techniques throughout his
career across the globe. He is skilled with developing and conducting statistical research to
answer operations questions. He is equally comfortable with survey research. Eric has two
published survey research papers; including one he developed for Rotary International.
Eric is a Lean Six Sigma Certified Black Belt and has a Bachelors and two Masters Degrees in
International Business; each from a different country.
Relevant Experience Includes:
Currently serving as Statistical and Operational Analysis Associate to perform a
comprehensive services delivery and staffing review for the City of Eloy, AZ.
Currently serving as Statistical and Operational Analysis Associate to provide
EMS System Consultation Services for the Alameda County Health Care Services
Agency.
Performed an administrative performance assessment of civilian police staff.
Modeled baseline system-wide EMS response time capability and testing
alternative models.
Analyzed and reviewed MPDS systems and dispatch priorities for EMS systems.
Analyzed and improved of Fire/EMS dispatch process flow.
Experience:
Performance Analyst
City of Vancouver, WA September 2012 – August 2014
Worked with directors across the city to obtain requirements for business
transformation projects and led the development, testing, and implementation of
business solutions. Provided training to 200+ city staff on Lean Six-Sigma
concepts and tools, including the DMAIC method, statistical process control,
hypothesis testing, and others.
Worked closely with the Police chief and his staff to review several administrative
functions with the goal of staffing the East Precinct front desk within existing
budget constraints. Analysis revealed that the purchasing, inventory, and grants
management functions could be simplified and reconfigured in order to staff the
East Precinct front desk with no additional labor cost.
7.a
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
Appendix B—Project Team Resumes Page 17
Worked closely with the Fire Chief and key staff to define objectives for business
transformation projects:
Use SUVs to respond to medical calls reduce response time and cost, and
maintain/ improve the quality of patient care. Although test results were
favorable, alternative tactical configurations were recommended to
improve results, and will be tested this year.
Assess the optimum composition, configuration, and geographic
placement of fire stations given population growth, call volume and
location, and budgetary constraints. Results revealed that moving two fire
stations would improve response time for critical service areas as well as
improve tactical capability.
Worked with city and county partners to examine Clawson code types and
prioritize them appropriately. For example, assaults and attempted suicides
were reduced from priority 1 to priority 2 because police must secure the
scene prior to EMS providing service.
Conducted a variety of full life-cycle survey projects from birth-to-earth
including: identifying research questions, survey development, data gathering and
cleanup, analysis, interpretation, and making recommendations.
With the CFO and finance team, scoped and defined a project aimed at reducing
error and cycle time in the Procure-to-Pay process.
Trained and led a team of fire department analysts on the scientific method to help
them execute pilot projects successfully from problem definition to solution
implementation.
Volunteer Research Analyst
Rotary International, Evanston, IL. May 2011 – December 2011
In collaboration with the CIO and Rotarians across the world, completed a full-
scale global marketing research study to determine how Rotary International
might better leverage social media technology to help Rotarian volunteers be
more effective in their Rotary work.
Worked with Rotary’s Chief Information Officer to identify the research question
and develop a scientifically robust survey instrument for testing.
Rotarians were interviewed to develop a qualitative framework of concepts
relevant to the research question, and a quantitative survey instrument was
developed out of the conceptual framework.
After a pilot test of the survey, a 66 question survey was developed around 14
statistically valid and reliable constructs.
The survey was translated to seven languages, back translated, and distributed to
26,500 Rotarians world-wide, with 1100+ valid responses coming from 72
countries. A final 58-page statistical analysis with strategic recommendations was
provided to the board of directors, including that Rotary should increase its
Facebook presence because it is a significant factor (p<.000 @ 18% of the
7.a
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
Appendix B—Project Team Resumes Page 18
variance) in driving club engagement among Rotarians; particularly for Rotarians
who are involved in international, vocational, and youth service projects.
Consultant
Confidential Client, China April 2011 – August 2011
Client requested assistance with handling a variety of human resource challenges
in advance of a major acquisition-based market expansion. The focus of the
project was to identify tools and techniques to facilitate transfer of corporate
policy and processes to improve post-acquisition integration. Particular focus was
given to knowledge transfer due to Chinese labor market conditions, because job-
hopping was commonplace in China at the time.
Identified that labor market competitive advantage in the Chinese labor market
could be achieved through employee performance planning. E.g. employees with
specific objectives to achieve, coupled with corporate support in training,
motivation, and performance rewards are better equipped to retain key talent.
Demonstrated how Lean Six Sigma can foster the transfer of tacit knowledge to
explicit knowledge with careful inquiry and documentation.
Demonstrated how Lean Six-Sigma is an excellent method to measure
performance for continued employee development, knowledge management, and
process quality control.
Demonstrated how performance planning helps companies improve quality by
partnering with employees to establish mission-aligned performance goals.
Recommended enhancements to company’s corporate training & education
programs to improve the reach and effectiveness of employee training, while
simultaneously reducing training costs.
Graduate Student
ESC Rennes School of Business, Rennes, France September 2010 – April 2012
Completed a dual M.A. in International Business at ESC Rennes School of
Business (otherwise known as Ecole supérieure de Commerce de Rennes) and
Open University (Milton-Keynes, UK). Courses for both degrees were held in
France.
Project Manager
AT&T Global Network Services, Southbury, CT May 1999 – June 2010
AT&T Global Services provides virtual private network (VPN) services to
enterprise customers via its global data network backbone. The Service Delivery
team manages an average WIP of 3,500 customer projects daily, with annual
revenues of approx. $4.7 billion world-wide (as of year-end 2010). Directed daily
provisioning operations; supervising six provisioning teams consisting of 65
individuals in the U.S. Supported 130+ upstream project managers, and 100+
network engineers, in North & South America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific.
7.a
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
Appendix B—Project Team Resumes Page 19
Defined and led multiple process improvement projects with statistically
significant improvements in cycle-time and variance. Received a
Customer Service Excellence award for these improvement projects;
awarded to less than 0.1% of employees world-wide.
Developed a variety of tools and reports to help detect, control, eliminate,
and mitigate process errors, as well as improve flow and cycle time.
Used quantitative data to analyze operational trends and develop and
implement strategic quality improvement projects.
Developed and provided training to hundreds of employees in North &
South America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific.
Provided regular progress reports and presentations on quality
improvement projects to the division VP and other senior management.
Other job functions at AT&T:
Transport Manager (03-06) - Primarily responsible for ensuring delivery
of network services (circuits and PVCs) for client projects.
Circuit Build Coordinator (01-03) Primarily responsible for data circuit
engineering and circuit delivery.
Circuit Order Writer (99-01) Primarily responsible for placing vendor
purchase orders for data circuits.
Technical Service Manager
TJS Electronics & Peripherals Inc., Bradford, CT February 1997 – May 1999
Tested and assembled product for delivery. Managed product returns and
customer service for enterprise clients. Provided training and support to customers
as needed.
Slashed average daily inventories by USD $50,000 per month (or 5% of
annual revenues) through Just-In-Time/Toyota Production System
techniques.
Co-developed one of the first USB external hard discs.
Education:
M.A., INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS, Ecole Supérieure de Commerce de
Rennes, Sep ’10 – Apr ’12
M.A., INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS, Open University, Sep ’10 – Apr ’12
B.S., INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS, Quinnipiac University, Aug ’03 – Jan ‘08
Magna Cum Laude
Certificates:
Lean Six Sigma Black Belt, Pyzdek Institute LLC Sep ‘14
Lean Six-Sigma Green Belt, AT&T (Juran Institute) Oct ‘08
Lean Six-Sigma Yellow Belt, AT&T (Juran Institute) Apr ‘08
7.a
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
Appendix B—Project Team Resumes Page 20
CITYGATE ASSOCIATES, LLC DAVID C. DEROOS, CMC, MPA
Mr. DeRoos is the President of Citygate Associates. He earned his undergraduate degree in
Political Science/Public Service (Phi Beta Kappa) from the University of California, Davis and
holds a Master of Public Administration degree from the University of Southern California. Mr.
DeRoos has over five years of operational experience as a local government administrator in
budgeting, personnel, and land use planning, as well as thirty years of consulting experience
performing operations and management reviews of local government functions. Prior to becoming
a Principal in Citygate in 1991 he was a Senior Manager in the local government consulting
division of Ernst & Young.
Relevant Experience Includes:
For each of the Citygate public safety projects shown below, Mr. DeRoos
reviewed work products and was responsible for ensuring that each project was
conducted smoothly and efficiently within the schedule and budget allocated, and
that the project deliverables were in conformance to Citygate’s and the client’s
quality standards.
Served in an oversight capacity to perform a comprehensive public safety
deployment and performance review of the Police and Fire Departments for the
City of Glendale, AZ.
Currently serving in an oversight capacity to perform a comprehensive services
delivery and staffing review for the City of Eloy, AZ.
Currently serving in an oversight capacity to perform a comprehensive services
delivery and staffing review of the Monterey County Sheriff’s Department.
Served as in an oversight capacity for a Fire Master Plan and Standards of
Response Cover Deployment analysis for the City of San Luis Obispo, CA.
Served in an oversight capacity for an organizational assessment of the City of
San Luis Obispo Community Development Department. Citygate also provided
implementation assistance to the City.
Recently served in an oversight capacity to provide customer service consulting
for the Community Development Department’s Building and Safety Division for
the City of San Luis Obispo.
Served in an oversight capacity for a Management Review of the Police
Department for the City of Maricopa, AZ.
Served in an oversight capacity for Citygate’s review of the Goodyear, AZ Police
Department.
Served in an oversight capacity for a patrol division work load and alternative
scheduling plan for the Santa Monica Police Department.
Served in an oversight capacity for a law enforcement cost study for new
development for Placer County. Citygate was contracted by Placer County to
recommend a law enforcement operational plan for each of three new
7.a
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
Appendix B—Project Team Resumes Page 21
developments planned for the County: Placer Vineyards, De La Salle, and Placer
Ranch.
Served in an oversight capacity for Citygate’s high-level assessment of the
feasibility of fire agency consolidation for the cities of Monterey, Pacific Grove,
and Carmel.
Served in an oversight capacity for a police services consolidation or contract for
shared services analysis for the cities of Brea, Buena Park, Fullerton, La Habra
and Yorba Linda.
Served in an oversight capacity for the City of Rancho Cucamonga Police
Services Analysis.
Served in an oversight capacity for a police dispatch shared services analysis for
the cities of Brea, Buena Park, Fullerton, La Habra and Placentia.
Served in an oversight capacity for Citygate’s police department consolidation
feasibility assessment for the cities of Burlingame and San Mateo, CA.
Served as Project Director for California’s statewide Parole Agent III workload
and staffing study. The scope of the study involved the identification of social
service- and correctional-related tasks; the frequency and time required for
completion; the determination of required staffing levels; and the development of
formulae for determining sufficient supervisory staffing levels.
Performed eight General Management and Operations Studies for the City of
Corona’s Police Department, Fire Department, Management Services Department
(including Human Resources), Housing and Development Department, Building
and Planning Departments, Public Works Department, Utility Services
Department, and Public Library. These studies examined such crucial factors as
performance measures, organizational structure, human resource management and
allocation, department policies and procedures, strategy and planning, leadership,
operations, resource allocation, training, and management information systems.
Mr. DeRoos is a member of several professional and civic associations. He has taught for the
U.C. Davis Extension College and for graduate classes in Public Administration, Administrative
Theory and Labor Relations for Golden Gate University, and Non Profit and Association
Management for the University of Southern California. He speaks and trains frequently on the
topic of Leadership, Character and Values, and has also been a speaker for the American
Planning Association (APA), written for the California APA Newsletter and the California
Redevelopment Journal, and has been a speaker on redevelopment, Base Closures, and related
issues across the US. Mr. DeRoos holds a certificate in Public Sector Labor Management
Relations from U.C. Davis, and is a Certified Management Consultant (CMC).
7.a
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
Appendix B—Project Team Resumes Page 22
CITYGATE ASSOCIATES, LLC STEWART W. GARY, MPA
Chief Gary is the Public Safety Principal for Citygate Associates. He is currently directing the
Rancho Cucamonga police services analysis, recently directed the Hesperia partners JPA
feasibility study, and has been working on public safety studies of all types for over a decade.
Chief Gary is the retired Fire Chief of the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department in Alameda
County, California. Over the last fourteen years, he has performed over 250 organizational,
staffing, and deployment studies. He has worked with The Omega Group for over a decade and
understands how to draw staffing and deployment conclusions from data.
Mr. Gary has both a Bachelor’s and Master’s degree in Public Administration from San Diego
State University. He holds an Associate in Fire Science Degree from Miramar Community
College in San Diego, a Certificate in Fire Protection Administration from San Diego State, and
he has attended hundreds of hours of seminar course work in fire protection.
Mr. Gary has served in elected professional positions, including: President, California League of
Cities, Fire Chiefs Department and Chairperson, San Diego County Paramedic Agencies. He has
been involved in progressive responsibility for creating or implementing public safety policy on
the local, state and national levels. He has served as a Board Member representing cities on the
California Office of Emergency Services-Firescope Board, and served two terms as the Fire
Chief representative on the California League of Cities Board of Directors. Mr. Gary served on
the Livermore School District Board, and presently serves as an elected official on the City of
Livermore City Council.
Consulting Experience Includes:
Since starting his consulting career with Citygate Associates in 2001, Chief Gary has
successfully worked on, managed or directed over 280 consulting projects. Some of the
highlights and recent projects are:
For all Citygate Public Safety projects, Mr. Gary has served as our Public Safety
Practice Principal.
Served as Project Manager for a Standards of Response Cover deployment
analysis and Fire Master Plan for the City of San Luis Obispo, CA.
Served as Fire Practice principal and project Director for a Fire Services Master
Plan update for the City of San Luis Obispo, CA.
Currently serving as Public Safety Principal to perform a comprehensive services
delivery and staffing review for the City of Eloy, AZ.
Currently serving as Public Safety Principal to perform a comprehensive services
delivery and staffing review of the Monterey County Sheriff’s Department.
Served as Public Safety Principal to perform a comprehensive public safety
deployment and performance review of the Police and Fire Departments for the
City of Glendale, AZ.
Served as Public Safety Principal for a patrol division work load and alternative
scheduling plan for the Santa Monica Police Department.
7.a
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
Appendix B—Project Team Resumes Page 23
Served as Fire Practice Principal and Project Director for a police services
consolidation or contract for shared services analysis for the cities of Brea, Buena
Park, Fullerton, La Habra and Yorba Linda.
Served as Fire Practice Principal and Project Director for a police dispatch shared
services analysis for the cities of Brea, Buena Park, Fullerton, La Habra and
Placentia.
Served as Project Manager for the Master Needs Assessment for the City of
Cloverdale Police and Fire Development Impact Fees.
Currently serving as Public Safety Principal for a fire and police service impacts
for the Millbrae Station Area Plan.
Served as Project Manager, Fire Practice Principal, and Merger Specialist for the
City of Rancho Cucamonga Police Services Analysis.
Currently serving as Public Safety Principal and Project Manager to conduct a
comprehensive fiscal feasibility analysis and to facilitate the development of a
governance and Joint powers Authority (JPA) agreement for the formation of a 9-
1-1 Emergency Communications JPA for the Monterey County public safety
agencies.
Served as Public Safety Practice Principal for Citygate’s police department
consolidation feasibility assessment for the Cities of Burlingame and San Mateo,
CA.
Served as Project Director to conduct a strategic planning process for the Los
Angeles County Fire Chiefs Association to provide a framework for regionalizing
training across all 31 fire departments in the area.
Other non-Citygate Relevant Experience Includes:
In 2002, Mr. Gary led a seminar that taught the Standards of Response Cover
(SOC) methodology to members of the Clark County Fire Department.
In 2000, Mr. Gary was the lead deployment consultant on a team that developed a
new strategic plan for the San Jose Fire Department. The final plan, which used
the accreditation system methods and Standards of Response Coverage tools, was
well received by the Department and City Council, which accepted the new
strategic plan on a 9-0 vote.
In 1996, Mr. Gary successfully studied and then facilitated the peer-to-peer
merger of the Livermore and Pleasanton Fire Departments into one seamless ten-
company department for which he served as Chief. The LPFD represents one of
the few successful city-to-city fire mergers in California. The LPFD consisted of
128 total personnel with an operating budget for FY 00/01 of $18M. Service was
provided from eight stations and a training facility, and two additional stations
were under construction.
In 1995, Mr. Gary began working with the International Association of Fire
Chiefs and International City Management Association Accreditation project on
the Standards of Cover system for fire service deployment. He re-worked the
7.a
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
Appendix B—Project Team Resumes Page 24
material into a California manual and annually taught a 40-hour course for the
California Fire Academy for many years. He conducts seminars on this
deployment methodology for the International Fire Chiefs across the United
States and Canada.
Mr. Gary has been a speaker on the proper design of information systems at
several seminars for the California League of Cities and the Fortune 100. He has
authored articles on technology and deployment for national service publications.
Instructor and Lecturer:
Instructor and lecturer on Fire Service Deployment for the Commission on Fire
Accreditation (now the Center for Public Safety Excellence) Standards of Cover
Methodology. Over the last five years, Mr. Gary has presented one-day
workshops across the U.S. and Canada to fire chiefs. Presentations have included:
The International Association of Fire Chiefs Convention;
U.S. Navy Fire Chiefs in Norfolk, Virginia;
U.S. Air Force Fire Chiefs at the USAF Academy, Colorado Springs,
Colorado;
Seattle area Fire Chiefs;
Vancouver British Columbia Fire Chiefs Association;
The Michigan/Indiana Fire Chiefs Association School at Notre Dame
University;
The California Fire training Officers annual workshop.
Developed and taught for seven years, the 40-hour course in fire deployment
methods for the California Fire Academy. Over 250 fire officers have been
trained in this course.
7.a
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: a - Citygate - San Luis Obispo Police Review Proposal (07-14-16) (1433 : Police workload/staffing study)
Meeting Date: 8/16/2016
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Xzandrea Fowler, Community Development Deputy Director
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR CAPITAL FACILITIES
IMPACT FEE PROGRAM NEXUS STUDY
RECOMMENDATION
1. Authorize the issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a Capital Facilities Impact Fee
Program Nexus Study (Attachment A); and
2. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a consultant services agreement if proposals are
received within the available budget for the project.
DISCUSSION
Background
Infrastructure changes identified and endorsed by the City Council through the Land Use and
Circulation Elements (LUCE) update and associated EIR require a more detailed evaluation to
determine how the infrastructure will be funded and how the current impact fee programs will
need to be adjusted. While the LUCE update process involved a financial analysis, it did not
provide the level of detail required to develop infrastructure costs and distribution through
appropriate mechanisms, such as impact fees. This evaluation (also referred to as an AB 1600
study) must be done to establish the nexus between the infrastructure desired and the
development that will pay the impact fees. AB 1600, codified in Government Code sections
66000 et seq., sets the procedural parameters for charging development impact fees.
The City’s traffic impact fee program was originally established in 1995 and last updated in
2006. The purpose of the traffic impact fee is to fund transportation improvements required to
accommodate new development in the City. Since the last update, new transportation
improvements have been identified that are not currently included in the traffic impact fee
program and a multi-modal approach has been endorsed. Additionally, the equity of some
specific plan area impact fees has been questioned. These circumstances are best to be addressed
as part of a multi-modal circulation impact fee update now that the LUCE has been updated.
The City’s Financial Plan for 2015-17 identifies the Impact Fee Update as an objective that
supports Major City Goals, including Housing and Multi-Modal Transportation, as well as
supports the other important objective of Downtown. It also continues implementation of goals
from the 2013-15 Financial Plan of Infrastructure and Fiscal Health, Bike and Pedestrian Paths,
and implementing the Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP) by updating the impact fee
8
Packet Pg. 189
programs to achieve community objectives of circulation infrastructure. Furthermore, the update
will help identify and quantify development’s fair share of required infrastructure to help
advance the Housing, Open Space and Transportation Major City Goals adopted as part of the
2015-2017 Financial Plan. This RFP, therefore, is intended to facilitate the implementation of
these goals and objectives.
Major Topic
1. Scope of Services
The subject RFP solicits the services of a land use economics consultant to update the City’s
existing Transportation and Parks development impact fee programs and to develop new
impact fee programs for General Government and Public Safety facilities. It is anticipated
that these four categories of impact fees will be part of a Citywide Capital Facilities Impact
Fee (CFIF) Program, with a time horizon of 2035, which is consistent with the City’s
General Plan build out.
2. Issues and Considerations:
a. Potential Improvements and Cost Estimates – the City has a working list of candidate
improvements for potential inclusion on the CFF Program.
b. Growth Projections – future increase in the City’s population and employment
contribute to the demand for new public facilities and infrastructure.
c. Nexus Analysis – a technical analysis, consistent with the requirements of the AB 1600
aka the Mitigation Fee Act, Government Code §§ 66000 et seq. is required to link the
need for new infrastructure to the demands created by new development in the City.
d. Land Use Categories – simplify the land use categories used in the existing development
impact fees to improve the consistency between the Citywide land uses and the Specific
Plan Area land uses.
e. Discounts and Waivers – there are policy-based discounts in place for retail and hotel
uses that need to be evaluated for continued appropriateness and/or whether other
discounts/waivers should be included, since discounts/waivers can result in an under-
funded fee program.
f. Economic Considerations – project list and cost estimates need to be revised in order to
prioritize improvement items based on economic feasibility considerations.
g. Fee Accounting and Administration – evaluate the City’s current system for impact fee
accounting and administration, address policies for credits and reimbursements for
oversizing, identify best practices for annual reporting, evaluate the index used as the
basis for annual increases, review existing development impact fee ordinances and impact
fee setting resolutions for potential changes, and prepare the required nexus-based
findings.
8
Packet Pg. 190
3. Next Steps
If approved, the RFP will be published on the city’s website and distributed to consultants
experienced in the land use economics, in addition to any local notification required by the
City’s Municipal.
The process to prepare the CFIF Program Nexus Study will involve community outreach and
review, in addition to review and approval by Planning Commission and City Council. The
project is estimated to be complete by May 2017.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This activity will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment, and
therefore is not a “Project” pursuant to as State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b) (5) and
would not be subject to further environmental review pursuant to Section 15060(c) (3) of the
State CEQA Guidelines.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Capital Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study is identified in the 2015-17 Financial
Plan, under Significant Operating Program Change (SOPC) - LUCE Implementation and Fee
Update, and $125,000 has been earmarked and allocated for this effort in the FY 2015/16 budget.
A carryover request has been approved for the FY 2016/17 budget.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Provide different direction to staff. The City Council can provide additional or
different direction to staff regarding the scope of work, based on the identified issues and
considerations, and continue authorization of the RFP.
2. Continue this item. Continue the discussion regarding the authorization of the RFP and
provide staff direction on additional information needed or necessary changes.
Attachments:
a - Draft RFP - Capital Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study
b - SOPC LUCE Implementation and Fee Update
8
Packet Pg. 191
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including disabled persons in all of our services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Notice Requesting Proposals for Consultant Services
CAPITAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE PROGRAM NEXUS STUDY
Specification No. ______
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of San Luis Obispo is requesting sealed proposals for
services to prepare the City’s Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study pursuant to
Specification No. _______. All proposals must be received by the Finance Department by 3:00
p.m. on _________, 2016, when they will be opened publicly in the Council Hearing Room, 990
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401.
Proposals received after said time will not be considered. To guard against premature opening,
each proposal shall be submitted to the Finance Department 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.
Specification packages and additional information may be obtained by contacting Xzandrea
Fowler at (805) 781-7274 or via email at xfowler@slocity.org.
8.a
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: a - Draft RFP - Capital Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study (1431 : Impact Fee Program Nexus Study RFP)
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No._______
-2-
Specification No.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................3
B. SCOPE OF WORK ..................................................................................................................5
C. PROJECT SCHEDULE AND DELIVERABLES ..................................................................8
D. PROJECT BUDGET ................................................................................................................8
E. AVAILABLE RESOURCES .....................................................................................................8
F. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS .............................................................................10
G. SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ..............................................................................15
H. FORM OF AGREEMENT......................................................................................................19
I. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS ...........................................................................................21
J. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORMS ......................................................................................23
8.a
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: a - Draft RFP - Capital Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study (1431 : Impact Fee Program Nexus Study RFP)
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No._______
-3-
A. INTRODUCTION
The City of San Luis Obispo is seeking proposals from a qualified land use economics
consultant or consulting firms to prepare an update to the City’s existing Transportation and
Parks development impact fee programs and to develop new impact fee programs for General
Government and Public Safety facilities, consistent with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee
Act, Government Code §§ 66000 et seq. It is anticipated that these four categories of fees will
be part of a Citywide Capital Facilities Fee (CFF) Program, with a time horizon of 2035, which is
consistent with the City’s General Plan.
By way of this undertaking, the City is seeking to generate fee revenue to mitigate the impacts
on the City’s facilities attributable to new development. In addition, the City wants the CFF
Program to achieve the following objectives:
1. Sustainable. The primary objective of this Fee Program Study is to generate revenue to
mitigate the impacts of new development so that the City has the resources necessary to
serve new development without adversely impacting existing development.
2. Feasible. While the City wants to generate sufficient revenue to mitigate the impacts of new
development, overall fee levels should not exceed standard burdens of development
feasibility.
3. Well-Documented. The underlying assumptions and calculations should be presented in a
manner that is straightforward and easy to follow and update as needed.
4. Transparent. The CFF Program should be simple to understand both in terms of the fee
levels and which fees apply to which projects.
5. Consistent. To the extent possible, the City would like to achieve some degree of
consistency in terms of fee levels among the City’s growth areas while meeting the
requirements of all applicable California laws.
6. Ease of administration. The CFF Program should be straight-forward for City staff to
administer and update.
CITY’S FEE PROGRAMS BACKGROUND
The City’s fee programs represent one of the City’s primary methods for financing infrastructure
improvements, particularly in the growth areas of the City. During the past 20-plus years, the
City has adopted multiple development impact fees that apply throughout the City including a
transportation impact fee, a water impact fee, a wastewater impact fee (the water and
wastewater fees are connection charges), an affordable housing inclusionary requirement and
in-lieu fee, a public art impact fee, and a park impact fee (an in-lieu of dedication of parkland).1
1 There is also a parking in-lieu fee for the Central Commercial Zone. See Chapter 4.30 of the
Municipal Code for specifics.
8.a
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: a - Draft RFP - Capital Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study (1431 : Impact Fee Program Nexus Study RFP)
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No._______
-4-
The City has also adopted “sub area” development impact fees for its specific plan areas
including the following:
Margarita Area Specific Plan
Margarita Area Specific Plan Sub Area Transportation Impact Fee
Margarita Area Specific Plan Parkland Impact Fee
Airport Area Specific Plan2
Airport Area Specific Plan Sub Area Transportation Impact Fee
Orcutt Area Specific Plan
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Sub Area Transportation Impact Fee
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Area Park Improvement Fee
Los Osos Valley Road Sub Area
Los Osos Valley Road Sub Area Transportation Impact Fee
Incremental evolution in the City’s existing development impact fee programs have resulted in a
complex system of base fees, sub area fees, geographic fee variation, and land use
inconsistencies. During the past 20-plus years, the City’s impact fee programs have evolved to
respond to growth and development patterns, changing development standards and
infrastructure requirements. The overall outcome of these incremental changes has resulted in a
complex system that warrants detailed consideration from the perspectives of clarity and
efficiency as well as fee level balance (by geography and land use) and consistency with City’s
economic development goals.
2 There is also an Open Space In Lieu Fee that applies to new development in the Airport Area
Specific Plan area, which is not included here as it is not strictly an impact fee.
8.a
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: a - Draft RFP - Capital Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study (1431 : Impact Fee Program Nexus Study RFP)
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No._______
-5-
B. SCOPE OF WORK
1. FORMAT
This Study will result in a Citywide CFF Program with supplemental (rather than instead of)
area-specific fees as needed and only if supported by nexus logic. The CFF Program will
include the following four categorical subcomponents:
1. Transportation
2. Parkland and Park Improvements
3. General Government
4. Public Safety
No updates to the City’s water and wastewater connection fees, the in-lieu affordable housing
fee or the in-lieu public art fee are contemplated as part of this Study, although these fees, as
well as impact fees assessed by the San Luis Obispo School District, should be included in the
analysis of economic considerations and overall feasibility.
2. SCOPE CONSIDERATIONS
This RFP does not prescribe specific tasks or even a task structure; rather, known issues and
considerations are described below. The consultant should propose an approach and a logical
series of specific tasks from project initiation through Council approval of the Final CFF Program
Nexus Study that, at a minimum, address the issues below.
Potential Improvements and Cost Estimates
The City has a working list of candidate improvements for potential inclusion in the CFF
Program (see Exhibit A). Working from this list, the consultant should anticipate working
iteratively with City staff to arrive at a refined list of prioritized improvements for inclusion in the
CFF. This process of refining and prioritizing the list of improvements will reflect a number of
policy and technical considerations. For example, the list of improvements should reflect the
City’s overall funding and financing policies (anticipated adoption August 2016).
Through technical analysis, particularly in the case of transportation improvements, the
consultant will be responsible for working with City staff to identify whether the improvements
are more appropriately assigned to the Citywide program or a Specific Plan Area program
based on the area of benefit. To the extent it is supported by the technical analysis, the City is
interested in potentially collapsing subarea fees in support of a more Citywide/regional focus to
support cost spreading. The consultant also will be responsible for working with City staff to
determine how to allocate the costs of each improvement to new development (versus existing
development) and whether there may be other funding sources available. Cost estimates are
available for some of the candidate improvements, but for other improvements, it is expected
8.a
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: a - Draft RFP - Capital Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study (1431 : Impact Fee Program Nexus Study RFP)
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No._______
-6-
that the consultant will be responsible for providing cost estimates. The consultant should
indicate that cost estimating services are reflected in the composition of the consulting team.
The consultant’s proposed scope of work should reflect an iterative process that involves
refining the project list if the preliminary fee levels are found to be infeasible.
Growth Projections
Future increase in the City’s population and employment contribute to the demand for new
public facilities and infrastructure. As part of the technical effort a Citywide development
forecast will be prepared encompassing the land uses that will be subject to the development
impact fees. The City’s General Plan and specific plans include residential and commercial
growth projections through 2035 (e.g., population, residential units, employment, and
commercial square feet by land use type) that can serves as a basis of the growth forecast.
The available growth projections should be compared with a current market-based development
forecast and refined as may be necessary.
Nexus Analysis
The core of the Nexus Study is a technical analysis, consistent with the requirements of the
Mitigation Fee Act, Government Code §§ 66000 et seq. that links the need for new infrastructure
to the demands created by new development in the City. This nexus analysis provides the
technical justification for the findings that the City Council must make in adopting the
development impact fee ordinances and related fee-setting resolutions.
Land Use Categories
One of the City’s objectives is to simplify the land use categories used in the existing
development impact fees and to improve the consistency between the Citywide land uses and
the Specific Plan Area land uses. Potential land use categories are shown in Exhibit B.
Discounts and Waivers
Currently, there are policy-based discounts in place for retail and hotel uses (discount of 50%) in
broad consideration of the fiscal revenues these uses generate. The consultant should
anticipate working with City staff to determine whether these discounts are still appropriate
and/or whether other discounts/waivers should be included, acknowledging and addressing that
discounts and waivers can result in an under-funded fee program.
Economic Considerations
It is unlikely that impact fee revenue will be sufficient to address new development infrastructure
needs as currently envisioned. As noted previously, the consultant should anticipate working
with City staff to refine the project lists and costs estimates and prioritize improvement items to
balance revenue generation and economic feasibility considerations. One of the City’s
objectives is to keep impact fee levels within reasonable burden limits (i.e., within a certain
percentage of development costs and/or value), and this should be evaluated as part of the
Study.
8.a
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: a - Draft RFP - Capital Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study (1431 : Impact Fee Program Nexus Study RFP)
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No._______
-7-
In addition, the City would like to know how the proposed fee levels compare with other
benchmark jurisdictions, such as the County, Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Pismo Beach and
Paso Robles.
Fee Accounting and Administration
Fee Accounting
The consultant should evaluate the City’s current system of fee accounting and administration
and recommend an improved approach, consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act and standard
principles of accounting.
Credits and Reimbursements
Consistent with the City’s overall funding and financing policies, the CFF Study should address
credits and reimbursements for oversizing and recommend a policy for future Reimbursement
Agreements.
Annual Reports
The CFF Study should recommend best practices for annual reports to the City Council.
Annual Updates
Currently, fee levels increase each year in accordance with the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
The consultant should address whether CPI remains the preferred basis for annual increases or
whether another index is preferred.
Development Impact Fee Ordinances and Fee Setting Resolutions
Concurrent with preparation of the Nexus Study, it will be necessary to review the City’s existing
set of development impact fee ordinances and fee setting resolutions. In collaboration with the
City Attorney, any necessary changes to the existing ordinances should be determined. The
resulting new ordinances (assuming changes are needed) should enable the City to adopt fee
schedules via Resolution, which is typically updated annually to reflect inflationary increases in
infrastructure costs.
Nexus Findings and Council Approval
As part of the CFF Study, the selected consultant will develop nexus-based findings consistent
with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act for Council consideration. The consultant should
plan on attending a minimum of two Council meetings during the course of the Study: first to
present the Draft CFF Nexus Study and the second to present the Final CFF Nexus Study and
companion ordinance(s) and fee-setting resolutions for adoption.
8.a
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: a - Draft RFP - Capital Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study (1431 : Impact Fee Program Nexus Study RFP)
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No._______
-8-
C. PROJECT SCHEDULE AND DELIVERABLES
The City anticipates project initiation in November 2016 and an overall study duration of not
more than 12 months. A nine month schedule is preferred.
In addition to the two Council meetings to present the Draft and Final CFF Nexus Studies, which
are explicitly identified above, the consultant also should plan on presenting the Draft Study to
the Planning Commission and the Park Commission. City staff will take the lead on organizing
the necessary stakeholder outreach; however the consultant should plan on supporting the
City’s outreach efforts and provide scope/budget for three public outreach meetings.
The consultant’s scope should clearly address the following:
The number and timing of meetings with City staff and whether those meetings will be in-
person or by phone/video conference.
Interim deliverables and points at which City staff feedback will be needed.
D. PROJECT BUDGET
A budget of $125,000 is earmarked for consultant services and contingency for this project.
E. AVAILABLE RESOURCES
Document Location
General Plan of San Luis Obispo City
(Land Use, Circulation, Noise, Safety,
Water and Wastewater, Conservation
and Open Space, Housing, and Parks
and Recreation Elements)
http://www.slocity.org/government/department-
directory/community-development/planning-
zoning/general-plan
Existing Nexus Studies and
Associated Staff Reports Contact City Staff
Overall Funding and Financing
Policies (Anticipated August 2016) Contact City Staff
Economic Development Strategic Plan
and Appendix A: Background Report
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4901
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4903
2015-17 Financial Plan http://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=7561
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP),
including Master List of long-term CIP
projects
http://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=7563
Fire Master Plan http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4618
8.a
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: a - Draft RFP - Capital Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study (1431 : Impact Fee Program Nexus Study RFP)
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No._______
-9-
Airport Area Specific Plan http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4294
Orcutt Area Specific Plan http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4262
Margarita Area Specific Plan http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4070
Traffic Model
http://www.slocity.org/government/department-
directory/public-works/programs-and-services-
/transportation-planning-and-engineering/traffic-study-
resources
List of Improvements and Cost
Estimates (where available) Contact City Staff
Impact Fee Program Evaluation, EPS,
2014
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4905
8.a
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: a - Draft RFP - Capital Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study (1431 : Impact Fee Program Nexus Study RFP)
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No._______
-10-
SECTION F
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Requirement to Meet All Provisions. Each individual or firm submitting a proposal
(proposer) shall meet all of the terms, and conditions of the Request for Proposals (RFP)
specifications package. By virtue of its proposal submittal, the proposer acknowledges
agreement with and acceptance of all provisions of the RFP specifications.
2. Proposal Submittal. Each proposal must be submitted on the form(s) provided in the
specifications and accompanied by any other required submittals or supplemental
materials. Proposal documents shall be enclosed in an envelope that shall be sealed
and addressed to the Department of Finance, City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401. In order to guard against premature opening, the proposal
should be clearly labeled with the proposal title, specification number, name of proposer,
and date and time of proposal opening. No FAX submittals will be accepted.
3. Insurance Certificate. Each proposal must include a certificate of insurance showing:
a. The insurance carrier and its A.M. Best rating.
b. Scope of coverage and limits.
c. Deductibles and self-insured retention.
The purpose of this submittal is to generally assess the adequacy of the proposer’s
insurance coverage during proposal evaluation; as discussed under paragraph 12
below, endorsements are not required until contract award. The City’s insurance
requirements are detailed in Section E.
4. Proposal Quotes and Unit Price Extensions. The extensions of unit prices for the
quantities indicated and the lump sum prices quoted by the proposer must be entered in
figures in the spaces provided on the Proposal Submittal Form(s). Any lump sum bid
shall be stated in figures. The Proposal Submittal Form(s) must be totally completed. If
the unit price and the total amount stated by any proposer for any item are not in
agreement, the unit price alone will be considered as representing the proposer's
intention and the proposal total will be corrected to conform to the specified unit price.
5. Proposal Withdrawal and Opening. A proposer may withdraw its proposal, without
prejudice prior to the time specified for the proposal opening, by submitting a written
request to the Director of Finance for its withdrawal, in which event the proposal will be
returned to the proposer unopened. No proposal received after the time specified or at
any place other than that stated in the "Notice Inviting Bids/Requesting Proposals" will
be considered. All proposals will be opened and declared publicly. Proposers or their
representatives are invited to be present at the opening of the proposals.
6. Submittal of One Proposal Only. No individual or business entity of any kind shall be
allowed to make or file, or to be interested in more than one proposal, except an
alternative proposal when specifically requested; however, an individual or business
entity that has submitted a sub-proposal to a proposer submitting a proposal, or who has
8.a
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: a - Draft RFP - Capital Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study (1431 : Impact Fee Program Nexus Study RFP)
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No._______
-11-
quoted prices on materials to such proposer, is not thereby disqualified from submitting a
sub-proposal or from quoting prices to other proposers submitting proposals.
7. Cooperative Purchasing. During the term of the contract, the successful proposer will
extend all terms and conditions to any other local governmental agencies upon their
request. These agencies will issue their own purchase orders, will directly receive goods
or services at their place of business and will be directly billed by the successful
proposer.
8. Communications. All timely requests for information submitted in writing will receive a
written response from the City. Telephone communications with City staff are not
encouraged, but will be permitted. However, any such oral communication shall not be
binding on the City.
CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION
9. Proposal Retention and Award. The City reserves the right to retain all proposals for a
period of 60 days for examination and comparison. The City also reserves the right to
waive non-substantial irregularities in any proposal, to reject any or all proposals, to
reject or delete one part of a proposal and accept the other, except to the extent that
proposals are qualified by specific limitations. See the "special terms and conditions" in
Section C of these specifications for proposal evaluation and contract award criteria.
10. Competency and Responsibility of Proposer. The City reserves full discretion to
determine the competence and responsibility, professionally and/or financially, of
proposers. Proposers will provide, in a timely manner, all information that the City
deems necessary to make such a decision.
11. Contract Requirement. The proposer to whom award is made (Contractor) shall
execute a written contract with the City within ten (10) calendar days after notice of the
award has been sent by mail to it at the address given in its proposal. The contract shall
be made in the form adopted by the City and incorporated in these specifications.
12. Insurance Requirements. The Contractor shall provide proof of insurance in the form,
coverages and amounts specified in Section E of these specifications within 10 (ten)
calendar days after notice of contract award as a precondition to contract execution.
13. Business License & Tax. The Contractor must have a valid City of San Luis Obispo
business license and tax certificate before execution of the contract. Additional
information regarding the City's business license and tax program may be obtained by
calling (805) 781-7134.
CONTRACT PERFORMANCE
14. Ability to Perform. The Contractor warrants that it possesses, or has arranged through
subcontracts, all capital and other equipment, labor, materials, and licenses necessary
to carry out and complete the work hereunder in compliance with any and all federal,
state, county, city, and special district laws, ordinances, and regulations.
15. Laws to be Observed. The Contractor shall keep itself fully informed of and shall
observe and comply with all applicable state and federal laws and county and City of
8.a
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: a - Draft RFP - Capital Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study (1431 : Impact Fee Program Nexus Study RFP)
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No._______
-12-
San Luis Obispo ordinances, regulations and adopted codes during its performance of
the work.
16. Payment of Taxes. The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes that
the Contractor is required to pay.
17. Permits and Licenses. The Contractor shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all
charges and fees, and give all notices necessary.
18. Safety Provisions. The Contractor shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining
to safety established by OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety.
19. Public and Employee Safety. Whenever the Contractor's operations create a condition
hazardous to the public or City employees, it shall, at its expense and without cost to the
City, furnish, erect and maintain such fences, temporary railings, barricades, lights, signs
and other devices and take such other protective measures as are necessary to prevent
accidents or damage or injury to the public and employees.
20. Preservation of City Property. The Contractor shall provide and install suitable
safeguards, approved by the City, to protect City property from injury or damage. If City
property is injured or damaged resulting from the Contractor's operations, it shall be
replaced or restored at the Contractor's expense. The facilities shall be replaced or
restored to a condition as good as when the Contractor began work.
21. Immigration Act of 1986. The Contractor warrants on behalf of itself and all
subcontractors engaged for the performance of this work that only persons authorized to
work in the United States pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986
and other applicable laws shall be employed in the performance of the work hereunder.
22. Contractor Non-Discrimination. In the performance of this work, the Contractor
agrees that it will not engage in, nor permit such subcontractors as it may employ, to
engage in discrimination in employment of persons because of age, race, color, sex,
national origin or ancestry, sexual orientation, or religion of such persons.
23. Work Delays. Should the Contractor be obstructed or delayed in the work required to
be done hereunder by changes in the work or by any default, act, or omission of the City,
or by strikes, fire, earthquake, or any other Act of God, or by the inability to obtain
materials, equipment, or labor due to federal government restrictions arising out of
defense or war programs, then the time of completion may, at the City's sole option, be
extended for such periods as may be agreed upon by the City and the Contractor. In the
event that there is insufficient time to grant such extensions prior to the completion date
of the contract, the City may, at the time of acceptance of the work, waive liquidated
damages that may have accrued for failure to complete on time, due to any of the above,
after hearing evidence as to the reasons for such delay, and making a finding as to the
causes of same.
24. Payment Terms. The City's payment terms are 30 days from the receipt of an original
invoice and acceptance by the City of the materials, supplies, equipment or services
provided by the Contractor (Net 30). All expenditures must be itemized. For each
expenditure of $500 or more, copies of supporting documentation (time sheets, payroll
stubs, receipts, etc.) must be submitted with the invoice.
8.a
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: a - Draft RFP - Capital Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study (1431 : Impact Fee Program Nexus Study RFP)
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No._______
-13-
25. Inspection. The Contractor shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity for City
to ascertain that the services of the Contractor are being performed in accordance with
the requirements and intentions of this contract. All work done and all materials
furnished, if any, shall be subject to the City's inspection and approval. The inspection of
such work shall not relieve Contractor of any of its obligations to fulfill its contract
requirements.
26. Audit. The City shall have the option of inspecting and/or auditing all records and other
written materials used by Contractor in preparing its invoices to City as a condition
precedent to any payment to Contractor.
27. Interests of Contractor. The Contractor covenants that it presently has no interest, and
shall not acquire any interest—direct, indirect or otherwise—that would conflict in any
manner or degree with the performance of the work hereunder. The Contractor further
covenants that, in the performance of this work, no subcontractor or person having such
an interest shall be employed. The Contractor certifies that no one who has or will have
any financial interest in performing this work is an officer or employee of the City. It is
hereby expressly agreed that, in the performance of the work hereunder, the Contractor
shall at all times be deemed an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of
the City.
28. Indemnification for Professional Liability. To the fullest extent permitted by law,
the Consultant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City and
any and all of its officials, employees and agents (“Indemnified Parties”) from and
against any and all losses, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses, including
attorney’s fees and cost which arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence,
recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant.
29. Contract Assignment. The Contractor shall not assign, transfer, convey or otherwise
dispose of the contract, or its right, title or interest, or its power to execute such a
contract to any individual or business entity of any kind without the previous written
consent of the City.
30. Termination. If, during the term of the contract, the City determines that the Contractor
is not faithfully abiding by any term or condition contained herein, the City may notify the
Contractor in writing of such defect or failure to perform. This notice must give the
Contractor a 10 (ten) calendar day notice of time thereafter in which to perform said work
or cure the deficiency.
If the Contractor has not performed the work or cured the deficiency within the ten days
specified in the notice, such shall constitute a breach of the contract and the City may
terminate the contract immediately by written notice to the Contractor to said effect.
Thereafter, neither party shall have any further duties, obligations, responsibilities, or
rights under the contract except, however, any and all obligations of the Contractor's
surety shall remain in full force and effect, and shall not be extinguished, reduced, or in
any manner waived by the termination thereof.
In said event, the Contractor shall be entitled to the reasonable value of its services
performed from the beginning date in which the breach occurs up to the day it received
the City's Notice of Termination, minus any offset from such payment representing the
8.a
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: a - Draft RFP - Capital Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study (1431 : Impact Fee Program Nexus Study RFP)
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No._______
-14-
City's damages from such breach. "Reasonable value" includes fees or charges for
goods or services as of the last milestone or task satisfactorily delivered or completed by
the Contractor as may be set forth in the Agreement payment schedule; compensation
for any other work, services or goods performed or provided by the Contractor shall be
based solely on the City's assessment of the value of the work-in-progress in completing
the overall work scope.
The City reserves the right to delay any such payment until completion or confirmed
abandonment of the project, as may be determined in the City's sole discretion, so as to
permit a full and complete accounting of costs. In no event, however, shall the
Contractor be entitled to receive in excess of the compensation quoted in its proposal.
The City also may terminate this contract at any time by giving the Contractor written
notice of such termination. Immediately upon receipt of notice of termination,
Contractor shall discontinue work on the project and incur no further obligations or
expenses. Contractor shall be paid the percentage of the total cost that corresponds to
the percentage of the document(s) that are satisfactorily completed prior to the
Contractor’s receipt of said termination.
8.a
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: a - Draft RFP - Capital Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study (1431 : Impact Fee Program Nexus Study RFP)
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No._______
-15-
SECTION G
SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. Proposal Content. Your proposal must include the following information:
Submittal Forms
a. Proposal submittal summary.
b. Certificate of insurance.
c. References from at least three firms for whom you have provided similar
services.
Qualifications
d. Experience of your firm and those of sub-consultants in performing similar
services. Provide names, along with brief bios, resumes and anticipated roles of
the key staff.
e. Provide three to five detailed project profiles (include Project Name and Location,
Project Description, Role or Scope of Work, and Project Reference).
f. Resumes of the individuals who would be assigned to this project, including any
sub-consultants.
g. Standard hourly billing rates for the assigned staff, including any sub-consultants.
h. Statement and explanation of any instances where your firm or sub-consultant
has been removed from a project or disqualified from proposing on a project.
Work Program
i. Description of your approach and anticipated methodology that will inform and
successfully guide the process.
j. Tentative schedule by phase and task for completing the work. Please link task
to deliverables and meetings.
k. Estimated hours for your staff in performing each major phase of the work,
including sub-consultants.
l. Services or data to be provided by the City.
m. Any other information that would assist us in making this contract award decision.
n. Description of assumptions critical to development of the response which may
impact cost or scope.
Proposal Length and Copies
o. Proposal length is not limited to a number of pages, however should only be as
long as required to be responsive to the RFP, including attachments and
supplemental materials.
p. Eight copies of the proposal must be submitted along with a CD.
q. Two-sided printing is required.
2. Proposal Evaluation and Consultant Selection. Proposals will be evaluated by a
review committee and contract award process as follows:
8.a
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: a - Draft RFP - Capital Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study (1431 : Impact Fee Program Nexus Study RFP)
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No._______
-16-
Phase 1 – Written Proposal Review/Finalist Candidate Selection
The proposals will be evaluated based on the following criteria as evidenced in their
written proposals:
a. Understanding of the work required by the City.
b. Quality, clarity and responsiveness of the proposal.
c. Demonstrated competence and professional qualifications necessary for
successfully performing the work required by the City.
d. Recent team experience in successfully performing similar services.
e. Proposed approach in completing the work.
f. References.
g. Background and experience of the specific individuals to be assigned to this
project.
h. Effective use of City General funds.
Phase 2 – Oral Presentations/Interviews and Consultant Selection (at City’s
option)
At the City’s discretion, a group of finalist candidates may be asked to provide an oral
presentation to the review committee and answer questions about their proposal. The
purpose of this second phase is two-fold: to clarify and resolve any outstanding
questions or issues about the proposal; and to evaluate the proposer’s ability to clearly
and concisely present information orally. After evaluating the proposals and discussing
them further with the finalists or the tentatively selected contractor, the City reserves the
right to further negotiate the proposed work scope and/or method and amount of
compensation.
Contract award will be based on a combination of factors that represent the best overall
value for completing the work scope as determined by the City, including: the written
proposal criteria described above; results of background and reference checks; results
from the interviews and presentations phase; and proposed compensation.
3. Proposal Review and Award Schedule. The following is an outline of the anticipated
schedule for proposal review and contract award:
a. Issue RFP 9/1/16
b. Receive proposals 9/30/16
c. Complete proposal evaluation 10/14/16
d. Conduct finalist interviews 10/17/16 - 10/21/16
e. Finalize staff recommendation 10/24/16
f. Execute contract 11/15/16
g. Start work 11/28/16
OWNERSHIP, DELIVERY AND PRESENTATION OF
WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC PRODUCTS
8.a
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: a - Draft RFP - Capital Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study (1431 : Impact Fee Program Nexus Study RFP)
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No._______
-17-
4. Ownership of Materials. All original drawings, plan documents and other materials
prepared by or in possession of the Contractor 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.
5. Release of Reports and Information. Any reports, information, data, or other material
given to, prepared by or assembled by the Contractor as part of the work or services
under these specifications shall be the property of City and shall not be made available
to any individual or organization by the Contractor without the prior written approval of
the City.
6. Copies of Reports and Information. If the City requests additional copies of reports,
drawings, specifications, or any other material in addition to what the Contractor is
required to furnish in limited quantities as part of the work or services under these
specifications, the Contractor shall provide such additional copies as are requested, and
City shall compensate the Contractor for the costs of duplicating of such copies at the
Contractor's direct expense.
7. Required Deliverable Products. The Contractor will be required to provide:
a. Five copies of deliverables addressing all elements of the work scope. City staff
will review any documents or materials provided by the Contractor and, where
necessary, the Contractor will be required to respond to staff comments and
make such changes as deemed appropriate.
b. One camera-ready original, unbound, each page printed on only one side,
including any original graphics in place and scaled to size, ready for
reproduction.
c. When computers have been used to produce materials submitted to the City as a
part of the work scope, the Contractor must provide the corresponding computer
files to the City, compatible with the following programs whenever possible
unless otherwise directed by the project manager:
Word Processing Word 2010
Spreadsheets Excel 2010
Desktop Publishing InDesign
Virtual Models Sketch Up
Digital Maps Geodatabase shape files in
State Plan Coordinate System as
specified by City GIS staff
Computer files must be on CD-ROM. Each diskette must be clearly labeled and
have a printed copy of the directory.
8. Attendance at Meetings and Hearings. As part of the work scope and included in the
contract price is attendance by the Contractor at approximately 6 meetings to present
and discuss findings and recommendations, and gather input from the general public,
and stakeholder groups. Contractor shall arrange as many "working"
meetings/conference calls with staff as necessary to perform work scope tasks.
8.a
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: a - Draft RFP - Capital Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study (1431 : Impact Fee Program Nexus Study RFP)
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No._______
-18-
ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS
9. Alternative Proposals. The proposer may submit an alternative proposal (or
proposals) that it believes will also meet the City's project objectives but in a different
way. In this case, the proposer must provide an analysis of the advantages and
disadvantages of each of the alternatives, and discuss under what circumstances the
City would prefer one alternative to the other(s). If an alternative proposal is submitted,
the maximum length of the proposal may be expanded proportionately by the number of
alternatives submitted.
BID SPECIFICATION LIMITS
10. Accuracy of Specifications. The specifications for this project are believed by the City
to be accurate and to contain no affirmative misrepresentation or any concealment of
fact. Proposers are cautioned to undertake an independent analysis of any test results
in the specifications, as City does not guaranty the accuracy of its interpretation of test
results contained in the specifications package. In preparing its proposal, the proposer
and all subcontractors named in its proposal shall bear sole responsibility for proposal
preparation errors resulting from any misstatements or omissions in the plans and
specifications that could easily have been ascertained by examining either the project
site or accurate test data in the City's possession. Although the effect of ambiguities or
defects in the plans and specifications will be as determined by law, any patent
ambiguity or defect shall give rise to a duty of proposer to inquire prior to proposal
submittal. Failure to so inquire shall cause any such ambiguity or defect to be construed
against the proposer. An ambiguity or defect shall be considered patent if it is of such a
nature that the proposer, assuming reasonable skill, ability and diligence on its part,
knew or should have known of the existence of the ambiguity or defect. Furthermore,
failure of the proposer or subcontractors to notify City in writing of specification or plan
defects or ambiguities prior to proposal submittal shall waive any right to assert said
defects or ambiguities subsequent to submittal of the proposal.
To the extent that these specifications constitute performance specifications, the City
shall not be liable for costs incurred by the successful proposer to achieve the project’s
objective or standard beyond the amounts provided there for in the proposal.
In the event that, after awarding the contract, any dispute arises as a result of any actual
or alleged ambiguity or defect in the plans and/or specifications, or any other matter
whatsoever, Contractor shall immediately notify the City in writing, and the Contractor
and all subcontractors shall continue to perform, irrespective of whether or not the
ambiguity or defect is major, material, minor or trivial, and irrespective of whether or not
a change order, time extension, or additional compensation has been granted by City.
Failure to provide the hereinbefore described written notice within one (1) working day of
contractor's becoming aware of the facts giving rise to the dispute shall constitute a
waiver of the right to assert the causative role of the defect or ambiguity in the plans or
specifications concerning the dispute.
8.a
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: a - Draft RFP - Capital Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study (1431 : Impact Fee Program Nexus Study RFP)
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No._______
-19-
SECTION H
FORM OF AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on [day, date, year]
by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as City,
and [CONSULTANT’S NAME IN CAPITAL LETTERS], hereinafter referred to as Contractor.
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, on [date], City requested proposals for services to prepare the City’s Capital
Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study per Specification No. ______ (project); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to said request, Contractor submitted a proposal that was accepted by City
for said project;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants
hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date this Agreement is made and
entered, as first written above, until acceptance or completion of said project.
2. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. City Specification No. ______ and Consultant’s
proposal dated [date], are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement.
3. CITY'S OBLIGATIONS. For providing the services as specified in this Agreement, City
will pay and Contractor shall receive therefore compensation in a total sum not to exceed [$
_________. Consultant shall be eligible for compensation installments after completion of milestone
Tasks ____ as shown in the attached scope of work and payment schedule.
4. CONSULTANT’S OBLIGATIONS. For and in consideration of the payments and
agreements hereinbefore mentioned to be made and performed by City, Contractor agrees with City to do
everything required by this Agreement and the said specification as described in Exhibit A (RFP) attached
hereto and incorporated into this Agreement and to comply with the terms set forth in Exhibits F, G, and I
attached hereto and incorporated into this Agreement.
8.a
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: a - Draft RFP - Capital Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study (1431 : Impact Fee Program Nexus Study RFP)
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No._______
-20-
5. AMENDMENTS. Any amendment, modification or variation from the terms of this
Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the Community Development
Director of the City.
6. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings specifically
incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties hereto.
No oral agreement, understanding or representation not reduced to writing and specifically incorporated
herein shall be of any force or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement, understanding or representation
be binding upon the parties hereto.
7. NOTICE. All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail,
postage prepaid by registered or certified mail addressed as follows:
City Michael Codron
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Consultant Name
Address
8. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both City and Contractor do covenant that
each individual executing this agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and
empowered to execute Agreements for such party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day
and year first above written.
ATTEST: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
________________________________ By:_____________________________________
City Clerk Community Development Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONSULTANT
________________________________ By: _____________________________________
City Attorney Name of CAO / President
Its: CAO / President
8.a
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: a - Draft RFP - Capital Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study (1431 : Impact Fee Program Nexus Study RFP)
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No._______
-21-
SECTION I
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS:
Consultant Services
The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against
claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with
the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, its agents, representatives,
employees or subcontractors.
Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG
0001).
2. Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile
Liability, code 1 (any auto).
3. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's
Liability Insurance.
4. Errors and Omissions Liability insurance as appropriate to the consultant's profession.
Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits no less than:
1. General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and
property damage. If Commercial General Liability or other form with a general
aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this
project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence
limit.
2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
4. Errors and Omissions Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence.
Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be
declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce
or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials,
employees and volunteers; or the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of
losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses.
Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to
contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
1. The City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as
insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the
Contractor; products and completed operations of the Contractor; premises owned,
occupied or used by the Contractor; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by
the Contractor. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of
protection afforded to the City, its officers, official, employees, agents or volunteers.
8.a
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: a - Draft RFP - Capital Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study (1431 : Impact Fee Program Nexus Study RFP)
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No._______
-22-
2. For any claims related to this project, the Contractor's insurance coverage shall be
primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and
volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials,
employees, agents or volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall
not contribute with it.
3. The Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is
made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.
4. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage
shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in
limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt
requested, has been given to the City.
Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's
rating of no less than A:VII.
Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish the City with a certificate of insurance
showing maintenance of the required insurance coverage. Original endorsements effecting
general liability and automobile liability coverage required by this clause must also be provided.
The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on
its behalf. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work
commences.
8.a
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: a - Draft RFP - Capital Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study (1431 : Impact Fee Program Nexus Study RFP)
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No._______
-23-
SECTION J
PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORMS:
Consultants
The undersigned declares that she or he has carefully examined Specification No. _______,
which is hereby made a part of this proposal; is thoroughly familiar with its contents; is
authorized to represent the proposing firm; and agrees to perform the specified work for the
following cost quoted in full:
Description 2016-17 2017-18
Task 1
Task 2
Task 3
Task 4
Task 5
Task 6
Task 7
Task 8
Other Costs (please specify)
TOTAL $ $
Certificate of insurance attached; insurance company’s A.M. Best rating:
__________________.
Firm Name and Address
Contact Phone
Signature of Authorized Representative
Date
8.a
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: a - Draft RFP - Capital Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study (1431 : Impact Fee Program Nexus Study RFP)
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. 91138
-24-
REFERENCES
Number of years engaged in providing the services included within the scope of the
specifications under the present business name: .
Describe fully the last three contracts performed by your firm that demonstrate your ability to
provide the services included with the scope of the specifications. Attach additional pages if
required. The City reserves the right to contact each of the references listed for additional
information regarding your firm's qualifications.
Reference No. 1
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & FAX number
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Description of services provided
including contract amount, when
provided and project outcome
Reference No. 2
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & FAX number
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Description of services provided
including contract amount, when
provided and project outcome
Reference No. 3
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & FAX number
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Description of services provided
including contract amount, when
provided and project outcome
8.a
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: a - Draft RFP - Capital Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study (1431 : Impact Fee Program Nexus Study RFP)
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. 91138
-25-
STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS
The proposer shall state whether it or any of its officers or employees who have a proprietary
interest in it, has ever been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from bidding on, or
completing a federal, state, or local government project because of the violation of law, a safety
regulation, or for any other reason, including but not limited to financial difficulties, project
delays, or disputes regarding work or product quality, and if so to explain the circumstances.
Do you have any disqualification as described in the above paragraph to declare?
Yes No
If yes, explain the circumstances.
Executed on at _______________________________________
under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and
correct.
______________________________________
Signature of Authorized Proposer Representative
8.a
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: a - Draft RFP - Capital Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study (1431 : Impact Fee Program Nexus Study RFP)
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
(COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT)
LUCE IMPLEMENTATION AND FEE UPDATE
SUMMARY OF CHANGE: Implementing the update to Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) to ensure
internal consistency of the City’s implementing ordinances and fees will cost approximately $410,000 in FY
2015-16 and $325,000 in FY 2016-17 for consultant and contract services.
FISCAL IMPACT: One time cost of $410,000 in FY 2015-16 and $325,000 in FY 2016-17.
SERVICE LEVEL IMPACT: The objective of this request is to complete the LUCE update by implementing
key strategies that were developed as part of the update process. This effort is necessary to maintain internal
consistency of the General Plan and its implementing documents. This effort will involve form-based
codes/updated guidelines for the downtown that will provide an updated graphic Downtown Concept Plan (as
called for in the Land Use Element) along with other changes to the Zoning Code; and a nexus study and impact
fee program update to address changed infrastructure needs and evaluate facilities and service needs not
previously captured, in order to update the City’s impact fee program.
KEY OBJECTIVES
1. Leverages initial fiscal analysis conducted as part of the LUCE update.
2. Provides internal consistency between the General Plan and implementing ordinances as required by
Government Code.
3. Develops fee and impact information needed for Economic Development Strategic Plan implementation.
4. Implements recommendations of the Community Development Organizational Assessment where Zoning
Code changes may impact process changes.
5. Conducts the required AB1600 evaluation of the fee program and fair share cost allocation resulting from
changes to public infrastructure and service needs defined in the LUCE update.
6. Complies with State law requirement to complete routine updates to fee programs.
EXISTING SITUATION: FACTORS DRIVING THE NEED FOR CHANGE
Due to an $880,000 grant from the Strategic Growth Council (SGC) the City was able to initiate an update to the
Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) during the 2011-13 Financial Plan period. The Council added
$367,500 to this budget in order to complete the environmental review of the project (which was not covered by
the grant). The draft LUCE was submitted to the Strategic Growth Council by the grant deadline of September
26, 2014 and hearings and review of the Environmental Impact Report proceeded through the fall with final
approval by the Council on December 9, 2014. Subsequent work efforts are now needed to implement the
updated General Plan. Changes to the Zoning Code and other implementing documents are called for as part of
the LUCE update. The updated General Plan will benefit from implementing ordinances and standards that are
more graphical in nature and more easily understood by the public. This request includes a desire to see updated
graphics and re-organization of the Zoning Code and other implementing codes.
Also, infrastructure changes identified and endorsed by the City Council through the LUCE update and associated
EIR require a more detailed evaluation to determine how the infrastructure will be funded and how the current
impact fee programs will need to be adjusted. While the LUCE update process involved a financial analysis, it
did not provide the level of detail required to develop infrastructure costs and distribution through appropriate
mechanisms, such as impact fees. This evaluation (also referred to as an AB 1600 study) must be done to
establish the nexus between the infrastructure desired and the development that will pay the impact fees. AB
1600 sets the legal and procedural parameters for the charging of development impact fees.
8.b
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: b - SOPC LUCE Implementation and Fee Update (1431 : Impact Fee Program Nexus Study RFP)
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
(COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT)
LUCE IMPLEMENTATION AND FEE UPDATE
The City’s traffic impact fee program was originally established in 1995 and last updated in 2006. The purpose of
the fee is to fund the transportation improvements required to accommodate new development in the City. Since
the last update, new transportation improvements have been identified that are not currently included in the traffic
impact fee program and a multi-modal approach has been endorsed. Additionally, the equity of some specific
plan area fees has been questioned. These circumstances are best to be addressed as part of a multi-modal
circulation impact fee update now that the General Plan has been updated. Augmenting contract services for
transportation consultant assistance is essential for providing services to internal City customers such as
the Police & Fire Departments. Other stakeholders, such as Cal Poly, Cal Trans, SLO County, San Luis
Obispo Council of Governments are affected by this resource. Previously traffic impact updates have been
completed by the Finance and IT Department. Given the department’s current resources, staff recommends
consultant services be utilized to accomplish this task.
GOAL AND POLICY CRITERIA
This request meets all of the SOPC criteria as follows:
1. Supports Major City Goals: This request supports Major City Goals, including Housing and Multi-Modal
Transportation as well as supports an other important objective of Downtown. It also continues
implementation of goals from the 2013-15 Financial Plan of Infrastructure and Fiscal Health, Bike and
Pedestrian Paths, and implementing the Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP) by updating the fee
program to achieve community objectives of affordable housing and circulation infrastructure.
2. Needed to address health, safety or legal concern: Updating the Zoning Code will provide internal
consistency between the recently-adopted General Plan and implementing ordinances as required by
Government Code. Providing a nexus study and update to the fee program is required to reflect new and
changed infrastructure identified in the LUCE update. This includes conducting the required AB1600
evaluation of the fee program and fair share cost allocation for affordable housing, public art, open space,
parks, and changes to public infrastructure and service needs defined in the LUCE update.
3. Needed to provide a priority level of service: Updating the impact fees to fairly distribute responsibility and
cost of needed infrastructure is a priority for the development community. In addition, updating the Zoning
Code and implementing bike paths and affordable housing projects is a broader community priority.
4. Supports revenue generation and/or cost savings: Both efforts may indirectly result in either revenue
generation or cost savings. Updating the impact fees will more accurately represent the cost of infrastructure
needs in the community and will distribute the costs to pay for those needs. The resulting infrastructure will
support new development which will generate revenue. Updating the Zoning Code will provide more clarity
and reflect a range of uses that were not envisioned in 1994 – the last time the Land Use Element was
significantly updated.
5. Represents reorganization within or across Departments: Implements recommendations of the Community
Development Organizational Assessment where Zoning Code changes may impact process changes.
8.b
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: b - SOPC LUCE Implementation and Fee Update (1431 : Impact Fee Program Nexus Study RFP)
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
(COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT)
LUCE IMPLEMENTATION AND FEE UPDATE
6. Reallocation of Existing Resources: The staff resources previously assigned to the LUCE update will be
available to coordinate this effort, but consultant services will still be required. Updating the Downtown
Concept Plan will leverage the resources allocated for the Mission Plaza CIP project and visioning/outreach
efforts can be coordinated for efficiency. In addition, the Public Art Master Plan effort will be completed by
September 2015 and will inform the Downtown Concept Plan update effort.
STAKEHOLDERS
Implementation of the updated General Plan will engage many of the same community members who were
interested and involved in the LUCE update itself: Residents for Quality Neighborhoods; Home Builders
Association; Chamber of Commerce; Downtown Association; SLO Property and Business Owners’ Association;
city residents, and owners of properties and businesses.
IMPLEMENTATION
Implementation is envisioned as follows:
Task Date
1. Develop RFP for Downtown Concept Plan update Aug 2015
2. Interviews and consultant selection process Sept 2015
3. Visioning, interviews, charrette(s), review of Mission Plaza Assessment
from CIP
Oct-Dec 2015
4. Develop Draft Concept Plan Dec-Jan 2016
5. Advisory Body review (ARC, CHC, PC) and early Council feedback Feb-May 2016
6. Council review and approval July 2016
7. RFP for Infrastructure Fee Update Feb 2016
8. Consultant Selection for Infrastructure fee update April 2016
9. Work effort for Infrastructure update (costs, nexus, financing options, right-
sizing)
April – July 2016
10. Public outreach – infrastructure update Aug-Sept 2016
11. RFP for Zoning Code update August 2016
12. Consultant Selection for Zoning Code update September 2016
13. Commission and Council consideration of Infrastructure options Oct-Nov 2016
14. Consultant work on Zoning Code update Oct –Dec 2016
15. Council adoption of Public Facilities Fee program Dec 2016
16. Draft Zoning Code and CEQA evaluation Jan – Mar 2017
17. Referral of Draft Zoning Code and CEQA to ALUC April 2017
18. Planning Commission and Council review of draft Zoning Code update April – May 2017
19. Council approval of Zoning Code update June 2017
8.b
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: b - SOPC LUCE Implementation and Fee Update (1431 : Impact Fee Program Nexus Study RFP)
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
(COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT)
LUCE IMPLEMENTATION AND FEE UPDATE
PROGRAM MANAGER AND TEAM SUPPORT
Program Manager:
The program manager for the Affordable Housing Nexus study and for LUCE implementation (Zoning
code/Downtown Concept Plan) will be the Community Development Deputy Director. The Public Works Deputy
Director and Transportation Operations Manager will take the lead on circulation element implementation and
traffic impact fee update.
Project Team:
The project team will include a Transportation Planner, Community Development Senior and Associate Planners,
the Finance and Information Technology Director, and support staff. Representatives from City Police, Fire,
Utilities, Public Works, Finance and IT, and Parks and Recreation departments will be involved.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Continue the Status Quo. Once the Land Use and Circulation Elements are adopted, the City will need to
ensure that implementing documents, information and processes are updated as well. Continuing the status
quo implies that no changes will be required in response to the update. Regardless the traffic impact fee
program will need to be updated to comply with State law and add facilities to support LUCE land uses and
policies. If no other changes are needed, staff will recommend any identified funds be returned to the General
Fund. This is an unlikely scenario. Infrastructure improvements and impact fees must be updated if the
community will be able to achieve improvements identified in the updated General Plan. Other changes
identified in the update will need to be implemented otherwise the policies and programs cease to provide
direction for decision-makers and inconsistencies would exist between policies and implementation
mechanisms.
2. Defer or Re-Phase the Request. The request could be phased to address the infrastructure financing or the
implementing zoning code and standards to be changed in response to the update. This approach could result
in the General Plan having no way to implement desired improvements or could result in a General Plan that
has inconsistent standards if funding is not approved in the 2015-17 Financial Plan. Neither of these
outcomes is desirable. The City’s traffic impact fee program needs to be updated whether or not there are
changes to the General Plan.
3. Change the Scope of Request. The request could be re-scoped to include consultant assistance for the nexus
study, traffic impact fee update and infrastructure fee development only. Existing staff would be required to
complete the implementation of other changes resulting from the LUCE Update. Due to existing workload
and resource commitments, this could mean that other work desired by the Council does not occur. Items that
could lose momentum or be deferred include completion of the Housing Element update, implementation of
Climate Action Plan strategies, and other initiatives assigned to the Community Development Department.
4. Implementation in a Different Way. City staff seeks grants to accomplish Council-directed work efforts and
will continue to look for funding opportunities, funding partners, and any funding efficiencies possible to
leverage City resources. Transportation Impact Fund fees (TIF) are not available for this update. There are
limited TIF funds available for AB 1600 work or updates to this source which only covers City-wide
infrastructure (Specific Plans are handled separately). A program amendment would be required to enable
funds to be used for this purpose and would still only address city-wide fees. If grant funds are not available,
8.b
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: b - SOPC LUCE Implementation and Fee Update (1431 : Impact Fee Program Nexus Study RFP)
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
(COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT)
LUCE IMPLEMENTATION AND FEE UPDATE
General Fund support will be required to accomplish this effort unless staff in the Finance and IT Department
complete the consultant services components of this work effort. Given the current staffing resources in that
department, this alternative is not recommended.
5. Existing Program Evaluation. The LUCE update will involve an evaluation of the City’s existing land use
and circulation element policies and programs, their status and on-going fit with community values. This
process will be completed with the adoption of the LUCE update (projected to occur by November 2014).
OPERATING PROGRAM
Long Range Planning
Transportation Planning
COST SUMMARY
Completion of the updated Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) to ensure internal consistency of the
City’s implementing ordinances and fees will cost approximately $735,000 in Financial Plan 2015-17.
Line Item Description Account No.2015-16 2016-17
Staffing 00
Contract Services 410,000 325,000
Engineering Firm to design and cost infrastructure 50500-7227 50,000
Traffic modeling and Nexus study 50500-7227 50,000
Financial Firm to develop PFFP 40400-7227 75,000
Financial Firm to update TIF program 50500-7227 50,000
Affordable Housing Nexus Study 40400-7227 35,000
Changes to EnerGov to accommodate updated fees 40400-7227 50,000
Downtown Concept Plan update 40400-7227 100,000
Update of Zoning Code 40400-7227 150,000
CEQA analysis and ALUC referral 40400-7227 75,000
Transportation Consultant 50500-7227 50,000 50,000
Total Operating Costs 410,000 325,000
TIF Funds (70,000)
Affordable Housing Funds (35,000)
Net Operating Costs 305,000 325,000
8.b
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: b - SOPC LUCE Implementation and Fee Update (1431 : Impact Fee Program Nexus Study RFP)
Page intentionally left
blank.
Meeting Date: 8/16/2016
FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Michael J. McGuire, Senior Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: MEADOW PARK LIGHTING REPLACEMENT
RECOMMENDATION
1. Award a contract to Electricraft, Inc. in the amount of $81,726 for the “Meadow Park Lighting
Replacement, Specification No. 91323”; and
2. Approve the transfer of $22,500 from the CIP Completed Projects Account to the project
construction account.
DISCUSSION
On July 14, 2016, bids were opened for the Meadow Park Lighting Replacement project. Of the
five bids received, only one bid was under the Engineer’s Estimate of $53,000 (Table 1). The
bid from Inter-Pacific, Inc. of Tustin, California at $46,500, was the apparent low bid.
Table 1
Engineer’s
Estimate
Inter-Pacific
Inc.
Electricraft
Inc.
Newton
Construction
Rossi & Carr
Electrical Inc.
Lee Wilson
Electric Co.
$53,000 $46,500 $73,968 $81,000 $86,400 $101,400
However, Inter-Pacific failed to accompany their bid package with a required bidder’s bond or
check equal to ten percent of the bid amount as a guaranty. This lack of guaranty renders their
bid as non-responsive and staff cannot recommend award to Inter-Pacific.
The next apparent low bid was from Electricraft, Inc. of San Luis Obispo in the amount of
$73,968. While this is more than $20,000 over the Engineer’s Estimate, staff recommends
approval to award a contract for this amount. Staff believes that there are several reasons for the
difference between the lowest responsive bid and the Engineer’s Estimate. In the time since this
CIP project was funded in the 2013-15 Financial Plan, the economy has improved and building
construction has markedly increased. In addition, based on staff’s experience with project
bidding, it appears that Inter-Pacific either thought they could build the project for their bid
price, or missed some information in the plans, or may have been attempting to buy the project.
There is no way to tell, but this type of spread between the low bid and next bid grouping is a
9
Packet Pg. 222
telltale sign that there is something peculiar with the low bid.
A good economic improvement indicator is the dramatic increase in building permit applications.
There is a lot of work available in both the private and public sectors. Since the City has to
compete for the same contractors as the private sector and other agencies, staff believes the bid
competition is supporting higher prices. However, this does not hold true for all projects, such as
paving, because the drop in asphalt commodity prices has blunted the increase in labor and
equipment costs, and there are not that many large paving projects in the County. However,
staff has seen a significant increase in curb ramp project costs since concrete work (foundations,
sidewalks, and driveways) is currently in demand. Staff expects these types of increases to
continue to occur and will be value engineering projects in order to meet current budgets.
ENVIRONMENTAL
The Community Development Department has determined that this project is categorically
exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections 15301 (maintenance of existing facilities) and 15302
(replacement or reconstruction) of the CEQA Guidelines.
CONCURRENCES
This project has the concurrence of the Parks & Recreation Department.
FISCAL IMPACT
The 2013-15 Financial Plan, Appendix B, pages 3-387 to 3-389, identifies a construction budget
for this project of $60,000. Currently, there is $59,226 available to fund this project.
Overall Project Fiscal Summary
Fiscal Impact Summary Cost
Total Project Budget 60,000$
Design Services 750$
Printing 24$
Available 59,226$
Construction 73,968$
Contingency 7,635$
Total for Construction 81,603$
Advertising 123$
Total Ancillary Items 123$
Total Construction Related Project Costs:81,726$
Additional Funding Needed:22,500$
9
Packet Pg. 223
Along with the increase to fully fund the construction contract amount, additional funds are
necessary to maintain a 10% construction contingency amount for unforeseen conditions.
ALTERNATIVES
Deny approval to award. The City Council could choose to deny or defer the approval to award
this project. Staff does not recommend this option. Should this be denied or deferred, the much-
needed lighting and pole replacements will not occur. Construction, material and labor costs will
continue to rise and additional funds will be required.
Attachments:
a - Bid Summary
b - Copy of Original CMR
c - Agreement
9
Packet Pg. 224
Item #Item Description Quantity Unit of Measure Unit Price Item Total
1 PATHWAY FIXTURE REPLACEMENT, 3 EA $0.00 $0.00
2 PATHWAY FIXTURE REPLACEMENT, 4 EA $0.00 $0.00
3 PATHWAY FIXTURE REPLACEMENT, 1 EA $0.00 $0.00
4 VOLLEYBALL COURTS POLE REPLACEMENT, 2 EA $0.00 $0.00
5 BASKETBALL COURT POLE REPLACEMENT, 2 EA $0.00 $0.00
6 HORSESHOE PIT POLE REPLACEMENT, 1 EA $0.00 $0.00
Bid $0.00
Item #Item Description Quantity Unit of Measure Unit Price Item Total
7 WIRING 1 LS $0.00 $0.00
Bid $0.00
$0.00
MEADOW PARK LIGHTING REPLACEMENT Specification No. 91323
Bid Opening:07/14/16 * marks an allowance Engineer's Estimate
Total Bid Amount
Bid Alternate A
9.a
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: a - Bid Summary (1425 : Meadow Park Lighting)
Unit Price Item Total Unit Price Item Total Unit Price Item Total Unit Price Item Total
$6,066.00 $18,198.00 $6,300.00 $18,900.00 $3,000.00 $9,000.00 $6,646.00 $19,938.00
$5,727.00 $22,908.00 $6,300.00 $25,200.00 $4,000.00 $16,000.00 $6,646.00 $26,584.00
$7,988.00 $7,988.00 $6,300.00 $6,300.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $6,647.00 $6,647.00
$4,500.00 $9,000.00 $6,150.00 $12,300.00 $3,500.00 $7,000.00 $6,646.00 $13,292.00
$4,775.00 $9,550.00 $6,150.00 $12,300.00 $3,500.00 $7,000.00 $6,646.00 $13,292.00
$6,324.00 $6,324.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $6,647.00 $6,647.00
$73,968.00 $81,000.00 $46,500.00 $86,400.00
Unit Price Item Total Unit Price Item Total Unit Price Item Total Unit Price Item Total
$8,188.00 $8,188.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $7,200.00 $7,200.00
$8,188.00 $4,000.00 $40,000.00 $7,200.00
$82,156.00 $85,000.00 $86,500.00 $93,600.00
Electricraft, Inc.Newton Construction & Inter-Pacific, Inc.Rossi & Carr Electrical,
9.a
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: a - Bid Summary (1425 : Meadow Park Lighting)
Unit Price Item Total
$8,200.00 $24,600.00
$8,200.00 $32,800.00
$8,500.00 $8,500.00
$7,100.00 $14,200.00
$7,100.00 $14,200.00
$7,100.00 $7,100.00
$101,400.00
Unit Price Item Total
$19,900.00 $19,900.00
$19,900.00
$121,300.00
Lee Wilson Electric
9.a
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: a - Bid Summary (1425 : Meadow Park Lighting)
City of San Luis Obispo, City Manager Report
Final City Manager Approval Approver Name Date Approved
City Administration Shelly for 6/13/16
Reviewer Routing List Reviewer Name Date Reviewed
City Engineer Barbara Lynch 6/9/16
City Attorney JMA 6/10
Finance & Information Technology DJJ 06/09/16
June 9, 2016
FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works Drg 6/9/16
PREPARED BY: Michael J. McGuire, Senior Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: MEADOW PARK LIGHTING REPLACEMENT, SPECIFICATION NO.
91323
RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve plans and specifications for "Meadow Park Lighting Replacement, Specification No.
91323”; and
2. Authorize staff to advertise for bids and authorize the City Manager to award the contract if
the lowest responsible bidder is within the Engineer’s Estimate of $53,000.
DISCUSSION
The Meadow Park pathway lighting is in need of replacement as the existing light standards have
significantly deteriorated from moisture and rusting. Of the eight light standards along the
pedestrian path through Meadow Park, three poles have collapsed and the lights are not in service.
The remaining five are all indicating severe corrosion at the pole bases. As a result, the pathway has
spotty lighting coverage for users during the evening hours. In addition, the basketball and
volleyball courts, and horseshoe pit lighting fixtures are supported on decorative wood poles. All of
these poles are showing damage from dry-rot and termite infestation and need to be replaced.
This project will remove the existing pathway light standards and replace them with new energy
efficient LED fixtures, provide more light coverage and reduce ongoing maintenance. The sports
lighting wood poles will be replaced with new metal poles that will have a longer service life. All
of the lighting poles will be surrounded by a small concrete apron that will prevent water ponding at
the post bases and facilitate mowing operations by Parks Maintenance staff. Lastly, all of the
existing electrical pull boxes, wiring and grounding rods will be replaced at each light fixture.
CONCURRENCES
This project has the concurrence of the Parks and Recreation Department.
9.b
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: b - Copy of Original CMR (1425 : Meadow Park Lighting)
Meadow Park Lighting Replacement (91323) Page 2
FISCAL IMPACT
The 2013-15 Financial Plan, Appendix B, pages 3-387 to 3-389, identifies a construction budget
for this project of $60,000. Currently, there is $59,250 available to fully fund this project.
Overall Project Fiscal Summary
Fiscal Impact Summary Cost
Total Project Budget 60,000$
Foundation Design Services (750)$
Available 59,250$
Construction 53,000$
Contingency 6,000$
Total for Construction 59,000$
Printing & Advertising 250$
Total Ancillary Items 250$
Total Construction Related Project Costs:59,250$
Project Balance -$
ALTERNATIVE
Deny approval to award. The City Manager could choose to deny or defer the approval to
advertise this project. Staff does not recommend this option. Should this be denied or deferred,
the replacement of the path lights and sports courts poles will not occur. While most parks are
closed after dark, Meadow Park has activities that require this lighting for evening uses. The
failure of the existing lighting in the park will hinder or prevent these events from happening,
potentially impacting revenues for the Parks and Recreation Department. Construction, material
and labor costs will continue to rise and additional funds will be required.
ATTACHMENT
Plans and Special Provisions
T:\City Manager Reports\Public Works\2016\CIP\91323 Meadow Park Lighting\CMR Advertise Meadow Park Lighting.docx
9.b
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: b - Copy of Original CMR (1425 : Meadow Park Lighting)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
CALIFORNIA
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made on this day of , 2016, by and between the City of San Luis Obispo, a
municipal corporation and charter city, San Luis Obispo County, California (hereinafter called the Owner)
and ELECTRICRAFT, INC. (hereinafter called the Contractor).
WITNESSETH:
That the Owner and the Contractor for the consideration stated herein agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1, SCOPE OF WORK: The Contractor shall perform everything required to be performed, shall
provide and furnish all of the labor, materials, necessary tools, expendable equipment, and all utility and
transportation services required to complete all the work of construction of
MEADOW PARK LIGHTING REPLACEMENT Specification No. 91323
in strict compliance with the plans and specifications therefor, including any and all Addenda, adopted by
the Owner, in strict compliance with the Contract Documents hereinafter enumerated.
It is agreed that said labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services shall be furnished and said work
performed and completed under the direction and supervision and subject to the approval of the Owner or its
authorized representatives.
ARTICLE II, CONTRACT PRICE: The Owner shall pay the Contractor as full consideration for the faithful
performance of this Contract, subject to any additions or deductions as provided in the Contract Documents,
the contract prices as follows:
Item Item Unit of Estimated Item Price Total
No. SS(1) Description Measure Quantity (in figures) (in figures)
1 86 Pathway Fixture Replacement,
Locations 1-4-9 EA 3 $6,066.00 $18,198.00
2 86 Pathway Fixture Replacement,
Locations 2-3-5-13 EA 4 $5,727.00 $22,908.00
3 86 Pathway Fixture Replacement,
Location 12 EA 1 $7,988.00 $7,988.00
4 86 Volleyball Courts Pole
Replacement, Locations 7-8 EA 2 $4,500.00 $9,000.00
5 86 Basketball Court Pole
Replacement, Locations 6-10 EA 2 $4,775.00 $9,550.00
6 86 Horseshoe Pit Pole
Replacement, Location 11 EA 1 $6,324.00 $6,324.00
BID TOTAL: $73,968.00
Payments are to be made to the Contractor in compliance with and subject to the provisions embodied in
the documents made a part of this Contract.
Should any dispute arise respecting the true value of any work omitted, or of any extra work which the
Contractor may be required to do, or respecting the size of any payment to the Contractor, during the
performance of this Contract, said dispute shall be decided by the Owner and its decision shall be final, and
conclusive.
9.c
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: c - Agreement (1425 : Meadow Park Lighting)
ARTICLE III, COMPONENT PARTS OF THIS CONTRACT: The Contract consists of the following
documents, all of which are as fully a part thereof as if herein set out in full, and if not attached, as if hereto
attached:
1. Notice to Bidders and information for bidders.
2. Standard Specifications, Engineering Standards, Special Provisions, and any Addenda.
3. Plans.
4. Caltrans Standard Specifications and Standard Plans 2010.
5. Accepted Bid.
6. List of Subcontractors.
7. Public Contract Code Section 10285.1 Statement.
8. Public Contract Code Section 10162 Questionnaire.
9. Public Contract Code Section 10232 Statement.
10. Labor Code Section 1725.5 Statements.
11. Bidder Acknowledgements.
12. Qualifications.
13. Attach Bidders Bond to Accompany Bid.
14. Non-collusion Declaration.
15. Agreement and Bonds.
16. Insurance Requirements and Forms.
ARTICLE IV INDEMNIFICATION: Hold Harmless and Indemnification. The Contractor agrees to defend,
indemnify, protect and hold the City and its agents, officers and employees harmless from and against any
and all claims asserted or liability established for damages or injuries to any person or property, including
injury to the Contractor's employees, agents or officers that arise from or are connected with or are caused
or claimed to be caused by the acts or omissions of the Contractor, and its agents, officers or employees, in
performing the work or services herein, and all expenses of investigating and defending against same;
provided, however, that the Contractor's duty to indemnify and hold harmless shall not include any claims or
liability arising from the established sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its agents, officers or
employees. In the event of conflict with any other indemnification or hold harmless provisions of this
Agreement, the provision that provides the most protection to the City shall apply.
ARTICLE V. It is further expressly agreed by and between the parties hereto that should there be any
conflict between the terms of this instrument and the bid of said Contractor, then this instrument shall control
and nothing herein shall be considered as an acceptance of the said terms of said bid conflicting herewith.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to these presents have hereunto set their hands this year and date
first above written.
ATTEST: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
A Municipal Corporation
__________________________ By:_________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONTRACTOR:
Electricraft, Inc.
By: __________________________
J. Christine Dietrick Jon W. Treder
City Attorney Its: President
9.c
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: c - Agreement (1425 : Meadow Park Lighting)
9.c
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: c - Agreement (1425 : Meadow Park Lighting)
Page intentionally left
blank.
Meeting Date: 8/16/2016
FROM: Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager/Interim Director of Finance & I.T.
Prepared By: Vilma Warner, Finance Operations Manager
SUBJECT: UNCLAIMED MONEY POLICY
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving an Escheatment Policy regarding the handling of unclaimed
money.
Background
A best practice is for cities to have clear policies regarding the handling of unclaimed money.
Staff has finalized a new policy for the escheat of unclaimed property. Escheat is the legal
process of lapsing or reverting ownership of unclaimed private property, or in this case
unclaimed monies, to the government by operation of law. The California Unclaimed Property
Law (UPL) generally provides that unclaimed moneys held by private business and state
government agencies escheat to the state. The UPL does not apply to money in the custody of
local agencies. Escheat of unclaimed property in the possession of local agencies is governed by
the local government escheat laws set forth in the Government Code. Specifically, Government
Code sections 50050 through 50057 provide for unclaimed property in the City’s possession to
permanently escheat to the City.
Policy Considerations
When unclaimed money is held in a special fund, once the money escheats to the City, the City
Council, in its discretion, may allow the money to escheat to the special fund or to be transferred
to the General Fund. Specifically, Government Code Section 50053 provides: “When any such
money becomes the property of a local agency and is in a special fund, the legislative body may
transfer it to the general fund.”
Some amounts of the unclaimed money in the City’s possession is currently held in the utility
funds. However, unclaimed money held in the utility funds is not the property of the utility funds
because it is the result of overpayments, including deposits, and therefore is not a fee for service
rendered. Rather, the unclaimed money is simply being held for the true owners who failed to
claim it. The proposed policy would only be applied after the City has exhausted all reasonable
methods (i.e. letters, phone calls, emails, etc.) to contact the lawful claimant to the funds and has
followed the procedures required by the Government Code.
10
Packet Pg. 233
Staff is recommending that the City Council direct the City Manager to transfer permanently
escheated unclaimed property held in any special fund to the City’s General Fund pursuant to
Government Code Section 50053 and proposed policy, with the exception of any cost
reimbursement necessary to comply with Proposition 218.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City’s adoption of an Escheatment Policy is not a project under CEQA and therefore, no
environmental review is required.
FISCAL IMPACT
The first year of the policy application the city will likely collect $8,000 to $10,000; after that,
the amount will be too uncertain to estimate.
ALTERNATIVES
1. An alternative is to not adopt a policy which is not recommended as having clear policy
about unclaimed monies is good public policy and a best practice.
2. Modify the proposed policy as presented. If modifications are proposed, staff recommends
that they be limited in creating additional administrative steps and in conformance with
Government Code requirements.
Attachments:
a - Finance Unclaimed money
b - Resolution
10
Packet Pg. 234
Financial Policies – Unclaimed Money
The purpose of the unclaimed money policy is to provide the proper mechanism to take possession of long
standing unclaimed monies in accordance with State law and to ensure accurate accounting. The City shall make
every reasonable effort to contact a lawful claimant of unclaimed monies prior to the issuance of notices described
in this policy.
A. STATE LAW. State law specifies that money that is not the property of a local agency, including cities, that
remains unclaimed for a period of more than three (3) years becomes the property of the agency not less than
forty-five days after an initial public notice is published in a newspaper of general circulation published in the
local agency. (Government Code Secs. 50001, 50050 and 50051.)
B. DATE UNCLAIMED MONEY BECOMES CITY PROPERTY. Money that is not the property of the City of
San Luis Obispo that remains unclaimed for a period of more than three (3) years shall become the property
of the City of San Luis Obispo forty-five(45) days after the initial public notice is published, except as
otherwise specifically provided below.
C. PUBLISHED NOTICES. At any time after the expiration of the three (3) year period, the Treasurer of the
City of San Luis Obispo will cause a notice to be published once a week for two successive weeks in a
newspaper of general circulation published in the City of San Luis Obispo. (Gov. Code Secs. 50050 and
50051)
D. NOTICE CONTENTS. The notice shall include the statutorily required information, which is the amount of
money, the fund in which it is held, and that that the money shall become the property of the City of San Luis
Obispo on a date not less than forty-five (45) days nor more than sixty (60) days after the first publication of
the notice. The notice may also, but is not required to, include the following information:
1. The individual or business name as shown on the issued check.
2. The check date, number and the amount of money on the issued check. See Exhibit I.
E. PERMISSIVE WRITTEN NOTICE. At or about the time of the initial published notice, the City may attempt
to send a letter and affidavit form for replacement checks to the address on record for any warrant(s), check or
other item issued more than three (3) years prior to evaluation date. Failure to send the letter and affidavit
form or the failure of any person to receive either or both will not prevent the unclaimed money from
becoming the property of the City forty-five (45) days after initial publication of the notice. See Exhibits II
and III
F. PROOF OF PUBLICATION. A proof of publication from the newspaper is to be retained in accordance with
the City’s records retention policy as proof that the City published the required notice for two consecutive
weeks.
G. CLAIM/CONTENTS. Upon or prior to publication, a party of interest may file a claim with the Treasurer,
before the date the unclaimed money becomes the property of the City, seeking to claim all, or a designated
part, of the unclaimed money. The claim which must include the following information:
1. The claimant’s name, address and telephone number.
2. The claimant’s Social Security Number or Federal Employer Identification Number.
3. Proof of identify of claimant such as a copy of a driver’s license, social security card or birth
certificate.
4. The amount of the claim.
10.a
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: a - Finance Unclaimed money (1429 : Unclaimed Money Policy)
The grounds on which the claim is founded.
The treasurer may accept or reject the claim. See Exhibit III. (Gov. Code Sec. 50052).
H. RELEASE OF UNCLAIMED MONEY. The Treasurer may release to the depositor of the unclaimed money,
their heir, beneficiary, or duly appointed representative, unclaimed money if claimed prior to the date the
money becomes the property of the City upon submitting proof satisfactory to the Treasurer. (Gov. Code Sec.
50052.5)
I. TRANSFER FROM SPECIAL TO GENERAL FUND. When the unclaimed funds become the property of
the City of San Luis Obispo and are in a Special fund, the City Council may transfer them by resolution to the
General Fund. (Gov. Code Sec. 50053)
J. UNCLAIMED MONEY LESS THAN $15.00. Any individual item of less than fifteen dollars ($15.00), or
any amount if the depositor’s name is unknown, which remain unclaimed for a period of one (1) year, the
City Council may be transfer such funds which the money was originally drawn to the General Fund without
the necessity of publication of a notice in a newspaper. (Gov. Code Sec. 50055)
K. DELEGATION OF TREASURER’S RESPONSIBILITIES TO DEPARTMENTS. The responsibility of the
Treasurer may be delegated by the Treasurer to the department that maintains the supporting records of the
un-cleared checks or unclaimed money based on the initial receipt or deposit of the money or both. (Gov.
Code Sec. 50056). The Treasurer may delegate its responsibilities for processing unclaimed money claims to
the Accounting Manager in the Finance Department.
L. ACCEPTANCE OF CLAIM. Except otherwise provided in this procedure, if the Treasurer of Finance or
other Department accepts the claim, the City may release to the depositor of an unclaimed check, warrant,
money or other item, or the heir, beneficiary, or duly appointed representative of the depositor, all or a
designated part of the amount of an unclaimed check, warrant or other item, if:
1. Claim is filed prior to the date the money becomes the property of the City of San Luis Obispo
2. Proof substantiating the claim is conveyed in writing, including all items detailed in items “G”
and “H” of this policy.
3. After proper documentation is secured, payment request is prepared to
release money based upon approved Claim Form.
M. REJECTION OF CLAIM. If the treasurer or Finance or other Department rejects all or part of a claim for
unclaimed money, (Exhibit III), the claimant may file a verified complaint seeking to recover all, or a
designated part, of the money in a court within San Luis Obispo County. The City Clerk shall be served with
a copy of the complaint and summons which within thirty (30) days of the claimant receiving notice that the
claim was rejected. The City Clerk shall notify the Finance Department or other department that rejected the
claim. The City shall withhold the release of the portion of the unclaimed money for which a court action has
been filed until a decision is rendered by the court. See Exhibit IV.
10.a
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: a - Finance Unclaimed money (1429 : Unclaimed Money Policy)
N. ACCOUNTING TRANSACTIONS.
1. If a claim for unclaimed money is received prior to the date designated in the Public Notice
for the unclaimed money to become the property of the City, the Finance Director or designee
will verify the claimant’s supporting information and obtain an approval to stop payment of
the claimed check for checks over $1,000. If the claimant satisfies all conditions required
under this procedure, the City will void the old check and issue a new check for the claimed
amount to the claimant.
i. Accounts payable checks, and Payroll checks will be voided through the void
process. In addition, a journal entry will be prepared to Debit the original expense
account and Credit the Unclaimed Funds revenue account 100-XXXX.
ii. As of March 31st, annually, all outstanding checks of less than fifteen (15) dollars
from Accounts Payable and Payroll will be checked to determine those checks that
have issue dates over twelve (12) months. These amounts will then be set into a
resolution for the City Council to approve, transferring these amounts to the General
Fund miscellaneous revenue account. Follow step i, above.
Attachments:
Exhibit I - Sample of Public Notice
Exhibit II – Sample Letter
Exhibit III -Sample of Unclaimed Money – Claim Form
Exhibit IV – Sample of Money Claim Rejection Form
Exhibit V – Resolution to transfer unclaimed check funds to the General Fund
Exhibit VI – Resolution to transfer unclaimed funds of checks less than fifteen dollars (15) each or
any amount, if the depositor’s name is unknown to the General Fund
Exhibit VII - California Government Code Section 50050-50057
10.a
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: a - Finance Unclaimed money (1429 : Unclaimed Money Policy)
Exhibit I – Sample of Public Notice
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT, the Finance Department of the City of San Luis Obispo,
County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, declares that the following monetary sums have been
held by the City of San Luis Obispo and have remained unclaimed in the funds hereafter indicated for
a period of over three (3) years and will become the property of the City of San Luis Obispo on the xx
the day of the Month, Year, a date not less than forty-five (45) days or more than sixty (60) days after
the first publication of this Notice.
Any party of interest may, prior to the date designated herein above, file a claim with the City’s
Finance Department which includes the claimant’s name, address and telephone number, Social
Security Number or Federal Employer Identification Number, amount of claim, the grounds on which
the claim is founded. The Unclaimed Money Claim Form can be obtained from the City’s
Administrative office at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, or from the City’s website at
http://www.slocity.org. Proof of identify such as a copy of a driver’s license, social security card or
birth certificate must be provided before funds will be released. With any questions, please contact
the City of San Luis Obispo, Finance Department at (805) 781-7124
This notice and its contents are in accordance with California Government Code Sections 50050 et
seq.
Check Date Check Number Payee Name Check Amount
10.a
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: a - Finance Unclaimed money (1429 : Unclaimed Money Policy)
Exhibit II – Sample Letter
Dear _____________,
Our records indicated that check number ___________ issued to you on
______________ in the amount of $______________by the City of San Luis Obispo, has not
been cashed and is now stale dated. To claim this money, please complete the enclosed
‘Stale Dated Check Replacement Affidavit’ as indicated and mail to:
City of San Luis Obispo
Finance Department
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Upon receipt of the properly signed affidavit, a new check will be issued to you. Please
feel free to call at 805-781-7434 if you have any questions or any assistance.
Finance Director
City of San Luis Obispo
Enclosure
10.a
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: a - Finance Unclaimed money (1429 : Unclaimed Money Policy)
Exhibit III – Sample of Unclaimed Money – Claim Form
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UNCLAIMED MONEY – CLAIM FORM
Return completed form to:
City of San Luis Obispo Finance Department
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 50052, I wish to file a claim for a previously
unclaimed check in the amount of $ _________________ that was published in the SLO Tribune on
_________________________. The grounds on which I file this claim are:
______________________________ _____________________________
Vendor or Individual Name (Printed) Taxpayer I.D. or Social Security No.
_______________________________ _____________________________
Vendor or Individual Name (Signature) Telephone Number
_______________________________
Address
_______________________________
City/State/Zip Code
FOR FINANCE DEPARTMENT ONLY
Proof of Identity Verified (check one):
Driver’s License _________ Social Security Card _________ Birth Certificate _________
Verified By: _______________ Date: _________
Claim: Approved Rejected Reason for Rejection:
Reviewed By:_______________ Date:_________
10.a
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: a - Finance Unclaimed money (1429 : Unclaimed Money Policy)
Exhibit IV – Sample of Money Claim Rejection Form
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
MONEY CLAIM REJECTION FORM
The City of San Luis Obispo has rejected the unclaimed property claim of:
Vendor or Individual Name: ______________________________________________
Taxpayer I.D. or Social Security Number: ___________________________________
Address: ______________________________________________________________
City/State/Zip Code: _____________________________________________________
Original Check Date: ___________________________
Original Check Amount: _________________________
The grounds on which this claim has been rejected are:
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Under California Government Code Section 50052, you have the right to file a verified complaint
seeking to recover all, or a designated part, of the money in a court of competent jurisdiction within
San Luis Obispo County. A copy of the complaint and the summons issued thereon must be served
within thirty (30) days of receiving this notice of rejection. Upon being served, the Finance Director
will withhold the disputed amount from being released until a decision is rendered by the court.
10.a
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: a - Finance Unclaimed money (1429 : Unclaimed Money Policy)
Exhibit V – Resolution to transfer unclaimed check funds to the General Fund
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
RESOLUTION NO. ________
RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER UNCLAIMED CHECK FUNDS FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE
FUND(S) TO THE GENERAL FUND PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 50053
WHEREAS, the attached list of checks has been outstanding and unclaimed in special funds for
more than three years; and
WHEREAS, the City has provided public notice as required in California Government Code
Sections 50050 and 50051 and the City’s Unclaimed Check Policy,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that in accordance with California Government Code
Section 50053, the unclaimed checks on the attached list in the total amount of $00.00 shall be
transferred from the respective funds(s) to the General Fund’s non-departmental revenue account.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at a meeting on
_______________by the following vote:
AYES: _________________________________________________________________
NOES: _________________________________________________________________
ABSTAIN: ______________________________________________________________
ABSENT: ______________________________________________________________
ATTEST:
_____________________________ ___________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
10.a
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: a - Finance Unclaimed money (1429 : Unclaimed Money Policy)
Exhibit VI – Resolution to transfer unclaimed funds of checks less than fifteen (15) dollars each or any
amount, if the depositor’s name is unknown to the General Fund
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
RESOLUTION NO. ___________
RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER UNCLAIMED CHECK FUNDS FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE
FUND(S) TO THE GENERAL FUND PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 50055
WHEREAS, the attached list of checks has been outstanding and unclaimed in special fund(s) for more
than three years; and
WHEREAS, each of the checks listed on the attached summary is less than fifteen dollars ($15.00) dollars
or any amount, if the depositor’s name is unknown,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that in accordance with California Government Code Section
50055, the unclaimed checks on the attached list in the total amount of $________ shall be transferred
from the respective funds(s) to the General Fund’s non-departmental revenue account.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at a meeting on
_______________by the following vote:
AYES:________________________________________________________________
NOES:_______________________________________________________________
ABSTAIN:_____________________________________________________________
ABSENT:______________________________________________________________
ATTEST: _____________________________ ________________________
City Clerk Mayor
10.a
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: a - Finance Unclaimed money (1429 : Unclaimed Money Policy)
Exhibit VII – California Government Code Section 50050-50057
GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 50050-50057
50050. Unclaimed money in treasury of local agency or custody of officers; publication of notice;
restitution money; use of money for victim services
For purposes of this article, “local agency” includes all districts. Except as otherwise provided by law,
money, excluding restitution to victims, that is not the property of a local agency that remains unclaimed
in its treasury or in the official custody of its officers for three years is the property of the local agency
after notice if not claimed or if no verified complaint is filed and served. At any time after the expiration
of the three-year period, the treasurer of the local agency may cause a notice to be published once a week
for two successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation published in the local agency. At the
expiration of the three-year period, money representing restitution collected on behalf of victims shall be
deposited into the Restitution Fund or used by the local agency for purposes of victim services. If a local
agency elects to use the money for purposes of victim services, the local agency shall first document that
it has made a reasonable effort to locate and notify the victim to whom the restitution is owed. The local
agency may utilize fees collected pursuant to subdivision (l) of Section 1203.1 or subdivision (f) of
Section 2085.5 of the Penal Code to offset the reasonable cost of locating and notifying the victim to
whom restitution is owed. With respect to moneys deposited with the county treasurer pursuant to Section
7663 of the Probate Code, this three-year period to claim money held by a local agency is extended for an
infant or person of unsound mind until one year from the date his or her disability ceases.
For purposes of this section, "infant" and "person of unsound mind" have the same meaning as given to
those terms as used in Section 1441 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
50051. Unclaimed money; notice; contents
The notice shall state the amount of money, the fund in which it is held, and that it is proposed that the
money will become the property of the local agency on a designated date not less than forty-five days nor
more than sixty days after the first publication of the notice.
50052. Unclaimed money; filing of claim; requisites; acceptance or rejection; court proceedings
Upon or prior to publication, a party of interest may file a claim with the treasurer which must include the
claimant's name, address, amount of claim, the grounds on which the claim is founded, and any other
information that may be required by the treasurer. The claim shall be filed before the date the unclaimed
money becomes the property of the local agency as provided under Section 50051 and the treasurer shall
accept or reject that claim. If the claim is rejected by the treasurer, the party who submitted the claim may
file a verified complaint seeking to recover all, or a designated part, of the money in a court of competent
jurisdiction within the county in which the notice is published, and serves a copy of the complaint and the
summons issued thereon upon the treasurer. The copy of the complaint and summons shall be served
within 30 days of receiving notice that the claim was rejected. The treasurer shall withhold the release of
the portion of unclaimed money for which a court action has been filed as provided in this section until a
decision is rendered by the court.
10.a
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: a - Finance Unclaimed money (1429 : Unclaimed Money Policy)
50052.5. Unclaimed money; release; value; liability
(a) Notwithstanding Section 50052, the treasurer may release to the depositor of the unclaimed money,
their heir, beneficiary, or duly appointed representative, unclaimed money if claimed prior to the date the
money becomes the property of the local agency upon submitting proof satisfactory to the treasurer,
unless the unclaimed money is deposited pursuant to Section 7663 of the Probate Code.
(b) Notwithstanding Section 50052, the treasurer may release unclaimed money deposited with the county
treasurer pursuant to Section 7663 of the Probate Code, to any adult blood relative of either the decedent
or the decedent's predeceased spouse.
(c) Notwithstanding Section 50052, the treasurer may release unclaimed money deposited with the county
treasurer pursuant to Section 7663 of the Probate Code to the parent who has legal and physical custody
of a minor who is a blood relative of either the decedent or the decedent's predeceased spouse without the
need to appoint a legal guardian for the minor as follows:
(1) If the value of the unclaimed money deposited with the county treasurer is five thousand dollars
($5,000) or less, the treasurer may release the money according to Section 3401 of the Probate Code.
(2) If the value of the unclaimed money deposited with the county treasurer is sixty thousand dollars
($60,000) or less, and the money is not released under paragraph (1), the unclaimed money may be
released by the treasurer to the parent who shall, after payment of any costs incurred in making the claim,
hold the money in trust, to be used only for the care, maintenance, and education of the minor, and the
parent shall be liable therefor to the minor under the fiduciary laws of this state. The money held in trust
shall be released to the minor when the minor reaches the age of majority.
(d) The claim shall be presented to the county treasurer in affidavit form and signed under penalty of
perjury. Notwithstanding Section 13101 of the Probate Code, the claimant, to be entitled to the entire
escheated estate, needs only to establish with documentary proof the existence of a blood relationship to
either the decedent or of the predeceased spouse, if any, and the documentary proof, if regular on its face,
need not be certified. Notwithstanding Section 13101 of the Probate Code, the claimant shall not be
required to declare that no other person has an equal or superior claim to the escheated estate.
The county treasurer may rely in good faith on the sworn statements made in the claim and shall have no
duty to inquire into the truth or credibility of evidence submitted.
In paying out the escheated estate, the county treasurer shall be held harmless to all. Payment shall act as
total acquaintance and shall completely discharge the county treasurer from any liability.
If the county treasurer rejects any claim made hereunder, the claimant may take his or her grievance to the
Superior Court of the county holding the escheated estate.
Any claim paid hereunder shall be paid without interest.
50053. Unclaimed money; transfer to general fund on acquisition of ownership
When any such money becomes the property of a local agency and is in a special fund, the legislative
body may transfer it to the general fund.
10.a
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: a - Finance Unclaimed money (1429 : Unclaimed Money Policy)
50054. Performance of construction services or construction of public works by governmental body;
charge
Whenever any city or county or city and county renders construction services or constructs public works
for any city, county, city and county or any other governmental agency below the level of the state
government, the price charged for such services or construction shall be sufficient to reimburse the
governmental body performing such services for the full cost thereof including labor, material, equipment
costs or rentals and a reasonable allowance for overhead. In computing overhead, without limitation on
other factors properly includable, there shall be allocated to the overhead cost its proportionate share of
indirect labor and administrative costs.
50055. Unclaimed money; transfer to general fund
Any other provision of this article notwithstanding, any individual items of less than fifteen dollars ($15),
or any amount if the depositor's name is unknown, which remain unclaimed in the treasury or in the
official custody of an officer of a local agency for the period of one year or upon an order of the court
may be transferred to the general fund by the legislative body without the necessity of publication of a
notice in a newspaper.
50056. Unclaimed money; transfer to general fund
The responsibilities of the treasurer as provided under this article may be delegated by the treasurer to the
agency, district, or department that maintains the supporting records of the unclaimed money based on the
initial receipt or deposit of that money or both.
50057. Amount of five thousand dollars or less; authority of county treasurer
For individual items in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000) or less, the legislative body of any
county may, by resolution, authorizes the county treasurer to perform on its behalf any act required or
authorized to be performed by it under Sections 50050, 50053, and 50055. The resolution shall require
that the county auditor be informed of each act performed under the authorization.
10.a
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: a - Finance Unclaimed money (1429 : Unclaimed Money Policy)
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. (2016 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE CITY’S POLICY FOR THE
ESCHEATMENT OF UNCLAIMED MONEY
WHEREAS, from time to time checks issued by the City will remain un-cashed despite
efforts made by City staff to make contact with the payees and re-issue the checks; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Sections 50050 et seq., establishes the
guidelines for a local agency to follow in order to transfer unclaimed money held by the local
agency, which is not the property of the local agency, to the local agency General Fund.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Obispo,
hereby resolves as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council hereby approves and adopts the City of San Luis Obispo Policy
for the Escheatment of Unclaimed Money as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and
incorporated in this Resolution as if fully set forth at this point.
SECTION 2. This Resolution is effective upon its adoption.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2016.
____________________________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim City Clerk
10.b
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: b - Resolution (1429 : Unclaimed Money Policy)
Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 2
R ______
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim City Clerk
10.b
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: b - Resolution (1429 : Unclaimed Money Policy)
Meeting Date: 8/16/2016
FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Gamaliel Anguiano, Transit Manager
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE CITY STAFF TO APPLY FOR FEDERAL
TRANSIT FUNDS
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution authorizing the Public Works Director, or his designee, to execute and file
grant applications to receive federal funds for transit projects with the Federal Transit
Administration and to execute any related grant applications, certifications, assurances, forms,
agreements, and associated documents on behalf of the City.
DISCUSSION
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requires that all transit fund recipients recertify a
member of staff as the recipient’s authorized designee to execute grants, and fulfill related
matters, on behalf of their organization on a yearly basis. The proposed reauthorization would
be in effect for the length of the latest transit funding legislation enacted by Congress known as
“Fixing America’s Surface Transportation” (FAST) Act. FAST now supersedes Moving Ahead
for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), the prior transit funding legislation.
The City of San Luis Obispo’s Transit system (SLO Transit) is a federally assisted public transit
system receiving 5307, Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) and other federal funding.
The recertification process is essential in order for SLO Transit to continue to apply for and
receive federal funding as required by the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 49 Chapter 53,
Title 23.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City’s authorization of staff to execute grants for the FAST program does not constitute a
“project” within the meaning of CEQA and no environmental review is required for this item.
FISCAL IMPACT
A resolution reauthorizing staff will allow the City’s transit enterprise fund to continue to apply,
receive and manage FTA issued transit funds.
ALTERNATIVES
No authorization would limit the City’s transit system from receiving FTA transit funding
11
Packet Pg. 249
assistance (5307, CMAQ, TIGER, etc.) which would have an unfavorable impact on the level of
transit services.
Attachments:
a - CAR Resolution ReAuthorization - FAST
11
Packet Pg. 250
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2016 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC WORKS
DIRECTOR, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO EXECUTE AND FILE FEDERAL
GRANT APPLICATIONS WITH THE FEDERAL TRANSIT
ADMINISTRATION (FTA) AND TO FULFILL ANY RELATED GRANT
APPLICATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS, ASSURANCES, FORMS,
AGREEMENTS, AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE
CITY
WHEREAS, in order for the City of San Luis Obispo to be eligible to receive future
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) grant awards, the FTA has directed grant recipients to adopt
updated authorizing resolutions to comply with “Fixing America’s Surface Transportation”
(FAST), which is a recent legislation enacted by Congress to supersede the “Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act” known as MAP-21; and
WHEREAS, the City utilizes FTA’s funding program under FAST to create, submit,
execute, and manage Section 5307, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality grant funds for
transit operations and capital projects; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends the City Council authorize the Public Works Director, or
his designee, to execute and file grant applications to receive federal funds for transit projects with
the FTA and to execute any related grant applications, certifications, assurances, forms,
agreements, and associated documents on behalf of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City if San Luis Obispo City Council
does hereby authorize the Public Works Director or his designee to execute and file grant
applications to receive federal funds for transit projects with the FTA and to execute any related
grant applications, certifications, assurances, forms, agreements, and associated documents on
behalf of the City of San Luis Obispo.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2016.
____________________________________
Mayor Jan Marx
11.a
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: a - CAR Resolution ReAuthorization - FAST (1434 : Resolution To Authorize City Staff To Apply For Federal Transit Funds)
Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 2
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim City Clerk
11.a
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: a - CAR Resolution ReAuthorization - FAST (1434 : Resolution To Authorize City Staff To Apply For Federal Transit Funds)
Meeting Date: 8/16/2016
FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director
Prepared By: David Hix, Deputy Director – Wastewater
Jasmine Diaz, Assistant Program Manager – WSC
SUBJECT: WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY PROJECT –
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CERTIFICATION AND FUNDING
APPLICATION REQUEST
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Adopt a resolution certifying the Water Resource Recovery Facility Project Environmental
Impact Report; and
2. Adopt a resolution supporting the pursuit of Clean Water State Revolving Fund grant and
loan funding, and authorizing staff to submit the environmental component of the State
Revolving Fund financing package; and
3. Adopt a resolution in support of enhancing and expanding partnerships for the Water
Resource Recovery Facility Project.
DISCUSSION
Background
On July 7, 2015, Council adopted the Water Resource Recovery Facility Project Facilities Plan
and authorized the issuance of a request for proposals for design engineering services. CH2M
was awarded this contract in November 2015. CH2M is close to completing the preliminary
design phase which consists of the development of a preliminary design report (PDR) and 30%
drawings.
Today’s Action
A resolution certifying the EIR (attachment A) is a required action before construction can begin
on the WRRF project. It is also required as a step in obtaining State Revolving Fund funding.
Adopting the additional resolutions (attachments C and D) related to the WRRF Project will
provide needed tools for staff to continue efficiently and effectively moving the project forward.
Figure 1, following, shows the timeline for the next steps in the project through full design.
12
Packet Pg. 253
WRRF Project Milestones and Action Timeline
Figure 1 Water Resource Recovery Facility Project Milestones and Clean Water State Revolving Fund Application Timeline
shown side by side. (The highlighted boxes are times when the WRRF Project Team will come to Council.)
12
Packet Pg. 254
WRRF Project Design Update-in-Brief
At the beginning of the design process, CH2M recommended that the City reexamine the
secondary processes for nutrient removal found in the facilities plan and consider an alternative
for cooling utilizing a wetlands approach. Using wetlands for cooling is still undergoing
evaluation. After an extensive re-evaluation process, the membrane bioreactor (MBR) was
chosen as the secondary process that demonstrated the best overall performance to meet
upcoming regulatory requirements and achieve potable reuse goals.
MBR has a robust biological reactor followed by a membrane to filter the effluent. This results in
exceptional quality effluent and an additional layer of protection for downstream processes such
as ultraviolet (UV) disinfection.
Environmental Impact Report
The City Council is being asked to certify the WRRF Project EIR (Council reading file) which
adequately describes the project, project impacts, and mitigation measures necessary to reduce
the potentially significant environmental impacts to less than significant levels.
The WRRF Project EIR follows the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements
(attachment B) to identify the significant environmental impacts of a project and to avoid or
mitigate the impacts if feasible. Overall, the WRRF Project will not have significant
environmental impacts.
The WRRF Project Draft EIR was circulated for public comment on April 18, 2016; public
comments closed June 6, 2016. Comments received were reviewed, responded to, and
appropriately integrated within the Final EIR. The Final EIR details significant environmental
effects of proposed actions and identifies ways to avoid or reduce those impacts to a level of
insignificance.
The WRRF Project is located wholly within the existing fence line of the existing WRRF at 35
Figure 2. Example of a membrane bioreactor
12
Packet Pg. 255
Prado Road, with the exception of a storm water outfall that may be constructed near the San
Luis Obispo Creek bed.
Figure 3. Summary of Environmental Impact Report Key Sections
While the proposed WRRF project is recommended, two other project choices were described in
Impacts and Mitigations
“All identified environmental
impacts associated with the [WRRF]
project can be mitigated to less than
significant levels, either with the
implementation of standard project
best management practices (BMPs)
included as part of the proposed
project and/or with mitigation
identified in the analysis. No
significant unavoidable impacts
would occur from proposed project
implementation.”
– Water Resource Recovery Facility
Project Final EIR, page 5
12
Packet Pg. 256
the alternatives section of the EIR; no project and process options. Following is a brief summary
of the two alternatives.
No Project Alternative
Not doing the project was determined to potentially be the environmentally superior alternative,
when compared to the proposed project, in that it would avoid all of the potentially significant
impacts associated with construction of the proposed project. However, it would not meet any of
the objectives of the proposed project, including complying with the stringent discharge
requirements included in the WRRF’s September 2014 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit and the accompanying Time Schedule Order that establishes the
compliance schedule for the project. In addition, none of the beneficial impacts of the project
with regards to water quality and odor reduction would be realized under this alternative.
Process Alternative
This alternative considered a project with alternate technologies (other than MBR) that would
also meet the NPDES permit requirements. These process alternatives (detailed in the WRRF
Facilities Plan) include renewable energy, flow equalization, disinfection, cooling, secondary
treatment, and filtration. This alternative has a similar level of impact as the proposed project.
While these process options would be feasible for use at the WRRF site, they are not preferred.
Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan
CEQA requires that a reporting or monitoring program be adopted for the conditions of project
approval that are necessary to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The
Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP) (Attachment B) is designed to ensure
compliance with adopted mitigation measures during project implementation. For each
mitigation measure recommended in the EIR, specific actions are required as well as the
associated monitoring that must occur. In addition, a responsible agency is identified for
verifying compliance with individual conditions of approval contained in the MMRP.
The MMRP is a part of the EIR and, as a result of certifying the EIR, will be adopted by Council.
The City will follow the requirements of the MMRP to ensure compliance with the adopted
mitigation measures during project construction.
For a complete breakdown of the project and its impacts see the full WRRF Project EIR in the
Council reading file or at http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/utilities-
department/documents-and-files.
Resolution to Pursue CWSRF Financing (Attachment C)
Certification of the WRRF EIR is a required precedent action to allow the City to submit the
environmental section of a joint application for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)
low interest loan and the Water Recycling Funding Program (WRFP) construction funding
program. These are two programs administered by the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) with one combined application. The WRFP program requires a 50% cost share that
can be satisfied by the CWSRF low interest financing. The CWSRF has no maximum funding
limit and has no fund-matching requirements. The goals of the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund and Water Recycling Fund loan and grant program include:
12
Packet Pg. 257
1. Help communities prevent pollution of precious water resources to maintain their
beneficial uses.
2. Provide below-market rate financing for the construction of wastewater treatment and
water recycling facilities.
3. To promote the beneficial use of treated municipal wastewater (water recycling) in order
to augment fresh water supplies in California.
The application includes four main components called packages: general, environmental,
financial, and technical. As part of the pre-application process, the general package has already
been submitted and, with the finalization of the EIR, the environmental package may be
completed and submitted. Authorization to submit the environmental package, because of the
long lead time the CWSRF program requires for its review, is being requested. Submission of the
environmental package does not obligate the City to accept a CWSRF loan, but allows the time-
consuming process to begin.
The funding amount requested from the CWSRF can be amended until the final agreement with
the State is drafted and approved by Council. It is anticipated the final agreement will be
available for Council’s consideration by summer 2017. The CWSRF/WRFP programs will
provide favorable low interest funding for the WRRF Project.
Resolution Promoting the WRRF Project
The mission of the WRRF Project is to deliver a Water Resource Recovery Facility in
partnership with stakeholders that provides economic, social, and environmental value to our
community. In alignment with the Project Charter (Attachment F), and in recognition of the
importance of the project to the community, it is recommended City Council adopt a resolution
(Attachment D) supporting the WRRF Project. The resolution adds value to and is intended to
assist City staff with demonstrating the Council’s support for the WRRF Project when pursuing
the development of partnerships with local, state, and federal agencies and organizations.
Next Steps
The preliminary design report is due to the City on August 5, 2016. The PDR will be reviewed
by the project team after which time value engineering (VE) and a constructability review (CR)
will occur. The VE process consists of a group of subject-matter experts coming together to
identify opportunities for the City to maximize the value of the preliminary WRRF design. In
addition to VE, the Project team will perform a constructability review to ensure the design that
is proposed in the PDR is feasible to construct and identify potential flaws with the design that
could result in issues during construction. The ideas and recommendations that result from both
processes will inform the basis of the remainder of the design effort.
The PDR is scheduled to come before the City Council in October/November 2016. This is the
point where cost estimates will be updated. Council will also consider a recommendation to
submit the technical and financial packages to SRF at this time.
12
Packet Pg. 258
Overall Project Schedule
The WRRF Project is on schedule. After Council considers the PDR, final design will begin. The
WRRF Project and Design Team is working diligently to stay on schedule in order to comply
with the Time Schedule Order (TSO) completion date that is incorporated into the City’s
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. The TSO date is the deadline for
WRRF compliance with the NPDES permit limits for disinfection by-products and nutrients. The
City and Central Coast Water Board (CCWB) staff have been and will continue to stay in close
contact regarding the TSO requirements and project schedule milestones.
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Consultant Selection and Contracting
Preliminary Design
CEQA
Final Design
Bidding and Award
Construction
TSO Compliance Deadline
Final Completion
Project Implementation Activities
2021201520162017201820192020
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended actions at this time. Certification of
the EIR obligates the City to follow the appropriate requirements of the Mitigation, Monitoring,
and Reporting Plan to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures during project
construction. Costs associated with the MMRP will be incorporated into the updated project
costs included with the PDR. Certification of the WRRF Project EIR and submission of the
environmental package does not obligate the City to CWSRF commitments or loans.
Alternatives
1. Council could choose not to certify the WRRF Project EIR should it find it lacking in
some way. While a CEQA specialist prepared the document and it meets all CEQA
requirements, should Council choose this alternative, staff requests specific direction as
to what changes the Council requires in order for the EIR to be acceptable for
certification. WRRF Project construction cannot move forward without a certified EIR.
SRF funding cannot be considered without the EIR certification.
2. Council could choose to not adopt a resolution supporting the WRRF Project. The
adoption of the resolution adds value to staff efforts to form partnerships that will benefit
the Project and community. Should the Council not adopt the resolution, staff would still
continue its partnering efforts just without the added value of the supporting resolution.
12
Packet Pg. 259
Attachments:
a - Resolution WRRF EIR Certification
b - Exhibit A-CEQA Findings and MMRP
c - Resolution CWSRF and WRFP Funding Environmental Package
d - Resolution WRRF Council Partnering
e - Council Reading File - WRRF Project Final Environmental Impact Report
f - Council Reading File-WRRF Project Charter
12
Packet Pg. 260
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. (2016 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL EIR FOR THE
WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a
public hearing in the Council Chamber City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California,
on April 27, 2016, for the purpose of receiving a presentation on the Water Resource Recovery
Facility (WRRF) project Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of public testimony and providing
feedback to staff on WRRF project Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of
City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on August 16, 2016, for the purpose of
considering the Final EIR for the WRRF project ; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of interested parties and Planning Commissioners, and presented at said hearing, and the
evaluation and recommendation by staff; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in a manner
required by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Finding. Based upon all the evidence, including, without limitation, staff
reports, memoranda, technical studies, maps, letters and minutes of all relevant meetings, the
City Council hereby makes the following findings in addition to the CEQA findings set forth in
Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full;
1. The Draft EIR for the Water Resources Recovery Facility (WRRF) was released on April
18, 2016 with a 45-day comment period that closed on June 6, 2016. The Final EIR was
issued on July 25, 2016. For each identified potentially significant effect under the
categories of Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Recreation, mitigation measures
and/or the implementation of standard project best management practices (BMPs) were
included and incorporated into the WRRF project to reduce the identified potentially
significant impacts to less than significant levels. No significant unavoidable impacts were
identified as a result of the proposed project implementation.
2. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15025(c), the Planning Commission has reviewed
and considered the information in the EIR prior to making its recommendations to the City
Council.
12.a
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: a - Resolution WRRF EIR Certification (1430 : WRRF Environmental Impact Report)
Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 2
R ______
3. The EIR was presented to the City Council, and the Council has reviewed and considered
the information contained in the EIR prior to approving the WRRF project.
4. The City Council finds that the information and analysis in the Final EIR prepared for the
WRRF project reflects the independent judgment of the City Council as to the
environmental consequences of the proposed project, and certifies the EIR as adequate,
complete and in compliance with CEQA statues and guidelines, and the City’s local
guidelines.
SECTION 2. Action. The City Council hereby adopts the CEQA findings set forth
herein, approves and adopts Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit A
and hereby certifies the Final EIR for the WRRF project. The Utilities Director is hereby directed
to file a notice of determination consistent herewith.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________, 2016.
____________________________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
12.a
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: a - Resolution WRRF EIR Certification (1430 : WRRF Environmental Impact Report)
Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 3
R ______
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim City Clerk
12.a
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: a - Resolution WRRF EIR Certification (1430 : WRRF Environmental Impact Report)
Exhibit A
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FINDINGS OF MITIGATION AND ADOPTION OF MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM FOR THE WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY PROJECT
I. Environmental Determination
The City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo considers and relies on the Final Environmental Impact
Report (State Clearinghouse Number 2015101044) for the Water Resource Recovery Facility Project
(WRRF) in determining to carry out the proposed project. The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR;
responses to comments on the Draft EIR; a list of persons and agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; a
Mitigation Monitoring Program; and technical appendices. The City Council has received, reviewed,
considered, and relied on the information contained in the Final EIR, as well as information provided at
hearings and submissions of testimony from official participating agencies, the public and other agencies
and organizations.
Having received, reviewed and considered the foregoing information, as well as any and all information in
the record, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo hereby makes these Findings pursuant to, and
in accordance with, Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code, as follows:
II. Summary Project Description and Background
The City is proposing the WRRF Project, which entails upgrading the City’s wastewater treatment facility
to comply with updated discharge requirements outlined in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and State Water Resources
Control Board in September 2014. The NPDES permit went into effect December 1, 2014, and compliance
is required by November 30, 2019. At the same time, the WRRF would be upgraded to provide a nominal
increase in average dry weather flow (ADWF) capacity to serve the needs of the City, as projected in the
updated San Luis Obispo 2035 General Plan Land Use Element.
The WRRF Project includes equipment and process upgrades that are based on meeting various
performance standards so that the facility will comply with the updated discharge specifications set by the
Regional Water Quality Control Board. Implementation of the proposed project would include the
following elements:
A. Demolishing existing structures to make room for new and enlarged equipment.
B. Modernizing equipment and operations processes to improve primary, secondary, and tertiary
wastewater treatment systems, as well as solids and liquids handling processes.
C. Upgrading effluent cooling system through the addition of cooling towers, wetland cooling, and/or
other methods.
D. Improving internal site drainage for stormwater management and flood control, with the possibility
of designing these improvements to support the effluent cooling system.
E. Incorporating public amenities at the site, including within the newly constructed Water Resource
Center, the proposed Learning Center, and grading and restoring land at the northeast corner of the
WRRF site after removal of the existing supernatant lagoon; this restored area may ultimately be
used for public park purposes under the direction of the City Parks and Recreation Department.
F. Promoting continued research and development activities by Cal Poly and future testing of as yet
unidentified pilot process and treatment technologies at the WRRF facility.
12.b
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: b - Exhibit A-CEQA Findings and MMRP (1430 : WRRF Environmental Impact Report)
Exhibit A
These project elements are further described in the EIR, specifically Section 2.4.2, Project Characteristics,
and the proposed changes are shown in Figure 2-4 (Construction Sequencing) and 2-5 (Proposed Site Plan).
Additionally, detailed descriptions of the proposed upgrades are provided in Section 7 of the WRRF
Facilities Plan, while control upgrades and other proposed amenities are further described in other sections
of the WRRF Facilities Plan. The WRRF Facilities Plan is available at the following link:
http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/utilities-department/wastewater/wastewater-
treatment/wrrf-upgrade-project.
Because the WRRF must continue operating during upgrades, not all of the demolition and upgrades would
occur concurrently. The proposed construction sequencing is shown in Figure 2-4 of the EIR (Construction
Sequencing) and described in the WRRF Facilities Plan (Figure 13-2). This sequencing, however, may be
refined as the design process continues. Construction activities are expected to start in late 2017. The
deadline for most of the proposed upgrades that are required to meet the Time Schedule Order issued by
the RWQCB and SWRCB is November 30, 2019. Other upgrades that will address capacity, condition and
other facility needs are planned to be completed as part of this project, at a later date. The proposed project
and alternatives are described in more detail in the Water Resource Recovery Facility Project Final and
Draft EIR (EIR), and Appendices thereto.
The City of San Luis Obispo Staff recommends the proposed project (for which these CEQA Findings are
prepared). As discussed in Section 5.0 (Alternatives) of the DEIR, the No Project Alternative was
determined to potentially be the environmentally superior alternative, when compared to the proposed
project in that it would avoid all of the potentially significant impacts associated with construction of the
proposed project. However, it would not meet any of the objectives of the proposed project, including
complying with the stringent discharge requirements included in the facility’s September 2014 National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and the accompanying Time Schedule Order that
establishes the compliance schedule for the project. In addition, none of the beneficial impacts of the project
with regards to water quality and odor reduction would be realized under this alternative.
The proposed project is described in more detail in the Staff Report accompanying these findings.
III. The Record
The California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15091 (b) requires that the City’s findings be
supported by substantial evidence in the record. Accordingly, the Lead Agency’s record consists of the
following, which are located at the City Community Development Department office, San Luis Obispo,
California:
A. Documentary and oral evidence, testimony and staff comments and responses received and
reviewed by the Lead Agency during public review and the public hearings on the Project.
B. The City of San Luis Obispo Water Resource Recovery Facility Project Final Environmental
Impact Report (July 2016).
IV. The July 2016 Final Environmental Impact Report for the WRRF Project
The City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo makes the following findings with respect to the July 2016
Final Environmental Impact Report for the Water Resource Recovery Facility Project SCH #2015101044:
A. The City Council has considered the information in the July 2016 Final Environmental Impact
Report for the Water Resource Recovery Facility Project, the pubnlic comments and responses
previously submitted and the public comments and information presented at the public hearings.
12.b
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: b - Exhibit A-CEQA Findings and MMRP (1430 : WRRF Environmental Impact Report)
Exhibit A
B. The City Council hereby finds and determines that implementation of the WRRF Project may have
a significant adverse effect on the environment.
C. The City Council hereby finds with respect to the adverse environmental impacts detailed in the
Final EIR:
1. That, based on information set forth in the Final EIR, the City Council finds and determines
that changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid
or substantially lessen the adverse environmental effects identified in the Final EIR.
2. That no additional adverse impacts will have a significant effect or result in substantial or
potentially substantial adverse changes in the environment as a result of the WRRF Project.
D. The City Council hereby finds and determines that
1. All significant effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened;
2. Based on the Final EIR, the Findings, and other documents in the record, specific
environmental, economic, social and other considerations make infeasible other project
alternatives identified in the Final EIR;
3. Should the WRRF Project have the potential to result in adverse environmental impacts that
are not anticipated or addressed by the July 2016 Final EIR, subsequent environmental review
shall be required in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a).
V. Statement of Overriding Considerations
Findings pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15093 and 15092.
A. The WRRF Project would not result in any significant, unmitigable, unavoidable adverse effects.
Therefore, a statement of overriding considerations is not required.
VI. Potential Environmental Effects Which Are Not Significant or Beneficial (Class III)
The findings below are for Class III impacts. Class III impacts are adverse but not significant.
The City Council has concluded that the following effects are adverse but not considered significant.
Air Quality
Impact AQ-1 The proposed project would not contribute to population growth, and would therefore be
consistent with the growth assumptions in the 2001 Clean Air Plan and the City of San Luis Obispo Climate
Action Plan. This impact would be Class III, less than significant.
Impact AQ-3 Standard operation of the proposed project would involve regular testing of two new diesel
generators, which would incrementally increase long-term emissions. Regular testing of the generators
would ensure they would not generate emissions greater than the daily or annual thresholds set by
SLOAPCD. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant.
Impact AQ-4 In the unlikely event of an emergency power outage, the two new generators would
temporarily generate worst-case scenario emissions over a short period of time. Impacts would be Class III,
less than significant.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
12.b
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: b - Exhibit A-CEQA Findings and MMRP (1430 : WRRF Environmental Impact Report)
Exhibit A
Impact GHG-1 The proposed project would generate greenhouse gas emissions through construction,
increased energy use, increased biogenic processes as a result of the increased wastewater capacity, and
testing of emergency diesel generators. The increased emissions would be below the SLOAPCD threshold
for annual greenhouse gas emissions, therefore impacts would be Class III, less than significant.
Impact GHG-2 The proposed project would not conflict with State GHG reduction goals, or any applicable
plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Impacts would be Class III,
less than significant.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-4 The proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area due to location within an airport land use plan. Impacts would be Class III, less than
significant.
Hydrology/Water Quality
Impact HYD-2 The proposed project would not result in flooding, erosion or siltation on- or off-site.
Impacts would be Class III, less than significant.
Noise
Impact N-1 Construction activities associated with the proposed project would expose nearby sensitive
receptors to temporary increases in noise, however, these would not exceed City noise thresholds. Impacts
would be Class III, less than significant.
Impact N-2 Project construction would expose nearby sensitive receptors to a temporary increase in
vibration levels. However, vibration levels during construction would not expose nearby structures to
vibration damage or excessive vibration noise. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant.
Impact N-3 Noise associated with operation of the proposed project would not exceed City thresholds.
Therefore, impacts would be Class III, less than significant.
Public Services and Utilities
Impact UTL-1 The proposed project would not directly or indirectly induce population growth and require
the need for new or addition fire protection or police services that would result in the need for expanded
facilities. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant.
Impact UTL-3 Stormwater drainage improvements are included as part of the proposed project. Impacts
would be Class III, less than significant.
Impact UTL-5 The proposed project would not be served by a landfill with insufficient capacity to
accommodate solid waste that would be generated. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant.
Impact UTL-6 The proposed project would comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant.
VII. Potential Significant Effects Which Have Been Mitigated to a Level of Insignificance
Class II impacts are significant but can be mitigated to a level of insignificance by measures identified
in this EIR and the project description. When approving a project with Class II impacts, the decision-
makers must make findings that changes or alternatives to the project have been incorporated that reduce
the impacts to a less than significant level.
The City Council has concluded that the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring
Program (Section X.) will result in substantial mitigation of the following effects and that these effects are
not considered significant or they have been mitigated to a level of insignificance.
Air Quality
12.b
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: b - Exhibit A-CEQA Findings and MMRP (1430 : WRRF Environmental Impact Report)
Exhibit A
Impact AQ-2 Construction of the proposed project would result in temporary generation of air pollutants,
which would affect local air quality. Short term emissions would exceed SLOAPCD thresholds for ozone
precursors. Impacts would be Class II, potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated.
Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1 Construction of the project could have a substantial adverse effect on candidate, sensitive,
or special-status species. Impacts would be Class II, potentially significant unless mitigation is
incorporated.
Impact BIO-2 Construction of the project could have a substantial adverse effect on sensitive habitats,
including riparian areas. Impacts would be Class II, potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated.
Impact BIO-3 Construction of the project could have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Impacts would be Class II, potentially significant
unless mitigation is incorporated.
Cultural Resources
Impact CR-1 Construction of the proposed project would involve ground-disturbing activities which have
the potential to unearth or adversely impact archaeological resources. Impacts would be Class II, potentially
significant unless mitigation is incorporated.
Impact CR-2 Construction of the proposed project would involve ground-disturbing activities which have
the potential to unearth or adversely impact paleontological resources. Impacts would be Class II,
potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-1 Construction of the proposed project would temporarily increase the routine transport and
use of hazardous materials used in construction activities. Operation of the expanded and upgraded WRRF
would entail the routine transportation, use, storage, and/or disposal of minor amounts of hazardous
materials. Impacts would be Class II, potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated.
Impact HAZ-2 The proposed project has potential to create a hazard through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment during both
construction and operation. Impacts would be Class II, potentially significant unless mitigation is
incorporated.
Impact HAZ-3 The proposed project could result in the disturbance of contaminated soils on an active
cleanup sites listed on the SWRCB GeoTracker database. Impacts would be Class II, potentially significant
unless mitigation is incorporated.
Impact HAZ-5 The proposed project could impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
evacuation and response during construction. Impacts would be Class II, potentially significant unless
mitigation is incorporated.
Impact HAZ-6 The proposed project would not increase the exposure of people or structures to wildfire
risks due to population growth, but construction activities could create hazardous fire conditions. Impacts
would be Class II, potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact HYD-1 During construction the proposed project could potentially violate water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements. Impacts would be Class II, potentially significant unless mitigation is
incorporated.
Impact HYD-4 The proposed project would result in placement of structures within a 100-year flood
hazard area. Impacts would be Class II, potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated.
Recreation
12.b
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: b - Exhibit A-CEQA Findings and MMRP (1430 : WRRF Environmental Impact Report)
Exhibit A
Impact REC-2 Impacts associated with construction of the recreational components of the proposed project
are part of the wider project analyzed in this EIR. Potential adverse impacts have been identified in several
environmental issue areas, related primarily to construction activities associated with the proposed project.
Impacts would be Class II, potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated.
VIII. Potential Significant Unavoidable Effects for Which Sufficient Mitigation is not Feasible
(Class I)
Class I impacts are significant and unavoidable. To approve a project resulting in Class I impacts, the CEQA
Guidelines require decision makers to make findings of overriding consideration that "... specific legal,
technological, economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or
alternatives identified in the EIR...":
No significant and unavoidable (Class I) impacts were identified.
IX. Beneficial Impacts (Class IV)
Class IV impacts are beneficial impacts.
Air Quality
Impact AQ-5 The proposed project would have the potential to emit odors as a result of several processes
on site. However, one of the main objectives of the proposed project is to prevent and reduce odor on site,
with a variety of odor control technologies proposed. The reduction of odors to levels lower than currently
emitted at the project site is a goal for the City of San Luis Obispo, and new odor control systems and
enhancements to the treatment process would accomplish this. Therefore, impacts would be Class IV,
beneficial.
Public Services and Utilities
Impact UTL-2 The proposed project would include improvements to the WRRF, which would improve
treated wastewater quality. There would be a beneficial impact on wastewater effluent quality. Impacts
would be Class IV, beneficial.
Hydrology/Water Quality
HYD-3 The proposed project would result in an improvement in the quality of discharges from the WRRF
to San Luis Obispo Creek. Impacts would be Class IV, beneficial.
Recreation
Impact REC-1 The proposed project would enhance recreational amenities at the site. This is a Class IV,
beneficial impact.
X. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires that when a public agency is making findings
required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(l), codified as Section 21081(a) of the Public
Resources Code, the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the
proposed project which it has adopted or made a condition of approval, in order to mitigate or avoid
significant effects on the environment.
The City Council hereby finds and accepts that the Draft Mitigation Monitoring Program for the WRRF
Project attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference meets the requirements of Section 21081.6 of
the Public Resources Code by providing for the implementation and monitoring of mitigation measures
intended to mitigate potential environmental effects.
12.b
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: b - Exhibit A-CEQA Findings and MMRP (1430 : WRRF Environmental Impact Report)
Exhibit A
XI. Alternatives
The City has examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, including the required No Project
Alternative. The City has determined that none of these alternatives, taken as a whole, is both
environmentally superior and more feasible than the project.
The Final EIR identifies the No Project Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative. However, it
would not meet any of the objectives of the proposed project, including complying with the stringent
discharge requirements included in the facility’s September 2014 NPDES permit and the accompanying
Time Schedule Order that establishes the compliance schedule for the project. In addition, none of the
beneficial impacts of the project with regards to water quality and odor reduction would be realized under
this alternative.
Alternative 1 No Project. The No Project Alternative assumes that the project site and existing
treatment methods at the WRRF would remain as currently described in the existing setting under each
issue area discussed in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures. It should
be noted that implementation of the No Project Alternative would not be feasible because
implementation of improvements at the project site are required to meet the more stringent discharge
limits in the new NPDES permit for the facility as well as the accompanying Time Schedule Order.
The Time Schedule Order establishes the compliance schedule for the permit and requires the City
achieve the required disinfection byproduct limits and nitrate limits by November 30, 2019. If the No
Project Alternative is selected the City would not be able to achieve compliance with the NPDES permit
requirements in the required timeframe.
Alternative 2 Alternate Process Options. Alternative 2 considers alternate technologies that would
enable the WRRF to meet the new NPDES permit requirements. These process alternatives are
available for renewable energy, flow equalization, disinfection, cooling, secondary treatment and
filtration. Details of these various alternatives are discussed in the WRRF Facilities Plan. While these
alternate process options were not included in the proposed project, they would be feasible for use at
the WRRF site, though not preferred based on the various alternative analyses that were performed and
the objectives and performance measures in the WRRF Programs Charter. For a list of the current
technology at the site, the technology that was selected for each process for inclusion in the proposed
project, and a list of the alternate technologies considered as part of this alternative, refer to Table 5-1
in the Final EIR. The alternate technologies considered comprise Alternative 2.
Alternative 2 would result in a similar level of impact as the proposed project, though in some issue
areas, such as air quality, noise and greenhouse gases, potential impacts could be better or worse
depending on which combination of process options is selected. This alternative would avoid the
potential need to realign the segment of the Bob Jones Bike Trail that passes through the southern
portion of the site as it would not include the wetland cooling option. The impact to the trail resulting
from the proposed project would be less than significant as it would not necessitate removal of the trail
from within the site and would maintain continuity with the portions of the trail north and south of the
facility.
12.b
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: b - Exhibit A-CEQA Findings and MMRP (1430 : WRRF Environmental Impact Report)
Exhibit A
WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY PROJECT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
CEQA requires that a reporting or monitoring program be adopted for the conditions of project approval
that are necessary to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment (Public Resources Code
21081.6). The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is designed to ensure compliance
with adopted mitigation measures during project implementation. For each applicable mitigation measure
recommended in this Environmental Impact Report, specifications are made herein that identify the action
required and the monitoring that must occur. In addition, a responsible agency is identified for verifying
compliance with individual conditions of approval contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
In order to implement this MMRP, the City of San Luis Obispo shall designate a Project Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Coordinator (“Coordinator”). The coordinator shall be responsible for ensuring
that the mitigation measures incorporated into the project are complied with during project implementation.
The following table shall be used as the Coordinator’s checklist to determine compliance with required
mitigation measures.
12.b
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: b - Exhibit A-CEQA Findings and MMRP (1430 : WRRF Environmental Impact Report)
Exhibit A
12.b
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: b - Exhibit A-CEQA Findings and MMRP (1430 : WRRF Environmental Impact Report)
Exhibit A
Mitigation Measure/Condition of
Approval Action Required Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency or
Party Initial Date Comments AIR QUALITY
12.b
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: b - Exhibit A-CEQA Findings and MMRP (1430 : WRRF Environmental Impact Report)
Exhibit A
AQ-2(a) Standard Mitigation
Measures. The project shall comply
with the following, outlined in
Section 2.3.1 of the SLOAPCD
CEQA Handbook:
Maintain all construction
equipment in proper tune
according to manufacturer’s
specifications;
Fuel all off-road and portable
diesel powered equipment with
CARB certified fuel (non-taxed
version suitable for use off-road);
Use diesel construction equipment
meeting CARB’s Tier 2 certified
engines or cleaner off-road heavy-
duty diesel engines, and comply
with the State off-Road
Regulation;
Use on-road heavy-duty trucks
that meet the CARB’s 2007 or
cleaner certification standard for
on-road heavy-duty diesel
engines, and comply with the
State On-Road Regulation;
Construction or trucking
companies with fleets that do not
have engines in their fleet that
meet the engine standards
identified in the above two
measures (e.g. captive or NOX
exempt area fleets) may be
eligible by proving alternative
compliance;
All on and off-road diesel
equipment shall not idle for more
than 5 minutes, with the exception
of concrete delivery vehicles.
Signs shall be posted in the
designated queuing areas and or
job sites to remind drivers and
operators of the 5 minute idling
limit;
Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of
sensitive receptors is not
permitted;
Staging and queuing areas shall
not be located within 1,000 feet of
sensitive receptors;
Equipment shall be electrified
when feasible;
Diesel powered equipment shall
be substituted with gasoline
powered equipment when
feasible;
Alternatively fueled construction
equipment shall be used onsite
when feasible, such as
compressed natural gas (CNG),
liquefied natural gas (LNG),
propane, or biodiesel.
Verify that standard
mitigation measures are
included as a note on all
grading and building
permits.
Verify that standard
mitigation measures are
included as a note
contractor’s
specifications.
Field verify
compliance.
Prior to
issuance of
grading and
building
permits.
Prior to
issuance of
contractors
specifications
.
During
grading and
construction.
Once.
Once.
Periodically.
City of San
Luis Obispo
Utilities
Department
12.b
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: b - Exhibit A-CEQA Findings and MMRP (1430 : WRRF Environmental Impact Report)
Exhibit A
AQ-2(b) Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) for
Construction Equipment. The
following BACTs, outlined in the
SLOAPCD CEQA Handbook, shall
be incorporated into construction of
the proposed project:
Tier 3 or Tier 4 off-road and 2010
on-road compliant engines shall
be used;
Equipment shall be repowered
with the cleanest engine available;
California Verified Diesel
Emission Control Strategies shall
be installed.
Verify that standard
BACT are included as a
note on all grading and
building permits.
Verify that standard
BACT are included as a
note contractor’s
specifications.
Field verify
compliance.
Prior to
issuance of
grading and
building
permits.
Prior to
issuance of
contractors
specifications
.
Continuously
during
grading and
construction.
Once.
Once.
Periodically
during
grading and
construction
.
City of San
Luis Obispo
Utilities
Department
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
BIO-1(a) Special Status Plant
Species Surveys. Prior to the start of
on-site construction activities and
when the plants are in a phenological
stage conducive to positive
identification (i.e., usually during the
blooming period for the species), the
applicant shall ensure an approved
biologist will conduct surveys for
special status plant species
throughout suitable habitat within
the project site.
Verify that a qualified
biologist has conducted
pre-construction
surveys for special-
status plant species
within all vegetation
communities on the
project site with the
exception of the
“Developed/Landscape
d/Constructed” areas
shown on Figure 3.2-1
in the Final EIR.
Prior to start
of
construction.
Once. City of San
Luis Obispo
Utilities
Department
BIO-1(b) Special Status Plant
Species Avoidance. If special status
plant species are discovered within
the study area, the applicant shall
ensure an approved biologist will
flag and fence these locations before
construction activities start to avoid
impacts.
Verify that standard
Special Status Plant
Species Avoidance
Measures are
implemented, as
required based on the
pre-construction
surveys.
Prior to start
of
construction.
Field verify
during
construction
to ensure
avoidance
measures
remain in
place.
Once.
Periodically.
City of San
Luis Obispo
Utilities
Department
12.b
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: b - Exhibit A-CEQA Findings and MMRP (1430 : WRRF Environmental Impact Report)
Exhibit A
BIO-1(c) Restoration Plan. If
avoidance is not feasible; the
applicant shall ensure all impacts be
mitigated at a minimum ratio of 2:1
(number of acres/individuals restored
to number of acres/individuals
impacted) for each species as a
component of habitat restoration.
The applicant shall prepare and
submit a restoration plan to the City
for approval. The restoration plan
shall include, at a minimum, the
following components:
Description of the project/impact
site (i.e., location, responsible
parties, areas to be impacted by
habitat type);
Goal(s) of the compensatory
mitigation project [type(s) and
area(s) of habitat to be established,
restored, enhanced, and/or
preserved; specific functions and
values of habitat type(s) to be
established, restored, enhanced,
and/or preserved];
Description of the proposed
compensatory mitigation site
(location and size, ownership
status, existing functions and
values);
Implementation plan for the
compensatory mitigation site
(rationale for expecting
implementation success,
responsible parties, schedule, site
preparation, planting plan
[including species to be used,
container sizes, seeding rates,
etc.]);
Maintenance activities during the
monitoring period, including weed
removal and irrigation as
appropriate (activities, responsible
parties, schedule);
Monitoring plan for the
compensatory mitigation site,
including no less than quarterly
monitoring for the first year, along
with performance standards, target
functions and values, target
acreages to be established,
restored, enhanced, and/or
preserved, and annual monitoring
reports to be submitted to the City
for a maximum of five years;
Success criteria based on the goals
and measurable objectives; said
criteria to be, at a minimum, at
least 80 percent survival of
container plants and 30 percent
relative cover by vegetation type;
If avoidance is not
feasible, verify that a
restoration plan has
been prepared by a
qualified biologist/
restoration ecologist
which includes the
required components.
Verify that the
restoration
plan has been
completed
prior to
issuance of
grading
permits.
Verify that
habitat
restoration
plan has been
implemented
by end of
construction.
Once.
Once.
City of San
Luis Obispo
Utilities
Department
12.b
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: b - Exhibit A-CEQA Findings and MMRP (1430 : WRRF Environmental Impact Report)
Exhibit A
An adaptive management program
and remedial measures to address
any shortcomings in meeting
success criteria;
Notification of completion of
compensatory mitigation and
agency confirmation; and
Contingency measures (initiating
procedures, alternative locations
for contingency compensatory
mitigation, funding mechanism).
BIO-1(d) Best Management
Practices. The applicant shall ensure
the following general wildlife Best
Management Practices (BMPs) are
required:
No pets or firearms shall be
allowed at the project site during
construction activities.
All trash that may attract predators
must be properly contained and
removed from the work site. All
such debris and waste shall be
picked up daily and properly
disposed of at an appropriate site.
All refueling, maintenance, and
staging of equipment and vehicles
shall occur at least 100 feet from
San Luis Obispo Creek and the
southern holding ponds and in a
location where a spill would not
drain toward aquatic habitat. A
plan must be in place for prompt
and effective response to any
accidental spills prior to the onset
of work activities. All workers
shall be informed of the
appropriate measures to take
should an accidental spill occur.
To control sedimentation during
and after project implementation,
appropriate erosion control BMPs
(i.e., use of coir rolls, jute netting,
etc.) shall be implemented to
minimize adverse effects on
adjacent San Luis Obispo Creek.
No plastic monofilament netting
shall be utilized on-site.
All vehicles and equipment shall
be in good working condition and
free of leaks.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
shall be delineated to confine
access routes and construction
areas.
Work shall be restricted to
daylight hours.
Verify that standard
BMPs are included as a
note on all grading and
building permits.
Verify that standard
BMPs are included as a
note contractor’s
specifications.
Field verify compliance
that BMPs are in place
in all identified
Environmentally
Sensitive Areas.
Environmentally
Sensitive Areas include:
any area where a
special status species
plant is identified; San
Luis Obispo Creek and
the surrounding riparian
vegetation (i.e. red
willow thicket – see
Final EIR Figure 3.2-1);
and areas where nesting
birds are identified to
be present.
Prior to
issuance of
grading and
building
permits.
Prior to
issuance of
contractor’s
specifications
.
During
grading and
construction.
Once.
Once.
Periodically.
City of San
Luis Obispo
Utilities
Department
12.b
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: b - Exhibit A-CEQA Findings and MMRP (1430 : WRRF Environmental Impact Report)
Exhibit A
BIO-1(e) WEAP Training. Prior to
the initiation of construction
activities (including staging and
mobilization), the applicant shall
ensure all personnel associated with
project construction shall attend a
Worker Environmental Awareness
Program (WEAP) training.
The training shall be conducted by
a qualified biologist, to aid
workers in recognizing special
status resources that may occur in
the project area. The specifics of
this program shall include
identification of the sensitive
species and habitats, a description
of the regulatory status and
general ecological characteristics
of sensitive resources, and review
of the limits of construction and
avoidance measures required to
reduce impacts to biological
resources within the work area. A
fact sheet conveying this
information shall also be prepared
for distribution to all contractors,
their employers, and other
personnel involved with
construction of the project. All
employees shall sign a form
provided by the trainer
documenting they have attended
the WEAP and understand the
information presented to them.
Verify that all
personnel associated
with project
construction activities
in Environmentally
Sensitive Areas attend
WEAP training prior to
start of construction.
Personnel associated
with construction in
these areas who have
not completed the
WEAP training shall be
accompanied onsite by
personnel who has
completed the training.
Prior to start
of
construction.
During
construction
period as new
workers
attend the
site.
Once.
Periodically.
City of San
Luis Obispo
Utilities
Department
BIO-1(f) Blainville’s Horned
Lizard (Phrynosoma blainvilli).
The applicant shall ensure the
following measures are implemented
to avoid and minimize potential
impacts to Blainville’s horned lizard.
A qualified biologist shall be
present on-site during initial
ground disturbance in areas
determined to have suitable
habitat for this species. Any
Blainville’s horned lizards that are
observed during initial ground
disturbance shall be relocated the
shortest distance possible to a
location that contains suitable
habitat not likely to be affected by
activities associated with the
proposed project.
Verify that a qualified
biologist is present on-
site during initial ground
disturbance in areas
determined to have
suitable habitat for
Blainville’s Horned
Lizard. Suitable habitat
onsite consists of Groves
and Screens, Annual
Grassland, and Coastal
Scrub (see Final EIR
Figure 3.2-1).
Verify any relocation
completed complies with
distance requirements.
During initial
ground
disturbance at
identified
sensitive
areas.
During
relocation
activities.
As needed.
As needed.
City of San
Luis Obispo
Utilities
Department
12.b
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: b - Exhibit A-CEQA Findings and MMRP (1430 : WRRF Environmental Impact Report)
Exhibit A
BIO-1(g) Western Pond Turtle
(Actinemys [=Emys] marmorata).
The applicant shall ensure the
following measures are implemented
to avoid and minimize potential
impacts to southern western pond
turtle:
A qualified biologist(s) shall
conduct a pre-construction survey
within 24 hours prior to the onset
of work activities within and
around areas considered potential
western pond turtle habitat. If this
species is found and the
individuals are likely to be injured
or killed by work activities, the
approved biologist shall be
allowed sufficient time to move
them from the project site before
work activities begin. The
biologist(s) must relocate the any
western pond turtle the shortest
distance possible to a location that
contains suitable habitat that is not
likely to be affected by activities
associated with the proposed
project.
Access routes, staging, and
construction areas shall be limited
to the minimum area necessary to
achieve the project goal and
minimize potential impacts to
southern western pond turtle
habitat including locating access
routes and construction staging
areas outside of wetlands and
riparian areas to the maximum
extent practicable.
Verify that a qualified
biologist conducted a
pre-construction survey
within 24 hours prior to
the onset of work
activities within and
around areas considered
potential western pond
turtle habitat.
This is only applicable to
the red willow thicket
and sparsely vegetated
streambed vegetation
communities and the
holding ponds (see Final
EIR Figure 3.2-1).
Verify required
relocation occurs and
complies with distance
requirements.
Verify minimization of
access routes, staging
areas and construction
areas in in riparian and
wetland areas.
Prior to start
of work
activities in
identified
areas.
Prior to start
of work
activities in
identified
areas.
Prior to start
of work
activities in
identified
areas.
Once.
Once.
Once.
City of San
Luis Obispo
Utilities
Department
12.b
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: b - Exhibit A-CEQA Findings and MMRP (1430 : WRRF Environmental Impact Report)
Exhibit A
BIO-1(h) California Red-Legged
Frog (Rana draytonii). The
applicant shall ensure the following
measures are implemented to ensure
that impacts to CRLF from the
proposed project are reduced to a
less than significant level.
Only USFWS-approved biologists
shall participate in activities
associated with the capture,
handling, and monitoring of
CRLF.
Ground disturbance shall not
begin until written approval is
received from the USFWS that the
biologist is qualified to conduct
the work. If the USFWS does not
authorize the relocation of CRLF
occurring within the project site,
CRLF found within the project
site shall be avoided with a 100-
foot buffer and no activities shall
occur within that buffer until the
CRLF has left the project site on
its own.
The project site shall be
surrounded by a solid temporary
exclusion fence (such as silt
fencing) that shall extend at least
three feet above the ground and be
buried into the ground at least 6
inches to exclude CRLF from the
project site. Plastic monofilament
netting or other similar material
will not be used. The location of
the fencing shall be determined by
a qualified biologist. The fence
shall remain in place throughout
construction activities. Installation
of the exclusion fencing shall be
monitored by a qualified biologist
to ensure that it is installed
correctly.
All vehicles and equipment shall
be in good working condition and
free of leaks.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
shall be delineated to confine
access routes and construction
areas.
Work shall be restricted to
daylight hours.
To ensure that diseases are not
conveyed between work sites by
the approved biologist, the
fieldwork code of practice
developed by the Declining
Amphibian Populations Task
Force shall be followed at all
times.
No pets or firearms shall be
permitted on-site.
Verify receipt of written
approval from USFWS
of the approved
biologist.
Verify placement of
exclusion fencing around
areas of suitable habitat,
including red willow
thicket, sparsely
vegetated streambed,
seasonal wetland and the
holding ponds (see Final
EIR Figure 3.2-1), as
well as on the southern
and eastern boundaries
of the site to place a
barrier between the San
Luis Obispo Creek
riparian corridor and the
rest of the site with the
exception of the northern
portion of the site where
operations are ongoing
and the adjacent habitat
is
developed/landscaped/co
nstructed.
Verify vehicles and
equipment are in good
working order.
Verify delineation of
Environmentally
Sensitive Habitats.
Verify work hour
restrictions, the
fieldwork code of
practice developed by
the Declining
Amphibian Populations
Task Force, and pet and
firearm restrictions are
included as a note on the
contractor’s
specifications.
Field verify compliance
with work hour
restrictions, the
fieldwork code of
practice developed by
the Declining
Amphibian Populations
Prior to start
of
construction.
Prior to start
of
construction;
during
construction
period.
During
construction
period.
Prior to start
of
construction;
during
construction
period.
Prior to start
of
construction.
During
construction
period.
Once.
Once;
periodically.
Periodically.
Once;
periodically.
Once.
Periodically.
City of San
Luis Obispo
Community
Developmen
t
Department
12.b
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: b - Exhibit A-CEQA Findings and MMRP (1430 : WRRF Environmental Impact Report)
Exhibit A
Task Force, and pet and
firearm restrictions.
12.b
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: b - Exhibit A-CEQA Findings and MMRP (1430 : WRRF Environmental Impact Report)
Exhibit A
BIO-1(i) Steelhead Trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus).
The applicant shall ensure the
following mitigation measures are
undertaken to ensure that impacts to
steelhead from the proposed project
are reduced to a less than significant
level. These measures are included
in or are subsequent to the measures
stipulated in the facility’s existing
National Marine Fisheries Service
Biological Opinion.
Before any activities begin on the
project, a qualified biologist will
conduct a training session for all
construction personnel. At a
minimum, the training will
include a description of the
steelhead and its habitat, the
specific measures that are being
implemented to conserve this
species for the current project, and
the boundaries within which the
project may be accomplished.
Brochures, books, and briefings
may be used in the training
session, provided that a qualified
person is on hand to answer any
questions.
During the duration of project
activities, all trash that may attract
predators will be properly
contained and secured, promptly
removed from the work site, and
disposed of regularly. Following
construction, all trash and
construction debris will be
removed from the work areas.
All refueling, maintenance, and
staging of equipment and vehicles
will occur at least 100 feet from
riparian habitat or bodies of water
and in a location where a potential
spill would not drain directly
toward aquatic habitat (e.g., on a
slope that drains away from the
water source). The monitor shall
ensure that contamination of
suitable habitat does not occur
during such operations. Prior to
the onset of work activities, a plan
must be in place for prompt and
effective response to any
accidental spills. All workers shall
be informed of the importance of
preventing spills and of the
appropriate measures to take
should an accidental spill occur.
The number of access routes, size
of staging areas, and the total area
used for construction activities
shall be limited to the minimum
Verify that all
construction personnel
working in proximity to
San Luis Obispo Creek
or on activities that
could result in indirect
impacts to the creek
attend a Steelhead
Trout training.
Verify compliance with
all requirements of the
measure.
For the
purposes of
this measure
the area
identified as
“immediate
vicinity of
San Luis
Obispo
Creek” is
defined as the
red willow
thicket
vegetation
community
(see Final
EIR Figure
3.2-1).
Cover of
stock piles is
required
during rain
events and
when not
actively in
use.
Silt fencing is
required
along the top
of bank only
where project
related
construction
will occur;
specifically in
the area
where the
outfall will be
installed
within the red
willow
thicket
vegetation
community.
Prior to start
of
construction.
During
construction
period as new
workers
attend the
site.
During
construction.
Once.
Periodically.
Continuousl
y.
City of San
Luis Obispo
Utilities
Department
12.b
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: b - Exhibit A-CEQA Findings and MMRP (1430 : WRRF Environmental Impact Report)
Exhibit A
area necessary to achieve the
project goals.
The City will attempt to schedule
work within the immediate
vicinity of San Luis Obispo Creek
for times of the year when
potential impacts to steelhead
would be minimal. To the
maximum extent feasible, work
should be restricted during the wet
season (October 15 through April
30) and should ideally occur
during the late summer and early
fall.
To control sedimentation during
and after project implementation,
the City shall implement the
following BMPs. If the BMPs are
somehow ineffective, the City, in
consultation with the appropriate
resource agency(ies), will attempt
to remedy the situation
immediately.
It shall be the owner’s/contractor’s
responsibility to maintain control
of the entire construction
operations and to keep the entire
site in compliance.
The owner/contractor shall be
responsible for monitoring erosion
and sediment control measures
(including but not limited to fiber
rolls, inlet protections, silt fences,
and gravel bags) prior, during and
after storm events, monitoring
includes maintaining a file
documenting onsite inspections,
problems encountered, corrective
actions, and notes and a map of
remedial implementation
measures.
All earth stockpiles over 2.0 cubic
yards shall be covered with a tarp
and ringed with straw bales or silt
fencing. The site shall be
maintained so as to minimize
sediment-laden runoff to any
storm drainage system including
existing drainage swales and/or
sand watercourses.
o Construction operations shall
be carried out in such a
manner that erosion and
water pollution will be
minimized.
o State and local laws
concerning pollution
abatement shall be complied
with.
o If grading operations are
expected to denude slopes,
the slopes shall be protected
12.b
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: b - Exhibit A-CEQA Findings and MMRP (1430 : WRRF Environmental Impact Report)
Exhibit A
with erosion control
measures immediately
following grading on the
slopes.
Specifically, in order to prevent
sedimentation and debris from
entering San Luis Obispo Creek
during construction, silt fencing
shall be installed along the top of
the banks on the west side of the
channel prior to the onset of
construction activities.
The project biologist will monitor
construction activities, in stream
habitat, and overall performance
of BMPs and sediment controls
for the purpose of identifying and
reconciling any condition that
could adversely affect steelhead or
their habitat.
Equipment will be checked daily
for leaks prior to the initiation of
construction activities. A spill kit
will be placed near the creek and
will remain readily available
during construction in the event
that any contaminant is
accidentally released.
In addition to these avoidance and
minimization measures,
mitigation measure BIO-2 would
also ensure that potential indirect
impacts to steelhead from this
project are reduced to the extent
practicable.
12.b
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: b - Exhibit A-CEQA Findings and MMRP (1430 : WRRF Environmental Impact Report)
Exhibit A
BIO-1(j) Nesting Birds. The
applicant shall ensure the following
mitigation measures are undertaken
to reduce any potential impacts to
nesting birds to a less than
significant level.
For construction activities
occurring during the nesting
season (generally February 1 to
September 15), surveys for
nesting birds covered by the
California Fish and Game Code
and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
shall be conducted by a qualified
biologist no more than 14 days
prior to vegetation removal. The
surveys shall include the
disturbance area plus a 500-foot
buffer around the site. If active
nests are located, all construction
work shall be conducted outside a
buffer zone from the nest to be
determined by the qualified
biologist. The buffer shall be a
minimum of 50 feet for non-raptor
bird species and at least 300 feet
for raptor species. Larger buffers
may be required depending upon
the status of the nest and the
construction activities occurring in
the vicinity of the nest. The buffer
area(s) shall be closed to all
construction personnel and
equipment until the adults and
young are no longer reliant on the
nest site. A qualified biologist
shall confirm that
breeding/nesting is completed and
young have fledged the nest prior
to removal of the buffer.
If feasible, removal of vegetation
within suitable nesting bird habitats
will be scheduled to occur in the fall
and winter (between September 1
and February 14), after fledging and
before the initiation of the nesting
season.
If initial ground
disturbing activities
occur during the
breeding bird nesting
season, verify that a
qualified biologist has
performed a nesting
bird survey with results
submitted to the City.
If active bird nests are
located during the pre-
construction survey,
field verify buffer
zones. The size of the
buffer zones required
will be at the discretion
of the qualified
biologist.
Prior to start
of
construction
(if during
nesting
season)
During
construction.
Once.
Periodically.
City of San
Luis Obispo
Utilities
Department
12.b
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: b - Exhibit A-CEQA Findings and MMRP (1430 : WRRF Environmental Impact Report)
Exhibit A
BIO-2 Riparian Habitat. A Habitat
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
(HMMP) shall be prepared which
will provide a minimum a 1:1 ratio
for temporary and permanent
impacts to riparian habitat. The
HMMP will identify the specific
mitigation sites and it will be
implemented immediately following
project completion. The HMMP
shall include, at a minimum, the
following components:
Description of the project/impact
site (i.e. location, responsible
parties, areas to be impacted by
habitat type);
Goal(s) of the compensatory
mitigation project [type(s) and
area(s) of habitat to be established,
restored, enhanced, and/or
preserved; specific functions and
values of habitat type(s) to be
established, restored, enhanced,
and/or preserved];
Description of the proposed
compensatory mitigation-site
(location and size, ownership
status, existing functions and
values of the compensatory
mitigation-site);
Implementation plan for the
compensatory mitigation-site
(rationale for expecting
implementation success,
responsible parties, schedule, site
preparation, planting plan
[including plant species to be
used, container sizes, seeding
rates, etc.]);
Maintenance activities during the
monitoring period, including weed
removal and irrigation as
appropriate (activities, responsible
parties, schedule);
Monitoring plan for the
compensatory mitigation site,
including no less than quarterly
monitoring for the first year
(performance standards, target
functions and values, target
acreages to be established,
restored, enhanced, and/or
preserved, annual monitoring
reports);
Success criteria based on the goals
and measurable objectives; said
criteria to be, at a minimum, at
least 80 percent survival of
container plants and 80 percent
relative cover by vegetation type;
An adaptive management program
and remedial measures to
Verify that a HMMP
has been prepared by a
qualified biologist/
restoration ecologist
and that it includes the
required components.
The HMMP would
apply to areas of
riparian habitat only
(i.e. red willow thicket
– see Final EIR Figure
3.2-1).
Verify compliance with
HMMP.
Prior to start
of
construction.
During
construction.
Once.
Periodically.
City of San
Luis Obispo
Utilities
Department
12.b
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: b - Exhibit A-CEQA Findings and MMRP (1430 : WRRF Environmental Impact Report)
Exhibit A
address negative impacts to
restoration efforts;
Notification of completion of
compensatory mitigation and
agency confirmation; and
Contingency measures (initiating
procedures, alternative
locations for contingency
compensatory mitigation,
funding mechanism).
12.b
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: b - Exhibit A-CEQA Findings and MMRP (1430 : WRRF Environmental Impact Report)
Exhibit A
BIO-3 Jurisdictional Water and
Wetlands BMPs. The following
BMPs shall be implemented:
1. To control sedimentation
during and after project
implementation, appropriate
erosion control best
management practices (i.e.,
installation of straw wattle, jute
netting, etc.) shall be
implemented to minimize
adverse effects on jurisdictional
areas in the vicinity of the
project. Plastic monofilament
erosion control matting will not
be implemented onsite.
2. Project activities within the
jurisdictional areas shall occur
during the dry season (typically
between June 1 and November
1) in any given year, or as
otherwise directed by the
regulatory agencies. Deviations
from this work window can be
made with permission from the
relevant regulatory agencies.
3. During construction, no litter or
construction debris shall be
placed within jurisdictional
areas. All such debris and waste
shall be picked up daily and
properly disposed of at an
appropriate site. In addition, all
project-generated debris,
building materials, and rubbish
shall be removed from
jurisdictional areas and from
areas where such materials
could be washed into them.
4. Any substances which could be
hazardous to aquatic species
resulting from project-related
activities shall be prevented
from contaminating the soil
and/or entering jurisdictional
areas.
All refueling, maintenance, and
staging of equipment and vehicles
shall occur at least 100 feet from
bodies of water and in a location
where a potential spill would not
drain directly toward aquatic habitat
(e.g., on a slope that drains away
from the water source). Prior to the
onset of work activities, a plan must
be in place for prompt and effective
response to any accidental spills. All
workers shall be informed of the
importance of preventing spills and
of the appropriate measures to take
should an accidental spill occur.
Verify that BMPs are
included as a note on all
grading and building
permits.
Verify that BMPs are
included on contractor’s
specifications.
Field verify compliance
in area of jurisdictional
waters as identified on
Final EIR Figure 3.2-1.
Prior to
issuance of
grading and
building
permits.
Prior to
issuance of
contractor
specifications
.
During
construction
activities.
Once.
Once.
Periodically.
City of San
Luis Obispo
Utilities
Department
12.b
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: b - Exhibit A-CEQA Findings and MMRP (1430 : WRRF Environmental Impact Report)
Exhibit A
CULTURAL RESOURCES
CR-1(a) WEAP Training. Prior to
project construction, the applicant
shall retain a qualified archaeologist
meeting the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for historic
archaeology to conduct a Worker’s
Environmental Awareness Program
(WEAP) for all construction
personnel working on the project.
The training shall include an
overview of potential cultural
resources that could be encountered
during ground disturbing activities to
facilitate worker recognition,
avoidance, and notification to a
qualified archaeologist in the event
of unanticipated discoveries. The
Native American monitor shall also
be present at the WEAP training to
provide the Native American
perspective on cultural resources and
potential project-related impacts, and
to receive information regarding the
project schedule, roles and
responsibilities, and mitigation
measures.
Verify that all
personnel associated
with ground disturbing
activities attend a
WEAP training.
Personnel associated
with ground disturbing
activities who have not
completed the WEAP
training shall be
accompanied onsite by
personnel who has
completed the training.
Prior to start
of
construction;
During
construction
period as new
workers
attend the
site.
Once.
Periodically.
City of San
Luis Obispo
Utilities
Department
CR-1(b) Archaeological and
Native American Monitoring. Prior
to project construction the applicant
shall retain a qualified archaeologist
and Native American representative
to conduct archaeological
monitoring of all project related
ground disturbing activities within
200 feet of the creek bed.
Archaeological monitoring should be
performed under the direction of an
archaeologist meeting the Secretary
of the Interior’s Professional
Qualification Standards for
archaeology (NPS 1983). The
duration and timing of monitoring
shall be determined by the qualified
archaeologist in consultation with
the City and based on the grading
plans and level of previous
disturbance within work areas. If
archaeological resources are
encountered during ground-
disturbing activities, work in the
immediate area must halt and the
find be evaluated for significance
under Section 106 of the NHPA and
CEQA.
Verify that a qualified
archaeologist and Native
American monitor are
present for all project
related ground disturbing
activities within 200 feet
of the centerline of the
creek bed.
Verify conditions of
measure are
implemented if
archaeological resources
are discovered.
Field
verification as
necessary
during
construction
period.
As needed.
Periodically.
As needed.
City of San
Luis Obispo
Utilities
Department
12.b
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: b - Exhibit A-CEQA Findings and MMRP (1430 : WRRF Environmental Impact Report)
Exhibit A
CR-1(c) Discovery of
Archaeological Resources. In the
event that archaeological resources
are unearthed during project
construction, all earth disturbing
work within the vicinity of the find
shall be temporarily suspended or
redirected until an archaeologist has
evaluated the nature and significance
of the find. Evaluation of
significance for the find may include
the determination of whether or not
the find qualifies as an
archaeological site. Isolated finds do
not qualify as historical resources
under CEQA or historic properties
under the NHPA and require no
management consideration under
either regulation. Should any
resource(s) be identified, an
evaluation of eligibility for the
CRHR and NRHP may be required
through the development of a
treatment plan including a research
design and subsurface testing
through the excavation of test units
and shovel test pits. After effects to
the find have been appropriately
mitigated, work in the area may
resume. Mitigation of significant
impacts or adverse effects to the find
may include a damage assessment of
the find, archival research, and/or
data recovery to remove any
identified archaeological deposits, as
determined by a qualified
archaeologist.
Verify that standard
mitigation measure CR-
1(c) is included as a
note on contractor’s
specifications.
Verify measure
implemented if
archaeological
resources are
discovered.
Prior to start
of
construction.
As needed.
Once.
As needed.
City of San
Luis Obispo
Utilities
Department
CR-1(d) Discovery of Human
Remains. If human remains are
found, the State of California Health
and Safety Code Section 7050.5
states that no further disturbance
shall occur until the county coroner
has made a determination of origin
and disposition pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98. In
the event of an unanticipated
discovery of human remains, the San
Luis Obispo County coroner must be
notified immediately. If the human
remains are determined to be
prehistoric, the coroner will notify
the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC), which will
determine and notify a most likely
descendant (MLD). The MLD shall
complete the inspection of the site
within 48 hours of notification and
may recommend scientific removal
and nondestructive analysis of
human remains and items associated
with Native American burials.
Verify that standard
mitigation measure CR-
1(d) is included as a
note on contractor’s
specifications.
Verify measure
implemented if human
remains are discovered.
Prior to start
of
construction.
As needed.
Once.
As needed.
City of San
Luis Obispo
Utilities
Department
12.b
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: b - Exhibit A-CEQA Findings and MMRP (1430 : WRRF Environmental Impact Report)
Exhibit A
CR-2(a) Paleontological
Mitigation and Monitoring
Program. Prior to construction
activity a qualified paleontologist
should prepare a Paleontological
Mitigation and Monitoring Program
to be implemented during project
ground disturbance activity. This
program should be based on the final
project plans to identify specific
areas where ground disturbing
activity has the potential to impact
scientifically significant
paleontological resources and
include the following details:
1) Outline the procedures for
construction staff Worker
Environmental Awareness Program
(WEAP) training;
2) Specify the extent, location
and duration of paleontological
monitoring based on proposed
construction activity;
3) Specify the procedures for
salvage and preparation of fossils;
4) Require a final mitigation and
monitoring report; and
5) Specify the qualifications of a
qualified paleontologist and
paleontological monitors.
Verify that a
Paleontological
Mitigation and
Monitoring Program has
been prepared by a
qualified paleontologist
which include the
required components.
Prior to start
of
construction.
Once. City of San
Luis Obispo
Utilities
Department
CR-2(b) Paleontological WEAP.
Prior to the start of construction,
construction personnel should be
informed on the appearance of
fossils and the procedures for
notifying paleontological staff
should fossils be discovered by
construction staff.
Verify that all
personnel associated
with ground disturbing
activities attend a
WEAP training.
Personnel associated
with ground disturbing
activities who have not
completed the WEAP
training shall be
accompanied onsite by
personnel who has
completed the training.
Prior to start
of
construction.
Once. City of San
Luis Obispo
Utilities
Department
12.b
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: b - Exhibit A-CEQA Findings and MMRP (1430 : WRRF Environmental Impact Report)
Exhibit A
CR-2(c) Paleontological
Monitoring. Any excavations
exceeding five feet in depth,
including those in the young
alluvium, should be monitored
according to the specifications
outlined in the PMMP. At a
minimum, paleontological
monitoring should be sufficient to
evaluate the potential of newly
exposed geologic units to contain
fossils. If the qualified paleontologist
determines that geologic units are
unlikely to yield significant
paleontological resources,
monitoring may be discontinued. If
ground disturbance activity is
initiated in a new area or to a deeper
depth than previous excavations,
paleontological monitoring should
be re-initiated. Monitoring should be
conducted by a qualified
paleontological monitor as specified
in the PMMP. Ground disturbing
activity that does not exceed five feet
in depth in young alluvium would
not require paleontological
monitoring.
Verify that mitigation
measure CR-2(c) is
included as a note on
contractor’s
specifications.
Verify monitoring
occurs in identified
locations.
Prior to
issuance of
start of
construction.
During
construction
period.
Once
Periodically,
as needed.
City of San
Luis Obispo
Utilities
Department
CR-2(d) Salvage of Fossils. If
fossils are discovered, the qualified
paleontologist (or paleontological
monitor) should recover them.
Typically fossils can be safely
salvaged quickly by a single
paleontologist and not disrupt
construction activity. In some cases
larger fossils (such as complete
skeletons or large mammal fossils)
require more extensive excavation
and longer salvage periods. In this
case the paleontologist should have
the authority to temporarily direct,
divert or halt construction activity to
ensure that the fossil(s) can be
removed in a safe and timely
manner.
Verify measure
implementation if
fossils are identified
during construction.
As needed, if
fossils are
identified.
Periodically. City of San
Luis Obispo
Utilities
Department
CR-2(e) Preparation and Curation
of Recovered Fossils. Once
salvaged, fossils should be identified
to the lowest possible taxonomic
level, prepared to a curation-ready
condition and curated in a scientific
institution with a permanent
paleontological collection (such as
the University of California Museum
of Paleontology or the Los Angeles
County Museum of Natural History),
along with all pertinent field notes,
photos, data, and maps.
Verify measure
implementation if
fossils are identified
during construction.
By end of
construction.
Once. City of San
Luis Obispo
Utilities
Department
12.b
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: b - Exhibit A-CEQA Findings and MMRP (1430 : WRRF Environmental Impact Report)
Exhibit A
CR-2(f) Final Paleontological
Mitigation and Monitoring
Report. Upon completion of ground
disturbing activity (and curation of
fossils if necessary) the qualified
paleontologist should prepare a final
mitigation and monitoring report
outlining the results of the mitigation
and monitoring program. The report
should include discussion of the
location, duration and methods of the
monitoring, stratigraphic sections,
any recovered fossils, and the
scientific significance of those
fossils, and where fossils were
curated.
Verify that a Final
Paleontological
Mitigation and
Monitoring Report has
been prepared by a
qualified paleontologist
which include the
required components.
By end of
construction.
Once. City of San
Luis Obispo
Utilities
Department
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
HYD-1 Prepare an Emergency
Wastewater Treatment Plan.
Before construction is initiated, the
City of San Luis Obispo shall work
with its design engineers and
construction contractor to develop
an Emergency Wastewater
Treatment Plan which identifies
procedures for handling and
treating wastewater flows during
construction of the Project. This
Plan shall include procedures and
contingency measures for proper
handling and treatment of
wastewater flows in the event that
the treatment train goes offline
unexpectedly as a result of
construction activities, such as
temporary storage wastewater
flows. The Plan shall consider
storage options, varying levels of
treatment and/or blending,
temporary treatment options, and
conveyance to alternative treatment
facilities. An existing emergency
treatment plan could be used in
place of this Emergency
Wastewater Treatment Plan so long
as its provisions could be
successfully implemented during
project construction.
Verify that an
Emergency Wastewater
Treatment Plan has
been prepared.
Prior to start
of
construction.
Once. City of San
Luis Obispo
Utilities
Department
12.b
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: b - Exhibit A-CEQA Findings and MMRP (1430 : WRRF Environmental Impact Report)
Exhibit A
HYD-4 Design Stormwater
Outfall with Energy Dissipaters.
The City of San Luis Obispo shall
ensure that the San Luis Obispo
Creek stormwater outfall, if
selected to manage storm flows on
the WRRF site is designed with
energy dissipation features as
needed to prevent flooding and
erosion at or downstream of the
point of discharge. The design and
location of the stormwater outfall
shall be approved by USACE to
ensure that it does not impede high
flow capacity.
Verify that USACE
approval of stormwater
outfall design and
location.
Prior to start
of
construction.
Once. City of San
Luis Obispo
Utilities
Department
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
HAZ-1(a) Hazardous Materials
Management and Spill Control
Plan. Before construction begins,
all construction contractors shall be
required to develop and implement
a HMMSCP that includes project-
specific contingency plan for
hazardous materials and waste
operations. The HMMSCP shall
establish policies and procedures
consistent with applicable codes
and regulations, including but not
limited to the California Building
and Fire Codes, and federal and
California Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA).
The HMMSCP shall articulate
hazardous materials handling
practices to prevent their release
into San Luis Obispo Creek during
construction of the storm water
outfall.
Verify that a HMMSCP
has been prepared.
Prior to start
of
construction.
Once. City of San
Luis Obispo
Utilities
Department
HAZ-1(b) Preparation of
Hazardous Materials Business
Plan. Prior to operation of the new
facilities, a HMBP shall be
prepared and implemented for the
proposed project. The HMBP shall
include a hazardous materials
inventory, site plan, an emergency
response plan, and requirements for
employee training. An existing
HMBP can be updated and
resubmitted for the expanded
facilities.
Verify that a HMBP has
been prepared.
Prior to
operation of
new facilities.
Once. City of San
Luis Obispo
Utilities
Department
12.b
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: b - Exhibit A-CEQA Findings and MMRP (1430 : WRRF Environmental Impact Report)
Exhibit A
HAZ-3(a) Phase I Environmental
Site Assessment. Before
construction begins, the City of San
Luis Obispo shall perform a Phase
I Environmental Site Assessment
(ESA) to clarify the potential for
soil contamination due to the
adjacent open cleanup site. The
recommendations set forth in the
Phase I ESA shall be implemented
before construction begins. Follow-
up sampling may be conducted, if
needed, to characterize soil and
groundwater quality. Prior to
construction, contractors shall be
informed of the location of
potential areas of hazardous
materials that may be encountered
during construction, and shall
ensure that safety precautions are in
place to avoid or minimize
exposure to potentially
contaminated soils, and to reduce
the potential for accidental damage
to underground storage tanks that
could cause accidental release of
hazardous materials into the
environment.
Verify that a Phase I
ESA has been prepared
for the southern end of
the site if construction
is planned in that area;
verify
recommendations have
been implemented.
Prior to start
of
construction.
Once. City of San
Luis Obispo
Utilities
Department
HAZ-3(b) Contaminated Soil
Contingency Plan. The City of
San Luis Obispo shall require its
construction contractors to develop
and implement a Contaminated
Soil Contingency Plan to handle
treatment and/or disposal of
contaminated soils. If contaminated
soil is encountered during project
construction, work shall halt and an
assessment made to determine the
extent of contamination. Treatment
and/or disposal of contaminated
soils shall be conducted in
accordance with the Contingency
Plan.
Verify that a
Contaminated Soil
Contingency Plan has
been prepared.
Prior to start
of
construction.
Once. City of San
Luis Obispo
Utilities
Department
12.b
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: b - Exhibit A-CEQA Findings and MMRP (1430 : WRRF Environmental Impact Report)
Exhibit A
HAZ-5 Traffic Management
Plan. Prior to the start of
construction, the City shall develop
a Traffic Management Plan, in
coordination with City Transit,
Public Works, and other
appropriate departments or users of
the site, that would include
industry, Caltrans, and City
standards for managing
construction traffic to and from the
site. Measures to manage
construction traffic could include
warning signs, flag men, and
scheduling deliveries outside the
AM and PM peak hours. The
Traffic Management Plan shall
include measures that address how
to accommodate emergency
evacuation and response, if needed.
Verify that a Traffic
Management Plan has
been prepared.
Prior to start
of
construction.
Once. City of San
Luis Obispo
Utilities
Department
HAZ-6 Prevention of Fire
Hazards. During construction of
the proposed project, staging areas,
welding areas, or areas slated for
construction shall be cleared of
dried vegetation or other material
that could ignite. Construction
equipment that includes a spark
arrestor shall be equipped in good
working order. In addition,
construction crews shall have a
spotter during welding activities to
look out for potentially dangerous
situations, such as accidental
sparks. Other construction
equipment, including those with
hot vehicle catalytic converters,
shall be kept in good working order
and used only within cleared
construction zones. The creation
and maintenance of approved fire
access to work areas shall be
required in accordance with local
Fire regulations. During
construction of the proposed
project, contractors shall require
vehicles and crews working at the
project site to have access to
functional fire extinguishers.
Verify that standard fire
prevention measures are
included as a note on all
contractor’s
specifications.
Field verify
compliance.
Prior to
issuance of
contractor’s
specifications
.
Continuously
during
grading and
construction.
Once.
Periodically
during
grading and
construction
.
City of San
Luis Obispo
Utilities
Department
12.b
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: b - Exhibit A-CEQA Findings and MMRP (1430 : WRRF Environmental Impact Report)
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. (2016 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING THE PURSUIT OF LOW
INTEREST CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND GRANTS AND
LOANS AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO SUBMIT THE
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENT OF THE CLEAN WATER STATE
REVOLVING FUND FINANCING PACKAGE
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF)
must be upgraded to meet state and federal discharge requirements and capacity to meet the
City’s General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the WRRF also requires the replacement or upgrade of old and aged
equipment and improvements to increase in the production of recycled water to position the City
for possible future potable reuse; and
WHEREAS, the WRRF will strive to be a community asset incorporating interpretive
features and public amenities; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo prepared a WRRF Facilities Plan which was
adopted by the City Council on July 7, 2015 and an WRRF Project EIR which was certified on
August 16, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo desires to pursue low interest Clean Water
State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) grants and loans to fund the WRRF project; and
WHEREAS, the WRRF Project EIR is the critical piece of the environmental package of
the CWSRF funding application; and
WHEREAS, the CWSRF funding application environmental package requires a long
lead time for review and its timely submittal is critical for the financing to meet the WRRF
project schedule.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Finding. The City Council, after certification of the WRRF Project EIR,
public testimony and correspondence, and reports thereon, supports the pursuit of low interest
CWSRF grants and loans.
SECTION 2. Action. The City Council hereby authorities City staff to submit the
environmental package for the WRRF Project to the CWSRF.
12.c
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: c - Resolution CWSRF and WRFP Funding Environmental Package (1430 : WRRF Environmental Impact Report)
Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 2
R ______
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________, 2016.
____________________________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim City Clerk
12.c
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: c - Resolution CWSRF and WRFP Funding Environmental Package (1430 : WRRF Environmental Impact Report)
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. (2016 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, PLEDGING THE CITY COUNCIL’S SUPPORT
FOR THE WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY PROJECT AND
DESIRE TO PARTNER WITH LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL
AGENCIES TO IMPLEMENT THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City is planning an upgrade to its Water Resource Recovery Facility to
meet the requirements of its recently adopted National Pollutant Discharge Elimination permit;
and
WHEREAS, the City desires to create a community asset that is recognized as
supporting health, well-being and quality of life; and
WHEREAS, the City seeks to deliver a Water Resource Recovery Facility in partnership
with stakeholders that provides economic, social and environmental value to our community; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to implement improvements today to position the City for
future potable reuse; and
WHEREAS, the City plans for development of a public interpretive center and
demonstration wetlands to engage and educate the community in resource recovery and that
promotes the one water concept; and
WHEREAS, the City plans for development of a Water Resource Center that brings
together Utilities staff and supports the development and empowerment of City employees; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to implement innovative technologies, that provide
multiple benefits, including reduced energy usage and high quality water; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to create and sustain diverse partnerships that add value to
the community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council pledges support for the Water Resource Recovery
Facility Project.
SECTION 2. The City of San Luis Obispo desires to create and sustain partnerships with
local, state and federal elected officials and agencies to implement the Water Resource Recovery
Facility Project.
12.d
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: d - Resolution WRRF Council Partnering (1430 : WRRF Environmental Impact Report)
Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 2
Upon motion of Council Member _____________, seconded by Council Member
________, and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted on this ___ day of ______, 20__.
____________________________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, CALIFORNIA, this ____ day of _____________, _____.
____________________________________
Lee Price, MMC
Interim City Clerk
12.d
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: d - Resolution WRRF Council Partnering (1430 : WRRF Environmental Impact Report)
Meeting Date: 8/16/2016
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Xzandrea Fowler, Community Development Deputy Director
SUBJECT: PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING FRAMEWORK AND DRAFT
POLICIES: STUDY SESSION
RECOMMENDATION
Participate in a study session on public infrastructure financing and receive and file the
background memorandum and reports (Attachments A, B, and C).
DISCUSSION
Background
The Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP) set forth several strategies for addressing
barriers to job creation, including key strategies that begin to address the challenges associated
with infrastructure costs, fees, standards and financing strategies. Financing infrastructure in
California is increasingly becoming more complex and several tools have been developed to
assist local governments finance infrastructure associated with new development. Many
jurisdictions throughout the state routinely utilize those tools, but they have rarely or infrequently
been used in the City of San Luis Obispo.
Implementation of these strategies must be considered in the context of State law governing how
development impact fees and other tools may be imposed. Another consideration is the
requirement for nexus studies and reports to support the calculation and imposition of such fees
on new development to defray infrastructure costs. The governing statutes are commonly
referred to as “AB 1600” or the “Mitigation Fee Act”. Following this study session staff will be
requesting City Council authorization for the issuance of a RFP for consultant services to prepare
the required nexus studies.
In April 2013 the City Council authorized staff to hire a consultant to undertake an infrastructure
financing analysis that included a series of study sessions with the Council. The intent of the
study sessions was to educate the Council and the community. Those study sessions covered the
following topics:
Study Session #1: Introduction and Background – current trends in municipal
infrastructure financing, an overview of development impact fees and a review of the
City’s existing fee programs.
13
Packet Pg. 301
Study Session #2: Economic and Policy Implications of Development Impact Fees –
tools available to the City and the policy implications and trade-offs associated with the
various options.
Study Session #3: Direction for updating the City’s Development Impact Fees – next
steps and Council direction to staff based on the previous sessions.
During those study sessions, staff informed the Council that following the adoption of the Land
Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan, an updated AB 1600 nexus study would be
prepared in order to identify the portion of infrastructure that should be paid for by new
development to support the physical build out of the General Plan based on adopted levels of
services, quality of life and economic policy goals.
In preparation for the updated AB 1600 nexus study, staff retained consultant services from EPS,
who prepared the infrastructure financing analysis that was part of the EDSP Implementation.
EPS assisted staff with the development of a Public Infrastructure Financing Framework
(Framework) which describes a comprehensive approach to funding the City’s public facilities
and infrastructure improvements, and recommendations regarding draft policies for Council
consideration. On August 16, 2016 Council will hold study session to discuss the proposed
Framework and draft policies.
OVERVIEW OF ATTACHMENTS
1. Public Infrastructure Financing Framework and Draft Policies (EPS #161001): This
memorandum, dated July 18, 2016, describes a framework for a comprehensive approach
to funding the City’s public facilities and infrastructure improvements and recommends
draft policies for the City’s consideration. The Framework provides a systematic way of
considering funding and financing options so that the City is able to construct needed
public facilities and infrastructure in a manner that funds facilities and infrastructure
needed to maintain and enhance the City’s quality of life for current and future residents,
employees and visitors, makes efficient use of available funding sources and financing
mechanisms, implements General Plan policy, is fair and equitable with respect to
incidence of burden (who pays), and is consistent with economic development objectives.
2. Infrastructure Financing Background, Components and Strategy (EPS #131044):
This memorandum, dated April 10, 2014, summarizes and transmits the technical
documents and presentations prepared by EPS as part of the Infrastructure Financing
Analysis and City Council Study Sessions. The Analysis reviewed the City’s current
infrastructure financing programs, including its development impact fees, in response to
recommendations in the adopted EDSP.
CONCURRENCES
Community Development, Public Works, Finance and Administration all concur this session will
provide the basis for decisions critical to the LUCE Implementation and FEE Program update.
13
Packet Pg. 302
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This activity will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment, and
therefore is not a “Project” pursuant to as State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b) (5) and
would not be subject to further environmental review pursuant to Section 15060(c) (3) of the
State CEQA Guidelines.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Public Facilities Impact Fee Program is identified in the 2015-17 Financial Plan, under
Significant Operating Program Change (SOPC) - LUCE Implementation and Fee Update, and
$125,000 has been earmarked and allocated for this effort in the FY 2015/16 budget. A carryover
request has been approved for the FY 2016/17 budget. The consultant services associated with
the drafting of the Public Infrastructure Financing Framework are covered under that allocation.
NEXT STEPS
Staff will request City Council authorization for the issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP) for
the preparation of a Public/Capital Facilities Impact Fee Program Nexus Study. The preparation
of a Nexus Study was identified in the 2015-17 Financial Plan as an objective that supports
Major City Goals in Housing, Multi-Modal Transportation, as well as supports the other
important objective of Downtown. It also continues implementation of the EDSP strategy to
reduce barriers to job creation, which was part of the Major City Goal in Economic Development
in the 2011-13 Financial Plan.
Attachments:
a - Public Infrastructure Financing Framework and Draft Policies
b - SOPC LUCE Implementation and Fee Update
c - Council Reading File: Compendium of Final Infrastructure Financing Analysis
Documents
13
Packet Pg. 303
D RAFT M EMORANDUM
To: Michael Codron, City of San Luis Obispo
From: Walter Kieser and Ashleigh Kanat
Subject: Public Infrastructure Financing Framework and Draft Policies;
EPS #161001
Date: July 20, 2016
This Public Infrastructure Financing Framework (Framework) describes a
comprehensive approach to funding the City’s public facilities and
infrastructure improvements and recommends draft policies for the
City’s consideration. The Framework provides a systematic way of
considering funding and financing options so that the City is able to
construct needed public facilities and infrastructure in a manner that
funds facilities and infrastructure needed to maintain and enhance the
City’s quality of life for current and future residents, employees, and
visitors; makes efficient use of available funding sources and financing
mechanisms; implements General Plan policy; is fair and equitable with
respect to incidence of burden (who pays); and is consistent with
economic development objectives.
This Framework has been prepared through a collaborative effort
engaging senior City staff by way of a series of independent efforts and
working meetings. The work also reflects the results of the
infrastructure financing analysis led by EPS in 2014 as part of the
Economic Development Strategic Plan implementation.
Framework Background and Context
The public facility and infrastructure improvements, including those
already identified in the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP), the
General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element, and the Specific Plans,
are key components of the City’s efforts to sustain and improve the
quality of life for current (and future) residents and, simultaneously,
enhance the City’s economic development potential. These public
facilities and infrastructure improvements include water and sewer
utilities, transportation infrastructure, streetscape improvements, parks
and recreation facilities, and other civic facilities that collectively have
been shown to induce private investment, facilitate real estate
development, increase economic activity, and expand the City’s tax base
when coupled with sufficient market demand and wise land use policies.
13.a
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: a - Public Infrastructure Financing Framework and Draft Policies (1432 : Public Infrastructure Financing Framework Study
Public Infrastructure Financing Framework 7/20/2016
Draft Memorandum Page 2
P:\161000s\161001SLO_PubFinAdvisory Services\Financing Framework\161001_Financing Framework_2016_07_20.docx
However, these public facilities and infrastructure improvements, taken as a whole, are costly
and thus will require a broad range and strategic application of existing and new funding sources
and financing mechanisms. New development in the City, particularly in the City’s primary
growth areas, will generate substantial real estate value that serves as a basis for funding
infrastructure improvements. Land- and development-based funding sources based upon this
new real estate value include development impact fees and “land secured” financing sources
(e.g., Mello-Roos Community Facilities District special taxes), which have not previously been
used by the City. While development impact fees paid by new development are used exclusively
for capital improvements serving new development, special taxes and assessments may be used
for capital improvements or ongoing maintenance and operations costs.
The overall cost burden placed on new development affects development feasibility, particularly
when all development costs are considered. The cumulative effect of fees, exactions, and
requirements will need to be carefully considered to avoid discouraging desired economic
development. It is likely that facility and infrastructure improvements will need to be prioritized
and phased to match the City’s funding capacity and to improve feasibility of new development.
Infrastructure improvements that relieve existing service deficiencies or fund improvements
otherwise benefiting existing as well as new development in the City can tap a range of existing
and new sources and financing mechanisms. Potential sources available to fund existing
deficiencies may include a countywide sales tax increase (a transportation “self-help” measure),
Citywide special taxes, grants, the City’s Infrastructure Investment Capital Fund, utility revenues
and related revenue bonds, among others. Some of these mechanisms require voter approval
while others simply require appropriation of existing or future City revenue.
Sources of Funds and Types of Improvements
There is a general correlation between types of improvements and categories of funding.
Whether a particular funding source is appropriate for a given improvement will depend on a
number of factors, such as the type of improvement, the geographic area of benefit, whether the
improvement is needed to address existing deficiencies or serve new development, how the
combined burden of fees and/or assessments and taxes affect development feasibility, and the
timing of funding sources versus the need for improvements. If the City is considering City-
based funding sources, additional factors become important, such as whether the improvement
is a catalytic, economic development improvement and what the long-term fiscal implications of
the improvement may be.
Key questions influencing the ideal mix of infrastructure funding include:
1. Who benefits from the improvement? Will it serve existing or new development or both?
2. What is the geographic area of benefit? Is it regional, citywide, or area-specific?
3. Is the improvement a catalytic, economic development improvement that is worth City
investment?
4. What are the long-term, annual fiscal implications?
5. Is there an established policy framework, such as a service standard? Or is the improvement
in an adopted plan (e.g., General Plan, Master Plans, Specific Plans, CIP, and LUCE)?
6. What is the cost incidence of the financing mechanism (i.e., who pays) and is that
appropriate?
13.a
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: a - Public Infrastructure Financing Framework and Draft Policies (1432 : Public Infrastructure Financing Framework Study
Public Infrastructure Financing Framework 7/20/2016
Draft Memorandum Page 3
P:\161000s\161001SLO_PubFinAdvisory Services\Financing Framework\161001_Financing Framework_2016_07_20.docx
7. Is there other funding in-place or otherwise available (e.g., regional, state, federal funding or
grant funding)?
Certain types of improvements may fall into more than one improvement category. For example,
the City’s proposed police headquarters building will contribute to the Department’s ability to
serve new development while ensuring that current high service standards can be maintained, or
possibly improved, for existing residents.
Table 1 shows the general relationship between key public facilities and infrastructure
improvement categories and funding sources. This array illustrates the need for a range of
infrastructure funding and financing mechanisms as part of the larger strategy.
Improvement Categories and Project Examples
A key aspect of the present effort is to assure that the funding sources and financing
mechanisms available to the City are used in a manner that maximizes public benefits while at
the same time supporting ongoing economic development.
1. Project-Specific Improvements
Project specific improvements include in-tract and frontage improvements that are related to a
specific project or a specific site (e.g., sidewalks and some streetscape improvements).
Developers are expected to fund improvements required by typical development standards or
other entitlement exactions. In some cases, reimbursement agreements for oversizing may fall
into this category.
SLO examples:
1a. Specific Plan Area-frontage improvements (typically street improvements and related in-
street utilities)
1b. Infrastructure oversizing (if subject to a reimbursement agreement)
2. Improvements that Increase Capacity for New Development
New infrastructure or improvements that expand the capacity of an existing facility can serve
both existing and/or new development, but whether the improvement serves existing or new
development (or both) has implications for how the improvement should be funded.
Improvements that support new development only (or if a new improvement serves both new
and existing development, that portion which serves new development) are typically funded
through development impact fees but could also be funded with a Community Facilities District
(CFD) special tax. Impact fees cannot be used for routine maintenance, although periodic and
comprehensive rehabilitation or reconstruction projects (i.e., major maintenance) may be an
appropriate use of these fees.1
1 California Gov’t Code Sec. 66001(g) states: “A fee… may include the costs attributable to the
increased demand for public facilities reasonably related to the development project in order to (1)
refurbish existing facilities to maintain the existing level of service…” The code includes streets as a
public facility.
13.a
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: a - Public Infrastructure Financing Framework and Draft Policies (1432 : Public Infrastructure Financing Framework Study
Public Infrastructure Financing Framework 7/20/2016
Draft Memorandum Page 4
P:\161000s\161001SLO_PubFinAdvisory Services\Financing Framework\161001_Financing Framework_2016_07_20.docx
SLO examples:
2a. New development’s share of the following:
— Specific Plan area parks
— Fire Station #5
— Prado Road2
— Tank Farm Road3
3. Improvements that Address Existing Infrastructure Deficiencies or Improve
Overall Levels of Service
Improvements that alleviate existing infrastructure deficiencies and/or help existing development
comply with new service standards cannot be funded through impact fee programs and may
require the use of city-based funding sources, such as an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing
District (EIFD), grants, Certificates of Participation (COP), the Infrastructure Investment Capital
Fund, or general City funding.
Those projects with regional benefit (in addition to capacity improvements needed to serve new
development), such as street and highway improvements are often so costly that their inclusion
in an impact fee program may result in development feasibility issues. In these circumstances an
EIFD would be effective or a regional special tax measure could be appropriate.
SLO examples:
3a. Mission Plaza Master Plan Project
3b. Portion of the following improvements that cannot be allocated to new development:
— Police Headquarters (share that is not attributable to new development)
— Fire Station #2 (share that is not attributable to new development)
4. New Infrastructure or Community Benefits, beyond Nexus
New infrastructure, facilities or other community benefits that exceed nexus based-cost
allocation to new development cannot be funded through development impact fee programs.
Rather, such improvements typically require city-based funding sources, such as the
Infrastructure Investment Capital Fund. For larger projects, assessment districts can be
established, and the revenues can be used to leverage other funding sources.
SLO examples:
4a. Portion of the following improvements that improves service for existing development and/or
goes beyond current service standards:
— Prado Road Interchange
— Police Headquarters
— Fire Station #2
— Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard
2 Currently 100% of the costs of Prado Road and Tank Farm Road are attributable to new
development and are in area-specific fee programs. The Development Impact Fee Nexus Study will
evaluate the appropriate allocation.
3 See Note #2.
13.a
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: a - Public Infrastructure Financing Framework and Draft Policies (1432 : Public Infrastructure Financing Framework Study
Public Infrastructure Financing Framework 7/20/2016
Draft Memorandum Page 5
P:\161000s\161001SLO_PubFinAdvisory Services\Financing Framework\161001_Financing Framework_2016_07_20.docx
5. Public Facility Operations and Maintenance
Infrastructure and facility improvements typically will have annual maintenance costs associated
with them. There are few funding sources available to fund maintenance activities, as most
funding sources are intended to fund the one-time construction of the improvements or facilities.
As such, maintenance costs typically are funded through City General Fund expenditures and
utility rates and charges. The City may require a CFD special tax to fund ongoing operations in
circumstances where a fiscal impact has been identified.
SLO examples:
5a. Street and roadway maintenance
5b. Landscape and lighting maintenance
5c. Public safety operations (e.g., Avila Ranch – CFD for ongoing cost of fire services)
Proposed Infrastructure Financing Framework and
Policies
The guidelines and policies below offer a strategic framework for funding investments in the
City’s public facilities and infrastructure. In addition to such general guidelines it is common for
jurisdictions to also adopt financing policies for specific debt and land-secured financing
mechanisms (e.g., Mello Roos Community Facilities Bonds).
1. General Financing Guidelines and Policies
Financing guidelines and policies provide a systematic way of selecting, implementing, and
assembling the funding (and/or financing the money) needed to construct needed public
facilities and infrastructure in a manner that is effective, efficient and equitable. Such
guidelines could be adopted by resolution, and updated regularly, as may be appropriate.
The categories and types of public facilities and infrastructure improvements contemplated in
this Framework included water and sewer utilities, transportation infrastructure, streetscape
improvements, parks and recreation facilities, and other public safety and civic facilities.
Collectively, these public facilities and improvements induce private investment, facilitate real
estate development, increase economic activity, and expand the City’s tax base when
coupled with sufficient market demand and wise land use policies.
1a. New development should generally be expected to “pay its own way,” (i.e., provide
funding through one mechanism or another that funds its “proportional share” of public
improvement and infrastructure costs and ongoing operations and maintenance costs).
1b. The City will consider the use of city-based funding sources to fund public facility and
infrastructure improvements that provide for the health, safety and welfare of existing
and future residents and/or provide measurable economic development and fiscal
benefits. In evaluating whether the City will use city-based funding sources, the following
evaluation criteria should be considered:4
1. Significant public benefit, demonstrated by compliance with and furtherance of
General Plan goals, policies, and programs
4 From Resolution No. 10603 (2015 Series) establishing the Infrastructure Investment Capital Fund.
13.a
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: a - Public Infrastructure Financing Framework and Draft Policies (1432 : Public Infrastructure Financing Framework Study
Public Infrastructure Financing Framework 7/20/2016
Draft Memorandum Page 6
P:\161000s\161001SLO_PubFinAdvisory Services\Financing Framework\161001_Financing Framework_2016_07_20.docx
2. Alignment with the Major City Goals and other important objectives in place at the
time of the application
3. Head of Household Job Creation
4. Housing Creation
5. Circulation/Connectivity Improvements
6. Net General Fund fiscal impact
1c. The City generally will not fund or offer public financing for infrastructure improvements
that confer only private benefit to individual property owners or development projects.5
1d. The City shall seek continuity (or improvements to) existing levels of municipal service by
assuring adequate funding for the City’s operation, maintenance and infrastructure
replacement costs.
2. Debt Financing
Debt financing involves the creation of multi-year financial obligations (debt service) through
the issuance of municipal bonds (or similar instruments). Such multi-year obligations
generally require voter approval, with exceptions existing for enterprise revenue bonds, and
special taxes applied to new development areas approved by landowners/developers.
2a. The City is required to keep cumulative outstanding debt within the limits prescribed by
the State of California statutes and at levels consistent with creditworthiness objectives
(the City is currently far below these limits).
2b. Debt financing for public facilities and capital improvement projects should be sought
only when the project’s useful life will exceed the term of the financing and only when the
pledged or available supporting revenues or funding sources will be sufficient to service
the long-term debt.
3. Development Impact Fees Guidelines and Policies
Development impact fees are one-time fees levied on new development, typically levied at
the time building permits are issued, to fund a range of the City’s public facilities and
infrastructure. Such fees are levied both on a citywide basis as well as for specific areas
(e.g., the Specific Plan Areas). The levy of development impact fees is regulated by the
State’s Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.).
3a. Development impact fees should be set, consistent with the statutory “nexus” analysis
and findings, to fund new development’s proportional share of public facility and
infrastructure costs.
3b. Improvements funded by development impact fees should be referenced generally in the
appropriate planning documents (e.g., General Plan, Specific Plans, etc.) and reflected in
the City’s Capital Improvement Program.
5 An exception to this policy may be created by a development agreement between the City and a
private developer. In this case public investments are offset by measurable public benefits.
13.a
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: a - Public Infrastructure Financing Framework and Draft Policies (1432 : Public Infrastructure Financing Framework Study
Public Infrastructure Financing Framework 7/20/2016
Draft Memorandum Page 7
P:\161000s\161001SLO_PubFinAdvisory Services\Financing Framework\161001_Financing Framework_2016_07_20.docx
3c. The City’s development impact fees can be “leveraged” through the use of fee credit and
reimbursement agreements with developers and landowners.
3d. The City’s aggregate fee levels should not render new development that is otherwise
consistent with City plans and regulations economically infeasible. Aggregate fee levels
should be evaluated in terms of a reasonable standard, but not a strict limit (e.g.,
aggregate fee levels should not exceed an average of approximately 10 to 12 percent of
the market value of the new development, either on a per-unit or per-square foot basis).
3e. The City may consider reductions or waivers of its development impact fees in cases
where a development project meets specific City planning or economic development
policies such as affordable housing projects. In such cases the amount of funding
foregone must be replaced with other funding sources available to the City.
4. Community Facilities District or Assessment District Guidelines and Policies
Community Facilities Districts or Assessment Districts offer a way to fund infrastructure,
maintenance, or municipal services through special taxes or assessments levied on property
owners benefiting from the thus-funded improvements or services. It can be used for both
capital improvements and ongoing facility maintenance or services.
4a. The City will consider the formation of financing districts using the State’s assessment
law or the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act for its newly developing areas on a case-
by-case basis, consistent with technical analysis and City priorities (i.e., capital or
ongoing funding).
4b. The City will consider the effect of the special tax on the City’s ability to issue General
Obligation bonds or other property-based tax measures.
4c. Such districts should fund infrastructure or services serving or otherwise providing benefit
to the area subject to the assessment or special tax.
4d. Such districts can fund public facilities or infrastructure otherwise funded with the City’s
development impact fees or project-specific exactions. In such cases the area’s
development impact fee obligations will be adjusted proportionately.
4e. Within any such districts, property value-to-lien ratio should, consistent with typical
underwriting standards, be at least 4.0:1 after calculating the value of the financed public
improvements to be installed and considering any prior or pending special taxes or
improvement liens.
4f. Consistent with underwriting standards and market considerations, and as a matter of
policy, the City will limit the maximum amount of special taxes to be levied on any parcel
of property within a Community Facilities District, in any given fiscal year, together with
the general property taxes, general obligation bonds, and other special taxes and
assessments levied on such parcel, shall not exceed an amount equal to one and eight-
tenths percent (1.8 percent) of the projected assessed value of the parcel (and
improvements if applicable). How the special tax capacity is allocated between capital
and ongoing expenditures will depend upon the City’s priorities.
4g. The City shall have discretion to allow a special tax in excess of the established limits for
any lands within the CFD which are designated for commercial or industrial uses.
13.a
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: a - Public Infrastructure Financing Framework and Draft Policies (1432 : Public Infrastructure Financing Framework Study
Public Infrastructure Financing Framework 7/20/2016
Draft Memorandum Page 8
P:\161000s\161001SLO_PubFinAdvisory Services\Financing Framework\161001_Financing Framework_2016_07_20.docx
4h. As a part of such district formations, the City will retain a special tax consultant to
prepare a report which recommends a special tax rate and method for the proposed CFD
and evaluates the special tax proposed to determine its ability to adequately fund
identified public facilities, City administrative costs, services (if applicable) and other
related expenditures.
5. Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District Guidelines and Policies
The Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD), established through SB 628 in 2014,
offers a new form of “tax increment” financing in the wake of the loss of local redevelopment
agency powers in California. Through the EIFD the City can pledge a portion of its
“incremental” property tax proceeds (and other future revenues) to fund a wide range of
public facilities and infrastructure and affordable housing.
5a. EIFD financing should be considered for public facilities or infrastructure improvements
that confer Citywide and/or regional benefits. This may include the “City share” of
infrastructure included in the City’s development impact fees.
5b. Unless there is a Development Agreement in place that provides otherwise, EIFDs should
not be used to fund real estate projects’ proportional share of infrastructure costs
otherwise included in the City’s development impact fees or charged as project-specific
exactions (e.g., subdivision improvements).
5c. EIFDs produce maximum benefit when more than one local government jurisdiction is
participating; there are opportunities to collaborate with the County of San Luis Obispo to
improve infrastructure benefiting the region.
5d. The term of the EIFD may not be longer than 30 years, per SB 628.
5e. The establishment of an EIFD represents an opportunity cost to the City’s General Fund.
As such, at the time of formation of the EIFD (or if changes to the EIFD are
contemplated), the City should require a fiscal impact analysis to determine if an EIFD is
fiscally prudent.
13.a
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: a - Public Infrastructure Financing Framework and Draft Policies (1432 : Public Infrastructure Financing Framework Study
Table 1: Sources and Uses Policy Framework MatrixProject Site‐Specific, In‐Tract, and Frontage Improvements Capacity Improvements and New Infrastructure Needed to Support New Development OnlyCapacity Improvements and New Infrastructure Needed to Alleviate Existing Infrastructure Deficiencies Capacity Improvements and New Infrastructure Needed to Meet New Service StandardsNew Infrastructure, Facilities, or Other Community Benefits that Exceed Nexus‐Based Cost Allocation to New DevelopmentOperations and MaintenanceTypical Development Standards, Entitlement Exactions and/or Reimbursement Agreements for Oversizing Additional Project‐Specific Development Agreement, Community Benefits Agreement, etc.Development Impact Fees and Connection Charges ‐ Mitigation Fee Act Compliant (either Planning Area or Citywide)(New Development's Share)Special Tax or Assessment District (e.g., CFD, 1913/15 Act Bonds) Regional, State or Federal Grant Funding Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District ‐ SB 628 Tax Increment Financing (either Planning Area or Citywide)Other City Funding (Special Tax Measures, Certificate of Participation, etc.)General City FundingCity‐Based FundingInfrastructure Improvement Type and LocationInfrastructure Funding TypeDeveloper‐Based FundingLand‐Secured Tax RevenueEconomic & Planning Systems, Inc. 7/20/2016P:\161000s\161001SLO_PubFinAdvisory Services\Financing Framework\Generalized Sources and Uses for SLO_simplified for memo.xlsx13.a
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: a - Public Infrastructure Financing Framework and Draft Policies (1432 : Public Infrastructure Financing Framework Study Session)
APPENDIX A:
Definition of
Funding Sources and Financing Mechanisms
13.a
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: a - Public Infrastructure Financing Framework and Draft Policies (1432 : Public Infrastructure Financing Framework Study
P:\161000s\161001SLO_PubFinAdvisory Services\Financing Framework\161001_Financing Framework_2016_07_20.docx
APPENDIX A: FUNDING SOURCES AND FINANCING MECHANISMS
There are a range of funding sources and financing mechanisms that can fund the City’s public
facility and infrastructure improvements and facility improvements. The City already makes use
of some of these, while others represent options for future consideration. Following is a
description of potential funding sources, organized by general categories of funding:
Development-Based Funding, Land-Secured Revenue and Financing, and City Funding and
Financing.
Development-Based Funding
Private Developer Financing, Agreements and Partnerships
Developers commonly fund infrastructure requirements privately, for example virtually all “in-
tract” improvements (infrastructure improvements within a subdivision) are privately financed.
In some cases area-serving infrastructure (not fully the responsibility of a particular developer)
can be privately financed. These cooperative arrangements are typically structured in
development agreements or reimbursement agreements. This upfront infrastructure
development may be fully or partially refunded, using subsequently collected development
impact fees, special tax bond proceeds, or other city funding sources. These arrangements tend
to be available during times of strong market performance. In weaker markets or locales it may
be difficult to obtain such private financing.
Project-Specific Conditions and Exactions
Before the advent of ordinance-based development impact fees, it was common for
infrastructure to be funded by the developer through project-specific exactions imposed by the
local jurisdiction, including direct payments for or construction of infrastructure required as a
condition of subdivision or project approval. While development impact fees have reduced the
use of exactions, exactions remain an important part of development-based infrastructure
financing as there are often infrastructure requirements of a new project that are not included in
the applicable fee programs. Determination of the need for such additional infrastructure is
based on “rough proportionality” (i.e., nexus) with the development itself and is often derived
from CEQA-based mitigation measures.
Development Agreements
A development agreement (DA) is a legally binding agreement between a local government and
developer authorized by State statute (Government Code Section 65864 et seq.). A DA is a
means for a developer to secure a development entitlement for a particular development project
for an agreed upon period (often long-term approvals) in exchange for special considerations by
the city (or county), generally including infrastructure improvements, amenities, or other
community benefits that cannot be obtained through the normal conditions applicable to the
project. DAs are entirely discretionary on the part of local government (there is no nexus
requirement) and must be individually adopted by local ordinance. Development agreements
vary widely and cities often establish their own policies and procedures for considering
development agreements.
13.a
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: a - Public Infrastructure Financing Framework and Draft Policies (1432 : Public Infrastructure Financing Framework Study
Public Infrastructure Financing Framework 7/20/2016
Draft Memorandum Appendix A Page A-2
P:\161000s\161001SLO_PubFinAdvisory Services\Financing Framework\161001_Financing Framework_2016_07_20.docx
Incentive Zoning
Land use regulations can be configured in a manner that can provide incentives for additional
private investments in local infrastructure and community benefits beyond that obtainable
through the normal regulatory procedures. Community Benefit Incentive Zoning (CBIZ)
programs are founded on the concept of “value capture.” Public entities commonly create value
with investments in public facilities and services (e.g., transit and utilities upgrades) as well as
through changes to zoning code that increase the value of land. Typically, when the public sector
creates value in these ways, landowners enjoy a financial gain. Value capture occurs when the
public sector reclaims some of the value created by its activities. The State of California’s
Affordable Housing Density Bonus Law is an example of a CBIZ value capture program. Under
this law, developers are granted additional density (i.e., the right to build additional market rate
units) in return for their development of affordable housing units. A key limitation of CBIZ is the
requirement for a strong real estate market in which developers are seeking to take advantage
and pay for the incentives offered.
Development Impact Fees
(authorized by Section 66000 et. seq. of the Government Code)
Development impact fees are charged to new private development in the City of San Luis Obispo
to fund a range of public infrastructure improvements. A development impact fee is an
ordinance-based, one-time charge on new development designed to cover a “proportional-share”
of the total capital cost of necessary public infrastructure and facilities. The creation and
collection of impact fees are allowed under AB-1600 as codified in California Government Code
Section 66000, known as the Mitigation Fee Act. This law allows a levy of one-time fees to be
charged on new development to cover the cost of constructing the infrastructure needed to serve
the demands created by the new development. To the extent that required improvements are
needed to address both “existing deficiencies” as well as the projected impacts from growth, only
the portion of costs attributable to new development can be included in the fee. Consequently,
impact fees commonly are only one of many sources used to finance a city’s needed
infrastructure improvements. Fees can be charged on a jurisdiction-wide basis or for a particular
sub-area of the jurisdiction (such as a specific plan area).
Establishment
Development impact fees can be imposed through adoption of a local enabling ordinance
supported by a technical analysis showing the “nexus” between the fee and the infrastructure
demands generated by new development. Fees may be charged for a particular improvement
(e.g., transportation improvement) or include multiple infrastructure improvement categories in
a comprehensive program. Impact fee programs must be reviewed annually and updated
periodically to assure adequate funding and proper allocation of fee revenues to the
infrastructure for which the fees are collected.
Cost Burden
The burden incidence of development impact fees is upon the project developers and builders
who pay the fees. Fees are a cost of development and are “internalized” into project costs in the
same manner as all other development- and construction-related costs. There is no direct effect
of fees on development pricing, because the markets set pricing independent of costs. However,
when costs are too high for the market to bear, development may be deterred until such time as
prices justify costs. All costs will influence land value, so it is often the case that landowners bear
a portion of the cost of fees through lower land values (prices paid by developers or builders). So
13.a
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: a - Public Infrastructure Financing Framework and Draft Policies (1432 : Public Infrastructure Financing Framework Study
Public Infrastructure Financing Framework 7/20/2016
Draft Memorandum Appendix A Page A-3
P:\161000s\161001SLO_PubFinAdvisory Services\Financing Framework\161001_Financing Framework_2016_07_20.docx
long as total development costs fall within a reasonable level, potential negative effects on
development feasibility effects are manageable.
Economic Considerations
There are a number of specific economic considerations of development impact fees including:
The effects of fees on the financial feasibility of new development and potential to deter
otherwise desirable development (due to excessive costs); and
The competitiveness effects of higher development costs (compared to neighboring
jurisdictions) leading to dislocation of desired development.
A benefit of impact fees is that they provide a comprehensive and programmatic framework for
identifying and allocating infrastructure costs to new development based on a demonstrated
nexus between the new development and infrastructure need. In addition, there is no discretion
on the part of developers subject to the fees nor is voter approval required.
The key limitation of development impact fees (in addition to the nexus requirement) is the
timing of funding. Infrastructure often is needed “up-front” while fees are paid over time as
development occurs. This means that other funding or financing methods are needed to close the
timing gap. Fees also are irregular, as they depend on development activity that varies with
economic conditions. During the 2008-09 recession, when development around the State and in
the Bay Area slowed dramatically and prices fell precipitously in many locations, fee program
revenues fell proportionately. Fees also require ongoing management including annual review,
fund accounting, and updating to assure the efficacy and transparency of the fee program.
Related to the economic concerns discussed above, it is important to recognize that there are
methods for moderating or deferring fees. Though individual development impact fee ordinances
must be consistently applied and coordinated, they may contain features that can reduce
potential negative economic effects and to avoid unnecessarily inhibiting otherwise desirable
development. Also, there can be features of development impact fees that address economic
concerns generally or on a case-by-case basis.
Fee Deferrals: While the statute allows a levy of fees at issuance of building permit, many
development impact fee ordinances allow a deferral until the “certificate of occupancy” is
issued.
Fee Waivers: Fee waivers provide the local government the ability to waive the fee for a
particular project when it is determined that without such reduced costs a project that has
substantial public benefit may otherwise not occur. Lacking such community benefits,
waivers may be regarded as a “gift of public funds.” Examples of such partial or total waivers
include projects with the potential to generate substantial municipal revenue or community
amenities, affordable housing projects, and employment-generating uses. Fee waivers reduce
funding in a fee program proportional to the aggregate amount of waivers or exemptions
granted. Such revenue reductions must be “made up” by the city from other funding sources,
or risk falling short on funding for infrastructure in the fee program.
Credits and Reimbursements: Credits and reimbursements are mechanisms that allow
developers subject to an impact fee to build infrastructure in-lieu of paying the fee. Credits
provide proportional fee forgiveness for the value of that construction against the fee
obligation. Reimbursements occur in the case where construction value exceeds the
particular developer’s fee obligation.
13.a
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: a - Public Infrastructure Financing Framework and Draft Policies (1432 : Public Infrastructure Financing Framework Study
Public Infrastructure Financing Framework 7/20/2016
Draft Memorandum Appendix A Page A-4
P:\161000s\161001SLO_PubFinAdvisory Services\Financing Framework\161001_Financing Framework_2016_07_20.docx
Short-Term Fee Financing (interest bearing installment payments): Ordinances can provide
for a developer to pay fee obligations over a period of time subject to an interest bearing and
secured note.
Parkland (Quimby) Fees
In addition to park impact fees, park and recreation improvements are funded through the
Quimby Act requirements (for parkland acquisition) through the residential subdivision process.
Utility Fees and Connection Charges
Utility connection charges from new development can fund utility infrastructure improvements.
Revenue bonds may be issued secured by a utility rate charge base (water and sewer) and may
be used for expansion to serve future development, or for reimbursement to the Developer for
initial funding of utility facilities. The City currently charges water and wastewater connection
fees from new development.
Land-Secured Revenue and Financing
There is a long history in California and elsewhere in the United States of using land-secured
financing methods to fund local infrastructure or provide services that benefit a particular area
(ranging from an entire jurisdiction to sub-areas of all sizes). Traditionally, special assessment
bonds as authorized by the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 and other related legislation were
issued and funded by annual property tax assessments from benefitting properties. Increased
voting requirements created by Proposition 218 largely eliminated the use of Special Benefit
Districts in the mid-1990s. However, since the mid-1980s the Mello-Roos Community Facilities
District (CFD) has been a well-used infrastructure finance tool, though it is not well suited for
most infill applications due to voting requirements.
Special Benefit Assessment Districts
Special benefit assessment districts are a way of creating a property-based assessment upon
properties that benefit from a specific public improvement. The formation of assessment districts
requires majority approval of the affected property owners. Benefit assessments can fund a wide
range of infrastructure improvements so long as a direct and measurable benefit can be
identified for the benefitting properties. There are numerous forms of special benefit
assessments in the California statutes, including the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913,
Lighting and Landscape Maintenance Districts, and others. However, in 1996, Proposition 218
effectively curtailed the use of Assessment Districts in California by limiting the methods by
which local governments may exact revenue from taxpayers without their consent. In addition,
recent court rulings (Silicon Valley Taxpayers’ Assn., Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space
Authority, 44 Cal. 4th 431 (Cal. 2008)) have further tightened the requirements for
demonstration of “special benefit” thus further reducing the flexibility and utility of assessment
districts.
Community Facilities District Act
The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (authorized by Section 53311 et. seq. of the
Government Code) enables the formation of a CFD by local agencies, with two-thirds voter
approval (or landowner approval when there are fewer than 12 registered voters in the proposed
district), for the purpose of imposing special taxes on property owners. The resulting special tax
revenue can be used to fund capital costs or operations and maintenance expenses directly, or
they may be used to secure a bond issuance, the proceeds of which are used to fund capital
13.a
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: a - Public Infrastructure Financing Framework and Draft Policies (1432 : Public Infrastructure Financing Framework Study
Public Infrastructure Financing Framework 7/20/2016
Draft Memorandum Appendix A Page A-5
P:\161000s\161001SLO_PubFinAdvisory Services\Financing Framework\161001_Financing Framework_2016_07_20.docx
costs. Because the levy is a tax rather than an assessment, the standard for demonstrating the
benefit received is lower, thus creating more flexibility. Despite limited use in populated infill
areas, CFDs have become the most common form of land-secured financing in California.
Establishment
California’s land-secured funding districts can fund a wide range of infrastructure improvements
that generate direct and measurable benefits to specific properties. The districts require
(resident) voter or landowner approval. In the case of assessment districts, majority landowner
approval is typically required. In the case of a CFD, a two-thirds voter approval is needed in
areas that have more than 12 residents (landowners can approve special taxes in areas with 12
or fewer residents).
Cost Burden
The owners or users of real estate pay assessments or special taxes. By adding to the cost of
ownership, the assessment or tax may affect the price a buyer is willing to pay for a home or
commercial property, in which case the cost incidence is shared with the builder, land developer,
or landowner. Experience suggests that less than 100 percent of the financing burden is
recognized by buyers.
Economic Considerations
Land-secured financing provides a well-established method of securing relatively low-cost tax
exempt, long-term, fixed rate, fully-assumable debt financing. However, there can be challenges
associated with establishing measurable and specific benefits to particular properties. In addition,
land-secured financing adds financing costs (e.g., cost of issuance and program administration).
Further, the financing capacity of a district may be limited in early phases of development and it
may be necessary to rely on other sources of infrastructure funding during initial years. Finally,
while land-secured financing has been widely used in greenfield development where landowner
approval is the norm, achieving a two-thirds voter approval in infill areas typically is a barrier to
use of the tool.
City Funding and Financing
Cities have a number of ways in which they can raise money for capital projects and/or finance
capital improvements, including seeking voter approval of general obligation bonds or special tax
bonds, use of enterprise revenues (i.e., revenue-generating services) for enterprise investments
(e.g., water and sewer utilities), and through “capitalizing leases” funded with General Fund
revenue sources.
Cities also have discretion over the use of various State and federal grant program funds that
continue to be available and can avail itself of State financing programs (e.g., IBank and SCIP).
The City of San Luis Obispo also established an Infrastructure Investment Capital Fund and
deposited funds that can be used to leverage grant funding, as loans or for direct City
participation in infrastructure projects that will enhance quality of life and improve economic
development.
Grants
Grants provide external funding from regional, state, and federal sources but reflect local
priorities. Many grants require local matches. Apart from local match requirements, there are
significant staff costs associated with grant funding, including staff time during the application
13.a
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: a - Public Infrastructure Financing Framework and Draft Policies (1432 : Public Infrastructure Financing Framework Study
Public Infrastructure Financing Framework 7/20/2016
Draft Memorandum Appendix A Page A-6
P:\161000s\161001SLO_PubFinAdvisory Services\Financing Framework\161001_Financing Framework_2016_07_20.docx
process and during the project. Grant funding is often limited to capital improvements with
maintenance responsibilities falling to the local jurisdiction.
Regional, State, Federal Transportation Funding
The San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) administers transportation funding from
a variety of sources that includes federal, state and local assistance. Current federal programs
include the Surface Transportation Program (STP), the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
(CMAQ) Program, and the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP). State programs include
the Active Transportation Program (ATP) administered by Caltrans, and the State and Regional
Transportation Improvement programs (STIP and RTIP), While it depends on the program, it
may be possible to fund portions of certain regional-serving transportation facilities and
improvements (e.g., the Los Osos Valley Road interchange or the Prado Road interchange). The
availability of transportation-related grant funding has been declining in the past decade, making
the funds more competitive and therefore more challenging to secure.
Infrastructure Investment Capital Fund
(authorized by SLO Resolution No. 10603, 2015 Series)
The Infrastructure Investment Capital Fund was created to help the City realize the benefits of
growth that is well-planned, and that would not occur in a timely manner without City
participation in the financing of supporting infrastructure. The funds can be used to leverage
additional grant funding, as loans or for direct City participation in priority infrastructure that will
enhance the quality of life and improve economic development. The resolution language includes
guidelines for the use of the funds and stipulates evaluation criteria.
Guidelines
1. The use of City funds shall not offset any cost that would be legally required to be paid to
meet the fair share obligation of the developer requesting City investment in an
infrastructure project.
2. The use of City funds shall not offset a private project’s specific mitigation cost identified
through the environmental review process or under existing regulations or policies.
3. The use of City funds shall support a project that would not otherwise be feasible in a
timely manner due to the economic environment, the timing of the project, or other
constraints outside the control of the project proponents or the City.
4. The project proponents shall demonstrate a significant public benefit associated with
construction of the project that merits City participation.
5. Approved projects will have a measurable outcome that will be monitored and reported to
the Council and the public.
Evaluation Criteria
1. Significant public benefit, demonstrated by compliance with and furtherance of General
Plan goals, policies, and programs; and
2. Alignment with the Major City Goals and other important objectives in place at the time of
the application; and
3. Head of Household Job Creation; and
4. Housing Creation; and
5. Circulation/Connectivity Improvements; and
13.a
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: a - Public Infrastructure Financing Framework and Draft Policies (1432 : Public Infrastructure Financing Framework Study
Public Infrastructure Financing Framework 7/20/2016
Draft Memorandum Appendix A Page A-7
P:\161000s\161001SLO_PubFinAdvisory Services\Financing Framework\161001_Financing Framework_2016_07_20.docx
6. Net General Fund fiscal impact.
Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts
(authorized by the Infrastructure Financing District Act, Government Code §53395, et seq.;
expanded by SB 628.)
Infrastructure Financing Districts (IFDs) and Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs)
are forms of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) that currently are available to local public entities in
California. Local agencies may establish an IFD or EIFD for a given project or geographic area in
order to capture incremental increases in property tax revenue from future development. In the
absence of the IFD or EIFD, this revenue would accrue to the city’s General Fund (or other
property-taxing entity revenue fund). EIFD funds can be used for project-related infrastructure,
including roads and utilities, as well as parks and housing. Unlike prior TIF/Redevelopment law in
California, IFDs and EIFDs do not provide access to property tax revenue beyond the local
jurisdiction’s share (AB-8 tax allocation).
Largely because IFDs can be difficult to enact, Senate Bill 628 created a similar but more flexible
tool, the EIFD. The EIFD bill expands the scope of eligible projects considerably, and lowers the
voter/landowner threshold to pass a bond from two-thirds to 55 percent. In addition, EIFDs can
be formed and gain access to unlevered (debt free) revenue without a vote.
SB 628, the new EIFD legislation, allows for the following:6
Reduce vote requirements: While current law requires a two-thirds vote to form an
Infrastructure Financing District, the new EIFDs could be formed—and could use a range of
existing financial tools—without going to voters. Only issuing tax increment bonds would require
a vote, with a vote threshold of 55 percent.
Expand financing authority: The new EIFDs would allow local leaders to support infrastructure
projects through multiple funding streams, including a full complement of existing public
mechanisms (tax increment authority, benefit assessments, and fees), as well as private
investment and procurement.
Increase investment in different types of infrastructure: The enhanced districts would be
able to build every type of infrastructure: transportation, water, flood control and storm water
quality management, transportation, energy, public facilities, energy, and environmental
mitigation—so long as a direct connection can be established between the needed infrastructure
and its users.
Allow more flexible institutional collaborations: SB 628 also gives communities more
flexibility to accommodate regional growth by making infrastructure investments across
jurisdictions through Joint Power Authorities.
Unlike former redevelopment tax increment funding, IFD’s can only utilize the City’s share of
property tax increment (and any other agencies who agree to forego their share of tax
increment). While any tax increment, no matter how small, could benefit a marginally financially
feasible project, it is important that in most cases the local property tax available is very limited
(California cities typically get between $0.10 and $0.20 of a property tax dollar). Moreover, the
use of local property tax to support infrastructure financing has fiscal implications for California
6 www.caeconomy.org (“How New EIFDs Can Improve Local Infrastructure Development”).
13.a
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: a - Public Infrastructure Financing Framework and Draft Policies (1432 : Public Infrastructure Financing Framework Study
Public Infrastructure Financing Framework 7/20/2016
Draft Memorandum Appendix A Page A-8
P:\161000s\161001SLO_PubFinAdvisory Services\Financing Framework\161001_Financing Framework_2016_07_20.docx
cities. Dedicating tax revenue to infrastructure limits funding for new public services costs
associated with development.
Establishment
The establishment of an IFD or EIFD requires approval by every local taxing entity that will
contribute its property tax increment. The IFD also requires two-thirds voter approval (within the
specific geographic area) to form the IFD. EIFDs only require a vote when debt issuance is
sought.
Cost Burden
The incidence of burden of an infrastructure financing district is local taxing jurisdiction that
foregoes property tax revenue for services and dedicates these funds to infrastructure or other
eligible investments.
Economic Considerations
IFDs and EIFDs, a form of TIF, redirect property taxes otherwise accruing to the city General
Fund. The value created by the project is captured and invested in a manner that helps realize
the project. However, only specific types of public investments of community-wide significance
may be financed through IFDs and EIFDs. IFDs and EIFDs cannot be used to finance operations
and maintenance expenses. Unlike former Redevelopment TIF, IFDs only can utilize local
government’s share of property tax (along with other agencies who agree to forego their share of
tax increment).
State Financing Programs
State Infrastructure Bank (IBank)
(authorized by Section 63000 et. seq. of the Government Code)
The IBank was created in 1994 to finance public infrastructure and private development that
promote a healthy climate for jobs, contribute to a strong economy and improve the quality of
life in California communities. The IBank operates pursuant to the Bergeson-Peace Infrastructure
and Economic Development Bank Act (Government Code Sections 63000 et seq.). The IBank is
administered by the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development and is governed
by a five-member Board of Directors. Since its inception, the IBank has financed more than
$37 billion in infrastructure and economic development projects around the State.
The IBank has broad authority to issue tax-exempt and taxable revenue bonds, provide financing
to public agencies, provide credit enhancements, acquire or lease facilities, and leverage state
and federal funds. The IBank's current programs include the Infrastructure State Revolving Fund
(ISRF) Program, 501(c)(3) Revenue Bond Program, Industrial Development Revenue Bond
Program, Exempt Facility Revenue Bond Program and Governmental Bond Program.
The ISRF Program provides very low-interest rate loans up to $25 million (per applicant) to
municipal governments for a wide variety of municipal infrastructure, including infrastructure
needed to serve new development. An application is required for these loans, and loans require a
stable and reliable source of repayment. If approved, loan repayment can be funded through a
commitment of city general fund revenues or a pledge of a particular revenue source, including a
citywide tax, land secured assessment, or special tax levied on a particular area.
Common criticisms of the IBank ISRF Program have included its cumbersome program
application process, its strict credit standards and related risk aversion, and limited financial
incentive to participate. However, recent changes to the program may increase IBank lending to
13.a
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: a - Public Infrastructure Financing Framework and Draft Policies (1432 : Public Infrastructure Financing Framework Study
Public Infrastructure Financing Framework 7/20/2016
Draft Memorandum Appendix A Page A-9
P:\161000s\161001SLO_PubFinAdvisory Services\Financing Framework\161001_Financing Framework_2016_07_20.docx
cities without other credit options. Pursuing further opportunities to modify or expand the
Program, or to create an entirely new program, could make State-sponsored lending a useful
tool for assisting and incentivizing infill development.7
Statewide Community Infrastructure Program (SCIP)
The Statewide Community Infrastructure Program (SCIP) is a program of the California
Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA) that makes use of a local government’s
ability to create land-secured financing districts. The Program “pools” debt obligations to gain a
comparatively lower interest rate and issuance costs (particularly if the issue is less than
$5 million). SCIP can benefit developers because it provides low-cost, long-term financing of fees
and improvements, which can otherwise entail substantial upfront cash outlays. Local agencies
benefit from SCIP when fee funds are made available upfront or infrastructure is financed with
attractive terms. Typically, most public improvements required as conditions of project approval
are eligible, including roads, street lights, landscaping, storm drains, water and sewer facilities,
and parks. Further, the availability of low-cost, long-term financing also can soften the burden of
rising fees and improvement costs, which benefits developers and local agencies. According to
CSCDA, the SCIP program has assisted communities and developers throughout California to
finance over $150.2 million in impact fees since 2003.
CSCDA is a Joint Powers Authority sponsored by the League of California Cities and the California
State Association of Counties. Membership in the Authority is open to every California city and
county, and most are members. SCIP financing is available for development projects situated
within cities or counties (local agencies) which have elected to become SCIP participants.
Eligibility to become a local agency requires only (a) membership in the League of Cities or
California State Association of Counties, (b) membership in the Authority, and (c) adoption of a
resolution making the election (the “SCIP Resolution”).
Participation in SCIP entails the submission of an application by the property owner of the project
for which development entitlements either have been obtained or are being obtained from a local
agency. For projects determined to be qualified, SCIP provides non-recourse8 financing of either
(a) eligible development impact fees payable to the local agency or (b) eligible public capital
improvements (or both). Under certain circumstances, determined on a case-by-case basis,
development impact fees payable to local agencies also may be used as repayment for upfront
SCIP funding.
SCIP funding awards are aggregated for inclusion in a round of financing authorization.
Periodically, as warranted by the accumulation of approved funding applications, the California
Statewide Communities Development Authority issues tax-exempt revenue bonds. For projects
involving a sufficient amount of financing (generally $5 million or more), a special series of
bonds may be issued to fund the project separately if the timing of issuance of a pooled financing
does not suit the project. Revenues to pay debt service on the SCIP bonds are derived from
special assessments pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act or through the levy of special
taxes by establishing a CFD pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act.
7 Find more information concerning California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank
programs available here: http://www.ibank.ca.gov/programs_overview.htm.
8 Non-recourse financing is a loan structure in which the lending bank is only entitled to repayment
from the proceeds of the project, not from other assets of the borrower.
13.a
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: a - Public Infrastructure Financing Framework and Draft Policies (1432 : Public Infrastructure Financing Framework Study
Public Infrastructure Financing Framework 7/20/2016
Draft Memorandum Appendix A Page A-10
P:\161000s\161001SLO_PubFinAdvisory Services\Financing Framework\161001_Financing Framework_2016_07_20.docx
Other City Funding and Financing
Increases in Local Taxes
Subject to a vote, cities and counties can use a variety existing or new funding sources to fund
infrastructure directly or provide interim financing for development-based obligations. For
example, local sales tax increases, transient occupancy taxes, utility user taxes, development
taxes, and (local option) real estate transfer taxes (charter cities only) all can be created or
increased for this purpose. By enhancing General Fund revenues, the City gains the ability to
divert some funds to infrastructure projects. A commitment to fund specific types of projects can
be made in the ordinances that create new taxes or can be made as a matter of city policy. City
funding can be used to fund infrastructure using a “pay-as-you-go” approach, as a source of
reimbursement, or to support a municipal bond issue (e.g., to fill an initial funding gap
associated with development impact fee programs or land secured financing programs).
Establishment
Creation of new general or special taxes and any related issuance of bonds supported by such
revenues are limited by State constitutional requirements and statutes that require voter
approval of greater than 50 percent for general taxes and two-thirds approval for special taxes
(i.e., those earmarked for particular uses).
Cost Burden
The incidence of burden falls to those paying the taxes or rates. For example, sales taxes are
paid by residents, businesses, employees, and visitors, while transient occupancy taxes are paid
by visitors. The rationale for this payer burden is that these residents, businesses, employees,
and visitors will benefit from the investments made in infrastructure and development.
Economic Considerations
Use of various general fund sources to support infrastructure investments including repair and
replacement of existing infrastructure, as well infrastructure that serves new development,
requires little additional administrative effort and is typically secure given the broad range of
revenue sources pledged to the financing. However, the use of existing General Fund revenue is
limited by current demands to support municipal operations.
Certificates of Participation
Capitalizing leases, most commonly Certificates of Participation (COPs), are typically used by
government agencies for construction or improvement of public facilities. Through the use of a
lease-type repayment structure, the monies needed to fund these building projects do not (by
California State law) constitute public debt and do not require voter approval. Usually, a public
entity enters into a tax-exempt lease-purchase with a lessor and the lessor provides the agreed-
upon the public facility. In this way, government agencies may use their leasing powers to
provide more expedient access to the capital markets than the more restricted powers to incur
debt. Agencies typically use tax-exempt leases to finance non-enterprise projects, such as
schools, courthouses, jails, and administration buildings.9
Establishment
The COP is a lease obligation of the City and thus does not require voter approval. There is a
prescribed process for creating and administering COPs that the City must follow.
9 California Debt Advisory Commission 1993.
13.a
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: a - Public Infrastructure Financing Framework and Draft Policies (1432 : Public Infrastructure Financing Framework Study
Public Infrastructure Financing Framework 7/20/2016
Draft Memorandum Appendix A Page A-11
P:\161000s\161001SLO_PubFinAdvisory Services\Financing Framework\161001_Financing Framework_2016_07_20.docx
Cost Burden
Lease payments for COPs are generally derived from appropriations of the City’s General Fund;
they are secured with a pledge of specific City assets and underwritten by the full faith and credit
of the City
Economic Considerations
COPs typically have very competitive financing rates and thus are commonly used for financing
municipal facilities and infrastructure where Citywide benefit is conferred.
General Obligation Bonds
A general obligation bond is a type of municipal bond that is secured by a state or local
government's pledge to use legally available resources, most typically including property tax
revenues, to repay bond holders. General obligation bonds are restricted to defined capital
improvements. Credit rating agencies often consider a general obligation pledge to have very
strong credit quality and frequently assign them investment grade ratings. In California, cities
must secure a two-thirds voter approval to issue general obligation bonds.
Establishment
Creation of general obligation bonds requires two-thirds voter approval if the issuance is for non-
educational purposes.
Cost Burden
The incidence of burden of general obligation bonds is upon all property owners in the issuing
jurisdiction proportional to the value of their property. It is this very broad base of funding that
provides excellent security for general obligation bonds, thus typically garnering the lowest
interest rate of any municipal debt instrument.
Economic Considerations
General obligation bonds allow public entities to finance at a low fixed rate over the useful life of
the asset. However, general obligation bonds are limited to capital improvement expenditures
and also are limited in their use to the precise purposes outlined in the authorizing ballot
measure. General obligation bonds are commonly restricted to particular capital uses (e.g.,
street improvements, drainage improvements, parks and recreation).
Enterprise Revenues and Revenue Bond Financing
Cities and other local governments typically issue revenue bonds when they have access to a
stable source of revenue such as municipal utility rates. Commonly, revenue bonds fund
improvements to water and sewer facilities. Utility rates that fund revenue bonds can vary within
a given jurisdiction if there are substantial differences in the costs of providing services. There
also can be rate surcharges if unique improvements are needed to serve the area.
Establishment
Revenue bonds are issued by the municipal enterprise and require no voter approval. Revenue
bonds may provide improvements for an entire jurisdiction or a sub-area.
Cost Burden
The incidence of burden of revenue bonds is upon rate payers.
13.a
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: a - Public Infrastructure Financing Framework and Draft Policies (1432 : Public Infrastructure Financing Framework Study
Public Infrastructure Financing Framework 7/20/2016
Draft Memorandum Appendix A Page A-12
P:\161000s\161001SLO_PubFinAdvisory Services\Financing Framework\161001_Financing Framework_2016_07_20.docx
Economic Considerations
Revenue bonds typically have a good risk profile and therefore garner comparatively low interest
rates. Because they are secured exclusively by enterprise revenue, they are not general
obligations of the city and do not require ballot approval. The ability to adjust rates to cover debt
service costs and the ability to charge such rates differentially (given differing costs and benefits
in service sub-areas) creates flexibility and appropriate cost allocation.
13.a
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: a - Public Infrastructure Financing Framework and Draft Policies (1432 : Public Infrastructure Financing Framework Study
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
(COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT)
LUCE IMPLEMENTATION AND FEE UPDATE
SUMMARY OF CHANGE: Implementing the update to Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) to ensure
internal consistency of the City’s implementing ordinances and fees will cost approximately $410,000 in FY
2015-16 and $325,000 in FY 2016-17 for consultant and contract services.
FISCAL IMPACT: One time cost of $410,000 in FY 2015-16 and $325,000 in FY 2016-17.
SERVICE LEVEL IMPACT: The objective of this request is to complete the LUCE update by implementing
key strategies that were developed as part of the update process. This effort is necessary to maintain internal
consistency of the General Plan and its implementing documents. This effort will involve form-based
codes/updated guidelines for the downtown that will provide an updated graphic Downtown Concept Plan (as
called for in the Land Use Element) along with other changes to the Zoning Code; and a nexus study and impact
fee program update to address changed infrastructure needs and evaluate facilities and service needs not
previously captured, in order to update the City’s impact fee program.
KEY OBJECTIVES
1. Leverages initial fiscal analysis conducted as part of the LUCE update.
2. Provides internal consistency between the General Plan and implementing ordinances as required by
Government Code.
3. Develops fee and impact information needed for Economic Development Strategic Plan implementation.
4. Implements recommendations of the Community Development Organizational Assessment where Zoning
Code changes may impact process changes.
5. Conducts the required AB1600 evaluation of the fee program and fair share cost allocation resulting from
changes to public infrastructure and service needs defined in the LUCE update.
6. Complies with State law requirement to complete routine updates to fee programs.
EXISTING SITUATION: FACTORS DRIVING THE NEED FOR CHANGE
Due to an $880,000 grant from the Strategic Growth Council (SGC) the City was able to initiate an update to the
Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) during the 2011-13 Financial Plan period. The Council added
$367,500 to this budget in order to complete the environmental review of the project (which was not covered by
the grant). The draft LUCE was submitted to the Strategic Growth Council by the grant deadline of September
26, 2014 and hearings and review of the Environmental Impact Report proceeded through the fall with final
approval by the Council on December 9, 2014. Subsequent work efforts are now needed to implement the
updated General Plan. Changes to the Zoning Code and other implementing documents are called for as part of
the LUCE update. The updated General Plan will benefit from implementing ordinances and standards that are
more graphical in nature and more easily understood by the public. This request includes a desire to see updated
graphics and re-organization of the Zoning Code and other implementing codes.
Also, infrastructure changes identified and endorsed by the City Council through the LUCE update and associated
EIR require a more detailed evaluation to determine how the infrastructure will be funded and how the current
impact fee programs will need to be adjusted. While the LUCE update process involved a financial analysis, it
did not provide the level of detail required to develop infrastructure costs and distribution through appropriate
mechanisms, such as impact fees. This evaluation (also referred to as an AB 1600 study) must be done to
establish the nexus between the infrastructure desired and the development that will pay the impact fees. AB
1600 sets the legal and procedural parameters for the charging of development impact fees.
13.b
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: b - SOPC LUCE Implementation and Fee Update (1432 : Public Infrastructure Financing Framework Study Session)
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
(COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT)
LUCE IMPLEMENTATION AND FEE UPDATE
The City’s traffic impact fee program was originally established in 1995 and last updated in 2006. The purpose of
the fee is to fund the transportation improvements required to accommodate new development in the City. Since
the last update, new transportation improvements have been identified that are not currently included in the traffic
impact fee program and a multi-modal approach has been endorsed. Additionally, the equity of some specific
plan area fees has been questioned. These circumstances are best to be addressed as part of a multi-modal
circulation impact fee update now that the General Plan has been updated. Augmenting contract services for
transportation consultant assistance is essential for providing services to internal City customers such as
the Police & Fire Departments. Other stakeholders, such as Cal Poly, Cal Trans, SLO County, San Luis
Obispo Council of Governments are affected by this resource. Previously traffic impact updates have been
completed by the Finance and IT Department. Given the department’s current resources, staff recommends
consultant services be utilized to accomplish this task.
GOAL AND POLICY CRITERIA
This request meets all of the SOPC criteria as follows:
1. Supports Major City Goals: This request supports Major City Goals, including Housing and Multi-Modal
Transportation as well as supports an other important objective of Downtown. It also continues
implementation of goals from the 2013-15 Financial Plan of Infrastructure and Fiscal Health, Bike and
Pedestrian Paths, and implementing the Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP) by updating the fee
program to achieve community objectives of affordable housing and circulation infrastructure.
2. Needed to address health, safety or legal concern: Updating the Zoning Code will provide internal
consistency between the recently-adopted General Plan and implementing ordinances as required by
Government Code. Providing a nexus study and update to the fee program is required to reflect new and
changed infrastructure identified in the LUCE update. This includes conducting the required AB1600
evaluation of the fee program and fair share cost allocation for affordable housing, public art, open space,
parks, and changes to public infrastructure and service needs defined in the LUCE update.
3. Needed to provide a priority level of service: Updating the impact fees to fairly distribute responsibility and
cost of needed infrastructure is a priority for the development community. In addition, updating the Zoning
Code and implementing bike paths and affordable housing projects is a broader community priority.
4. Supports revenue generation and/or cost savings: Both efforts may indirectly result in either revenue
generation or cost savings. Updating the impact fees will more accurately represent the cost of infrastructure
needs in the community and will distribute the costs to pay for those needs. The resulting infrastructure will
support new development which will generate revenue. Updating the Zoning Code will provide more clarity
and reflect a range of uses that were not envisioned in 1994 – the last time the Land Use Element was
significantly updated.
5. Represents reorganization within or across Departments: Implements recommendations of the Community
Development Organizational Assessment where Zoning Code changes may impact process changes.
13.b
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: b - SOPC LUCE Implementation and Fee Update (1432 : Public Infrastructure Financing Framework Study Session)
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
(COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT)
LUCE IMPLEMENTATION AND FEE UPDATE
6. Reallocation of Existing Resources: The staff resources previously assigned to the LUCE update will be
available to coordinate this effort, but consultant services will still be required. Updating the Downtown
Concept Plan will leverage the resources allocated for the Mission Plaza CIP project and visioning/outreach
efforts can be coordinated for efficiency. In addition, the Public Art Master Plan effort will be completed by
September 2015 and will inform the Downtown Concept Plan update effort.
STAKEHOLDERS
Implementation of the updated General Plan will engage many of the same community members who were
interested and involved in the LUCE update itself: Residents for Quality Neighborhoods; Home Builders
Association; Chamber of Commerce; Downtown Association; SLO Property and Business Owners’ Association;
city residents, and owners of properties and businesses.
IMPLEMENTATION
Implementation is envisioned as follows:
Task Date
1. Develop RFP for Downtown Concept Plan update Aug 2015
2. Interviews and consultant selection process Sept 2015
3. Visioning, interviews, charrette(s), review of Mission Plaza Assessment
from CIP
Oct-Dec 2015
4. Develop Draft Concept Plan Dec-Jan 2016
5. Advisory Body review (ARC, CHC, PC) and early Council feedback Feb-May 2016
6. Council review and approval July 2016
7. RFP for Infrastructure Fee Update Feb 2016
8. Consultant Selection for Infrastructure fee update April 2016
9. Work effort for Infrastructure update (costs, nexus, financing options, right-
sizing)
April – July 2016
10. Public outreach – infrastructure update Aug-Sept 2016
11. RFP for Zoning Code update August 2016
12. Consultant Selection for Zoning Code update September 2016
13. Commission and Council consideration of Infrastructure options Oct-Nov 2016
14. Consultant work on Zoning Code update Oct –Dec 2016
15. Council adoption of Public Facilities Fee program Dec 2016
16. Draft Zoning Code and CEQA evaluation Jan – Mar 2017
17. Referral of Draft Zoning Code and CEQA to ALUC April 2017
18. Planning Commission and Council review of draft Zoning Code update April – May 2017
19. Council approval of Zoning Code update June 2017
13.b
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: b - SOPC LUCE Implementation and Fee Update (1432 : Public Infrastructure Financing Framework Study Session)
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
(COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT)
LUCE IMPLEMENTATION AND FEE UPDATE
PROGRAM MANAGER AND TEAM SUPPORT
Program Manager:
The program manager for the Affordable Housing Nexus study and for LUCE implementation (Zoning
code/Downtown Concept Plan) will be the Community Development Deputy Director. The Public Works Deputy
Director and Transportation Operations Manager will take the lead on circulation element implementation and
traffic impact fee update.
Project Team:
The project team will include a Transportation Planner, Community Development Senior and Associate Planners,
the Finance and Information Technology Director, and support staff. Representatives from City Police, Fire,
Utilities, Public Works, Finance and IT, and Parks and Recreation departments will be involved.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Continue the Status Quo. Once the Land Use and Circulation Elements are adopted, the City will need to
ensure that implementing documents, information and processes are updated as well. Continuing the status
quo implies that no changes will be required in response to the update. Regardless the traffic impact fee
program will need to be updated to comply with State law and add facilities to support LUCE land uses and
policies. If no other changes are needed, staff will recommend any identified funds be returned to the General
Fund. This is an unlikely scenario. Infrastructure improvements and impact fees must be updated if the
community will be able to achieve improvements identified in the updated General Plan. Other changes
identified in the update will need to be implemented otherwise the policies and programs cease to provide
direction for decision-makers and inconsistencies would exist between policies and implementation
mechanisms.
2. Defer or Re-Phase the Request. The request could be phased to address the infrastructure financing or the
implementing zoning code and standards to be changed in response to the update. This approach could result
in the General Plan having no way to implement desired improvements or could result in a General Plan that
has inconsistent standards if funding is not approved in the 2015-17 Financial Plan. Neither of these
outcomes is desirable. The City’s traffic impact fee program needs to be updated whether or not there are
changes to the General Plan.
3. Change the Scope of Request. The request could be re-scoped to include consultant assistance for the nexus
study, traffic impact fee update and infrastructure fee development only. Existing staff would be required to
complete the implementation of other changes resulting from the LUCE Update. Due to existing workload
and resource commitments, this could mean that other work desired by the Council does not occur. Items that
could lose momentum or be deferred include completion of the Housing Element update, implementation of
Climate Action Plan strategies, and other initiatives assigned to the Community Development Department.
4. Implementation in a Different Way. City staff seeks grants to accomplish Council-directed work efforts and
will continue to look for funding opportunities, funding partners, and any funding efficiencies possible to
leverage City resources. Transportation Impact Fund fees (TIF) are not available for this update. There are
limited TIF funds available for AB 1600 work or updates to this source which only covers City-wide
infrastructure (Specific Plans are handled separately). A program amendment would be required to enable
funds to be used for this purpose and would still only address city-wide fees. If grant funds are not available,
13.b
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: b - SOPC LUCE Implementation and Fee Update (1432 : Public Infrastructure Financing Framework Study Session)
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
(COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT)
LUCE IMPLEMENTATION AND FEE UPDATE
General Fund support will be required to accomplish this effort unless staff in the Finance and IT Department
complete the consultant services components of this work effort. Given the current staffing resources in that
department, this alternative is not recommended.
5. Existing Program Evaluation. The LUCE update will involve an evaluation of the City’s existing land use
and circulation element policies and programs, their status and on-going fit with community values. This
process will be completed with the adoption of the LUCE update (projected to occur by November 2014).
OPERATING PROGRAM
Long Range Planning
Transportation Planning
COST SUMMARY
Completion of the updated Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) to ensure internal consistency of the
City’s implementing ordinances and fees will cost approximately $735,000 in Financial Plan 2015-17.
Line Item Description Account No.2015-16 2016-17
Staffing 00
Contract Services 410,000 325,000
Engineering Firm to design and cost infrastructure 50500-7227 50,000
Traffic modeling and Nexus study 50500-7227 50,000
Financial Firm to develop PFFP 40400-7227 75,000
Financial Firm to update TIF program 50500-7227 50,000
Affordable Housing Nexus Study 40400-7227 35,000
Changes to EnerGov to accommodate updated fees 40400-7227 50,000
Downtown Concept Plan update 40400-7227 100,000
Update of Zoning Code 40400-7227 150,000
CEQA analysis and ALUC referral 40400-7227 75,000
Transportation Consultant 50500-7227 50,000 50,000
Total Operating Costs 410,000 325,000
TIF Funds (70,000)
Affordable Housing Funds (35,000)
Net Operating Costs 305,000 325,000
13.b
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: b - SOPC LUCE Implementation and Fee Update (1432 : Public Infrastructure Financing Framework Study Session)