Agenda packet — San Luis Obispo City Council, January 18, 2022 (part 4 of 5)

2017-18 2016-17 2015-16 2014-15
2016-17 2015-16 2014-15 2013-14
$ 4,124,832 $ 3,580,882 $ 3,578,172 $ 3,703,087
14,197,897 13,688,523 13,193,597 12,756,967
694,843 (1,160,933) (2,433,791)
11,219,603 (3,057,724)
(10,161,053) (9,476,508) (8,808,668) (8,258,611)
20,076,122 6,631,964 2,471,586 8,201,443
189,675,644 183,043,680 180,572,094 172,370,651
$ 209,751,766 $ 189,675,644 $ 183,043,680 $ 180,572,094 $ 6,776,849 $ 6,122,173 $ 5,027,356 $ 4,631,254
1,841,331 1,666,606 1,509,834 1,664,654
13,053,453 677,557 2,673,657 17,746,607
(10,161,053) (9,476,508) (8,808,668) (8,258,611)
(2,936)
(172,935) (72,044) (133,042)
11,334,709 (1,082,216) 269,137 15,783,904
117,130,354 118,212,570 117,943,433 102,159,529
$ 128,465,063 $ 117,130,354 $ 118,212,570 $ 117,943,433 $ 81,286,703 $ 72,545,290 $ 64,831,110 $ 62,628,661

61.25% 61.75% 64.58% 65.32%
21,841,841 20,499,668 19,769,997 19,235,818
372.16% 353.89% 327.93% 325.58%
109

Page 445 of 714 ends

Fiscal Year 2020-21 2019-20 2018-19
Acuarially determined contribution $ 8,069,806 $ 7,709,918 $ 7,093,882 Contributions in relation to the actuarially determined contribution (8,069,806) (7,709,918) (9,361,882) Contribution deficiency (excess) $ - $ - $ (2,268,000)
Covered payroll 23,675,396 21,795,380 22,951,725
Contributions as percentage of covered payroll 34.09% 35.37% 40.79% Actuarial Cost Method Entry Age Normal
Amortization Method
Amortization Period
Asset Valuation Method
Inflation 2.63%
Salary Increases Varies by Entry Age and Service
Payroll Growth 2.875%
Discount Rate
Retirement Age
Mortality
Last 10 Years *
The actuarial methods and assumptions used to set the actuarially determined contributions for fiscal year 2020-21 contributions rates are as follows:
* Fiscal year 2021 was the 6th year of implementation. Therefore, only seven years are shown. Information is required only for measurement periods for which GASB 68 is applicable. The current measurement period is the year ended June 30, 2020.

City of San Luis Obispo, California
Schedule of the Pension Plan Contributions
Miscellaneous Agent Multiple-Employer Plan
June 30, 2021
For details, see June 30, 2017 CalPERS Funding
Valuation Report
For details, see June 30, 2017 CalPERS Funding
Valuation Report

7.25% Net of Pension Plan Investment and
Administrative Expenses
The probabilities of Retirement are based on the 2017
CalPERS Experience Study for the period from 1997 to
2015.

The probabilities of mortality are based on the 2017
CalPERS Experience Study for the period from 1997 to
2015.

Pre-retirement and Post-retirement mortality rates
include 15 years of projected mortality improvement
110

Page 446 of 714 ends

2017-18 2016-17 2015-16 2014-15 2013-14
$ 6,693,987 $ 6,776,849 $ 6,122,173 $ 5,027,356 $ 4,631,254 (6,693,987) (6,776,849) (6,122,173) (5,027,356) (4,631,254) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
23,736,588 21,841,841 20,499,668 19,769,997 19,235,818

28.20% 31.03% 30.97% 25.43% 24.08%
111

Page 447 of 714 ends

Fiscal Year 2020-21 2019-20 2018-19
Measurement Period 2019-2020 2018-2019 2017-18
Proportion of the Collective Net Pension Liability 0.7225% 0.7212% 1.2261% Proportionate Share of the Collective Net Pension Liability $ 78,611,581 $ 73,897,967 $ 71,940,534 Covered payroll $ 9,488,971 $ 11,197,562 $ 11,246,306
Proportionate share of the net pension liability as percentage of covered payroll 828.45% 659.95% 639.68%
Plan fiduciary net position as a percentage of the total pension liability 75.26% 75.26% 75.26% *-Fiscal year 2015 was the first year of implementation, therefore only six years are shown.

The CalPERS discount rate was increased from 7.5% to 7.65% in fiscal year 2016, and then decreased from 7.65% to 7.15% in fiscal year 2018.

The CalPERS mortality assumptions were adjusted in fiscal year 2019.

City of San Luis Obispo, California
Schedule of the City's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability Safety Cost-Sharing Plan
As of June 30, 2021
Last 10 Years *
112

Page 448 of 714 ends

2017-18 2016-17 2015-16 2014-15
2016-17 2015-16 2014-15 2013-14

1.1943% 1.2510% 1.3654% 1.3754%
$ 71,364,346 $ 64,792,760 $ 56,260,280 $ 51,592,420
$ 10,614,437 $ 10,643,123 $ 10,849,863 $ 10,768,119
672.33% 608.78% 518.53% 479.12%

73.31% 74.06% 78.40% 79.82%
113

Page 449 of 714 ends

Fiscal Year 2020-21 2019-20 2018-19
Contractually required contribution (actuarially determined) $ 7,631,620 $ 7,167,638 $ 6,416,780 Contribution in relation to the actuarially determined contributions (7,631,620) (7,167,638) (8,348,780) Contribution deficiency (excess) $ - $ - $ (1,932,000)
Covered payroll $ 10,744,808 $ 9,488,971 $ 11,197,562
Contributions as a percentage of covered payroll 71.03% 75.54% 74.56% The Plan’s proportionate share of aggregate contributions may not match the actual contributions made by the employer during the measurement period. The Plan’s proportionate share of aggregate contributions is based on the Plan’s proportion of fiduciary net position as well as any additional side fund (or unfunded liability) contributions made by the employer during the measurement period. *- Fiscal year 2015 was the first year of implementation, therefore only seven years are shown City of San Luis Obispo, California
Schedule of the City's Pension Contributions
Safety Cost-Sharing Plan
As of June 30, 2021
Last 10 Years *
114

Page 450 of 714 ends

2017-18 2016-17 2015-16 2014-15 2013-14
$ 5,910,345 $ 5,549,915 $ 5,074,217 $ 4,350,871 $ 4,226,211 (5,910,345) (6,299,915) (5,824,217) (4,650,871) (5,161,211) $ - $ (750,000) $ (750,000) $ (300,000) $ (935,000)
$ 11,246,306 $ 10,614,437 $ 10,643,123 $ 10,849,863 $ 10,768,119

52.55% 59.35% 54.72% 42.87% 47.93%
115

Page 451 of 714 ends

Fiscal Year 2020-21 2019-20 2018-19 2017-18
Measurement Period 2019-20 2018-19 2017-18 2016-17
Total OPEB liability:

Service Cost $ 415,244 $ 477,538 $ 463,629 $ 450,125
Interest on total OPEB liability 841,590 935,528 891,794 856,436 Difference between expected and actual experience (2,085,962) - Changes in assumptions (203,416) 21,857
Benefit payments, including refunds of employee
contributions (678,882) (677,824) (765,000) (827,500)
Net change in total OPEB liability 374,536 (1,328,863) 590,423 479,061 Total OPEB liability - beginning 12,392,193 13,721,056 13,130,633 12,651,572 Total OPEB liability - ending (a) $ 12,766,729 $ 12,392,193 $ 13,721,056 $ 13,130,633 Plan fiduciary net position:

Contributions - employer $ 1,656,882 $ 677,824 $ 1,221,000 $ 1,493,996 Net investment income 259,704 392,852 439,828 469,883
Benefit payments (678,882) (677,824) (765,000) (827,500) Administrative expense (3,472) (1,364) (10,170) (2,387) Net change in plan fiduciary net position 1,234,232 391,488 885,658 1,133,992 Plan fiduciary net position - beginning 6,756,866 6,365,378 5,479,720 4,345,728 Plan fiduciary net position - ending (b) $ 7,991,098 $ 6,756,866 $ 6,365,378 $ 5,479,720 Plan net OPEB liability - ending (a) - (b) $ 4,775,631 $ 5,635,327 $ 7,355,678 $ 7,650,913 Plan fiduciary net position as a percentage of the
total OPEB liability 62.59% 54.53% 46.39% 41.73%
Covered-employee payroll $ 33,077,056 $ 33,429,600 $ 33,790,437 $ 33,722,592 Plan net OPEB liability as percentage of covered
payroll 14.44% 16.86% 21.77% 22.69%
Changes in assumptions. As of June 30, 2020 measurement date, the assumption removed the ACA excise tax. As of June 30, 2019 measurement date, the mortality improvement scale was updated to Scale MP-2019. Medical plan at retirement estimated using weighted premium of recent retirees; updated based on retirements during 2015-2019. * Fiscal year 2018 was the first year of implementation. Information is required only for measurement periods for which GASB 75 is applicable.

Benefit changes. The figures shown do not include any liability impact that may have resulted from plan changes which occurred after the June 30, 2020 measurement date.

Prepared for the City of San Luis Obispo OPEB Plan
an Agent Multiple-Employer Defined Benefit OPEB Plan
As of June 30, 2021
Last 10 Years *
Schedule of Changes in the Net OPEB Liability and Related Ratios 116

Page 452 of 714 ends

Fiscal Year 2020-21 2019-20 2018-19 2017-18
$ 921,000 $ 1,190,000 $ 1,154,000 $ 1,221,000
(921,000) (1,656,882) (677,824) (1,221,000)
Contribution deficiency (excess) $ - $ (466,882) $ 476,176 $ - Covered-employee payroll $ 40,691,438 $ 33,077,056 $ 33,429,600 $ 33,790,437 Contributions as a percentage of
covered payroll 2.26% 3.60% 3.45% 3.61%
Contributions paid as of June 30, 2021 are deferred to June 30, 2022.

Valuation date June 30, 2019
Actuarial Cost Method Entry Age Normal, Level % of pay
Amortization Method Level % of pay
Amortization Period Average13.1 years remaining fixed period for 2020/21 Asset Valuation Method Investment gains and losses spread over 5-year rolling period Discount Rate
General Inflation
Medical Trend
Mortality CalPERS 1997-2015 experience study
Mortality Improvement
The actuarial methods and assumptions used to set the actuarially determined contributions for fiscal year 2018-19 are as follows:

Non-Medicare - 7.25% for 2021, decreasing to an ultimate rate of 4.0% in 2076 Medicare - 6.3% for 2021, decreasing to an ultimate rate of 4.0% in 2076 Post-retirement mortality projected fully generational with Scale MP-2019 * Fiscal year 2018 was the first year of implementation. Information is required only for measurement periods for which GASB 75 is applicable.

6.75%

2.75%
Prepared for the City of San Luis Obispo Miscellaneous Plan an Agent Multiple-Employer Defined Benefit OPEB Plan
As of June 30, 2021
Last 10 Years *
Schedule of Employer OPEB Contributions
Actuarially determined contribution
Contributions in relation to the actuarially
determined contributions
117

Page 453 of 714 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
Notes to Required Supplementary Information
June 30, 2021
Budgetary Comparison Schedule

1. The budget is prepared using the modified accrual basis of accounting consistent with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

2. Outstanding encumbrances from the prior fiscal year are not reflected in the original budget column but are included in the final budget amounts.

3. All the City’s general government and engineering programs are initially accounted and budgeted for in the General Fund.

However, certain of these support service programs also benefit the City’s enterprise and agency fund operations, and accordingly, transfers are made from these funds to reimburse the General Fund for these services. The transfers are based on a Cost Allocation Plan prepared for this purpose which distributes the shared costs in a uniform, consistent manner in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

Excess of Expenditures Over Appropriations

1. At June 30, 2021 expenditures exceeded appropriations in the General Fund as noted below.

Department/Division Budget Variance
Police Protection:

Investigations $ 252,005
Traffic safety 94,872
Fire and environmental safety:

Emergency response 421,617
Transportation:

Traffic signals and street lights 13,336
Recreation programs:

Aquatics/Sinsheimer park facilities 82,663
Cultural and social service programs: Human relations
Human relations 7,817
Planning:

Community development administration 81,792
Building and vehicle maintenance:

Buildings 27,319
118

Page 454 of 714 ends

OTHER SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

AND COMBINING AND INDIVIDUAL FUND

STATEMENTS AND SCHEDULES
119

Page 455 of 714 ends

120

Page 456 of 714 ends

Revenues:

Sales and use tax - Local add-on tax $ 12,779,713
Use of money and property 1,333
Total revenues 12,781,046
Expenditures:

Operating Programs: 2,369,931
Total Operating Programs 2,369,931
Capital Programs:

Open Space Preservation 260,267
Bicycles and Pedestrian Improvements 224,355
Traffic Congestin/Relief/Safety Improvements 13,604
Public Safety 1,342,977
Nieghborhood Street Paving 1,904,645
Flood Protection 439,683
Parks & Recreation 275,608
Other Vial Services and Capital Projects 3,840,704
Total Capital Expenditures 8,301,843
Net change in fund balance 2,109,272
Fund balance, beginning of year 7,190,699
Fund balance, end of year $ 9,299,971
* The Local Sales Tax Measure is a sub-fund of the General Fund. All activity is reflected in the General Fund and is reported here for informational purposes only.

City of San Luis Obispo
Local Sales Tax Measure Funding Schedule
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021
121

Page 457 of 714 ends

Page 2 ends

Revenues Budget Actual
Local Sales Tax 11,392,000 $ 12,779,713 $
Investment Income - 1,333
$ 11,392,000 $ 12,781,046
Expenditures
Operating Programs:

Open Space Preservation (FTE = 2) $ 152,922 $ 152,922
Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements (FTE = 1.6) 215,023 215,023 Traffic Congestion Relief (FTE = 1) 112,237 112,237
Public Safety (FTE = 4) 663,940 663,940
Neighborhood Street Paving (FTE = 2) 189,527 189,527
Code Enforcement (FTE = 3) 302,046 302,046
Creek and Floor Protection (FTE = 6) 667,282 667,282
Parks and Landscape Maintenance (FTE = 1) 66,954 66,954 $ 2,369,931 $ 2,369,931
Capital Programs: Budget Actual Encumbrances Carryover
Open Space Preservation
Open Space Maintenance $ 104,537 $ 14,790 $ 8,352 $ 81,395 Open Space Acquisition 28,597 - 17,600 10,997
Enhanced Open Space 15,962 15,962 - -
Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management 3,673 670 3,003 - Urban Forest Annual Asset Maintenance 295,455 228,845 63,810 2,800 448,224 260,267 89,762 98,195
Bicycles and Pedestrian Improvements
Sidewalk Replacement 189,313 1,700 187,613 -
Railroad Safety Trail: Taft Street to Pepper Street 105,911 69,205 36,706 - Bicycle Facility Improvements 66,637 4,307 13,596 48,734 Anholm Neighborhood Greenway Plan 373 373 - -
Downtown Renewal 1,921 1,921 - -
Street Lights Annual Asset Maintenance 80,891 7,743 73,148 - Active Transportation Plan 53,673 53,566 - 107
Pedestrian Crossing Improvements 32,810 20,242 11,850 718 Pedestrian Safety Improvements on Monterey at Buena Vista 30,000 10,766 19,234 - Pedestrian Crosswalk Beacon on Ramona 50,000 - 15,000 35,000 Bike and Pedestrian Quick Build Projects 41,575 41,498 77 - Neighborhood Greenways Public Art 24,250 13,034 11,216 - 677,354 224,355 40,523 412,476
Traffic Congestion Relief/ Safety Improvements
Traffic Safety Report Implementation 149,469 - 149,469 - Transportation Safety & Operations 49,125 5,881 19,268 23,976 Neighborhood Traffic Improvements 106,126 1,370 10,662 94,094 Orcutt/Tank Farm Roundabout 578,968 2,554 494,514 81,900 South Street Median Landscaping 15,000 3,799 4,981 6,220 898,688 13,604 529,425 355,659
Public Safety
Police Station Replacement Study 123,271 30,751 89,045 3,475 Police Patrol Vehicle Replacements (5) 24,520 24,520 - - Fire Stations Building Maintenance 164,791 129,733 6,828 28,230 City of San Luis Obispo
Local Sales Tax Measure Funding Schedule, continued
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021
122

Page 458 of 714 ends

Page 3 ends

Public Safety (cont.) Budget Actual Encumbrances Carryover IT replacements and improvments 906,401 601,544 85,693 219,164 Public Safety Battery Backup 42,706 42,706 - -
Radio Handhelds 230,762 115,381 115,381 -
ECC Equipment Replacement 23,849 13,922 9,927 -
Community Safety Emergency Response Communication Equipment 396,851 307,431 17,372 72,048 KVEC Tower 165,250 - 165,250 -
Tait Radio System Upgrade 400,000 - 400,000 -
Air Compressor Replacement - Station 1 76,989 76,989 - - 2,555,390 1,342,977 774,115 438,298
Street Paving
Street Reconstruction and Resurfacing 1,369,734 1,359,615 7,313 2,806 Marsh Street Bridge Replacement 474,214 399,964 16,091 58,159 South Broad Street Improvements 169,700 145,066 24,634 - 2,013,648 1,904,645 23,404 85,599
Flood Protection
Storm Drain System Replacement 93,269 31,110 5,270 56,889 Broad and Leff Culvert Repair 10,000 - 9,921 79
Foothill Storm Drain Repair 65,907 65,907 - -
Bullock Lane CMP Replacement 352,146 342,666 5,359 4,121 521,322 439,683 10,708 70,931
Parks & Recreation/Senior Programs and Facilities
Parks Major Maintenance & Repairs 112,861 20,726 43,612 48,523 Swim Center Building Maintenance and Equipment Replacement 130,513 130,513 - - Islay Hill Park Playground Equipment Replacement 89,673 89,673 - - Meadow Park Pedestrian Bridges and Pathways 10,900 10,555 - 345 Laguna Lake Golf Course Annual Asset Maintenance 20,000 - 20,000 - Mission Plaza Restroom Replacements and Enhancements 251,751 24,141 211,216 16,394 615,698 275,608 274,828 65,262
Other Vital Services and Capital Projects
Facilities Annual Asset Maintenance Account 202,482 245 22,062 180,175 City Facilities HVAC Replacements 32,226 32,025 - 201
Multi-site Energy Management 70,650 - 53,320 17,330
Fleet Replacements Annual Asset Maintenance 381,934 121,933 153,474 106,527 City Hall Fireline Replacement 61,265 61,265 - -
Downtown Cleaning Equipment 149,854 128,486 21,368 -
Fleet Services Vehicle Lift 69,149 68,384 - 765
Facility Parking Lot Maintenance 87,949 3,366 84,583 -
Economic Recovery and Public Health and Safety COVID-19 3,425,000 3,425,000 - - Undesignated Capital - - - -
4,480,509 3,840,704 228,856 410,949
Total Capital Expenditures $ 8,301,843 12,210,833 $ 1,971,621 $ ######### Net Change in Fund Balance $ (3,188,764) $ 2,109,272
Fund balance, beginning of year 3,410,844 7,190,699
Fund balance, end of year $ 222,080 $ 9,299,971
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021
City of San Luis Obispo
Local Sales Tax Measure Funding Schedule, continued
123

Page 459 of 714 ends

124

Page 460 of 714 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021
The City maintains the following nonmajor governmental funds:

Special Revenue Funds
The City has established the following ten special revenue funds in order to account for the proceeds from revenue sources that are restricted or committed to expenditures for specified purposes. Budgets are prepared using the modified accrual basis of accounting consistent with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

Downtown Business Improvement District (BID) Fund. This fund has been established to account for the receipt of a surcharge derived from a supplemental assessment upon businesses within the Downtown Business Improvement District’s boundaries. Pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, this surcharge is equal to $150.00 per year.

Expenditures from the fund are limited to four basic purposes: decorating public places within the downtown; promoting public events in the downtown core; promoting trade activities; and improving parking in the downtown core.

Transportation Development Act (TDA) Fund. The State of California has designated 1/4% of the sales tax levied statewide for local transportation purposes. Funding for this program was provided during the 1971 legislative session with the enactment of the Transportation Development Act, which extended the State sales tax to include purchases of gasoline. Revenues allocated to the City of San Luis Obispo under this program are divided into two categories: Article 3 funds, which are restricted for the improvement and maintenance of street systems including pedestrian and bicycle facilities; and Article 4 funds, which are restricted for public transit systems and are recorded directly in the Transit Fund.

Under the City's Financial Plan policies, all TDA Article 3 revenues are allocated for alternative transportation purposes.

The purpose of this fund is to account for these revenues.

Tourism Business Improvement District (BID) Fund. This fund has been established to account for the receipt of a surcharge derived from assessments upon the lodging establishments within the City. The surcharge is equal to 2% of gross room rents. Expenditures from the fund are limited to the marketing and promotion of tourism.

Gas Tax Fund. Portions of the tax rate per gallon levied by the State of California on all gasoline purchases are allocated to cities throughout the State on a population basis. These funds are restricted for expenditures by the State of California for street-related purposes only. Under the City's Financial Plan policies, all gas tax revenues are transferred to the General Fund for street maintenance purposes.

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund. This fund has been established to account for federal funds received by the City specifically to benefit low and moderate income persons, aid in the elimination of blight, and meet other community development needs as allowed by block grant regulations.

Law Enforcement Grants Fund. This fund has been established to account for public safety grant funds.

Public Arts Contribution Fund. Public contributions to the public art program are accounted for in this fund along with the expenditures for public art projects funded by this revenue source. 125

Page 461 of 714 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021

Page 2 ends

SB1 Road Repair Fund. This fund has been established to account for stable and ongoing funding for maintenance and improvements to transportation infrastructure as provided through Senate Bill 1 (2017), the Road Repair and Accountability Act.

SB1186 ASP Certify Fund. This fund has been established as Senate Bill 1186 (2012) requires local agencies to collect an additional fee when issuing a permit for the purpose of increasing certified access specialist (CASp) services and compliance with construction-related accessibility requirements. The first priority is to spend the funds on the training and retention of CASps in order to meet the needs of the public in the jurisdiction. The funds may also be spent on activities or programs that facilitate accessibility compliance.

Capital Projects Funds
The following eleven capital project funds are used by the City to account for the financial resources used in the construction or acquisition of major capital facilities or equipment (with the exception of those financed primarily through proprietary funds). Budgets are prepared using the modified accrual basis of accounting consistent with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles on a multi-year project basis. Accordingly, budgetary comparisons for the capital projects funds are not presented in the accompanying other supplementary information.

Capital Outlay Fund. This fund was established to account for all of the City’s construction projects and capital purchases in excess of $25,000 with the exception of those funded through non-major capital project funds and Enterprise Funds.

Financing is provided primarily through transfers in from the General Fund, and from State and Federal Grants.

Parkland Development Fund - Quimby. This fund was established to account for parkland in-lieu fees in accordance with the AB 1191 Act, also known as the Quimby Act; it authorizes the City to require residential subdivisions to dedicate land for parks or pay fees in lieu of dedication. Impact fees may be collected to pay for park land (for projects not involving a subdivision), park improvements, community centers, recreation facilities, trails, open space, etc.

Open Space Protection Fund. This fund was established to account for projects funded as part of the City’s open space protection program to enhance open space and agricultural conservation on lands within and surrounding the City, improve passive recreational and nature study opportunities, and restore and enhance wildlife habitat. Projects in this fund will be financed with General Fund contributions, outside contributions, and State and Federal grants.

Airport Area Impact Fee Fund. This fund was established to account for interim annexation fees collected for the specific plan and related infrastructure master plans for annexing the airport area to the City.

Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) Sub-Area Fee Fund. This fund was established to account for the LOVR add-on impact fee created for the expansion of capacity for the LOVR interchange at US 101 for construction, project management, and inspection. Though the project has been completed, the City has an existing reimbursement agreement with Costco Wholesale Corporation for improvements already constructed at the LOVR interchange. 126

Page 462 of 714 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021

Page 3 ends

Fleet Replacement Fund. This fund was established to account for the financing and replacement of vehicles for all General Fund programs of the City. Financing is primarily provided through operating transfers from the General Fund as well as from interest earnings and sales of surplus property.

Information Technology Replacement Fund. This fund was established in FY 12-13 to account for the financing and replacement of information technology for all General Fund programs of the City. Financing is primarily provided through operating transfers from the General Fund as well as from interest earnings.

Major Facility Replacement Fund. This fund accounts for the financing and replacement of major facilities for all General Fund programs of the City. Financing is primarily provided through operating transfers from the General Fund as well as from interest earnings.

Affordable Housing Program Fund. This fund accumulates revenues from inclusionary housing fees for capital projects related to affordable housing programs and projects.

Transportation Impact Fee Fund. This fund was established to account for construction projects related to transportation facilities and travel lanes within the City that will be financed primarily with transportation impact fees.

Infrastructure Fund. This fund was established to provide financing to infrastructure projects that have a wide community benefit. Financing is primarily provided through operating transfers from the General Fund.

Parkland Development Impact Fee – Citywide Fund. This fund was created to account for impact fees that were established for the purpose of acquisition and improvement of community parks and existing park facilities intended for access and use by the entire city.

OASP Park Development Fund. This fund was established to account for impact fees created for the purpose of acquisition and improvement of community parks and existing park facilities intended for access and use by the entire city but more specifically by the Orcutt Area residents as the location of this park projects are in the Orcutt Area.

MASP Park Development Fund. This fund was established to account for impact fees created for the purpose of acquisition and improvement of community parks and existing park facilities intended for access and use by the entire city but more specifically by the Margarita Area residents as the location of this park projects are in the Margarita Area.

OASP Transportation Impact Fee Fund. This fund was established to account for construction projects that will be financed primarily with transportation impact fees within the Orcutt Area Specific Plan in accordance with its Development Agreement
Fire Impact Fee Fund. This fund was established to account for fire department related construction projects that will be financed primarily with public safety development impact fees. 127

Page 463 of 714 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021

Page 4 ends

Police Impact Fee Fund. This fund was established to account for police department related construction projects that will be financed primarily with public safety development impact fees.

Park Improvement Impact Fee – Citywide Fund. This fund was established to account for construction projects related to park improvements that will be financed primarily with park in-lieu fees.

Debt Service Fund
The City has established one debt service fund to account for the payment and accumulation of resources related to governmental activities long-term debt principal and interest for the following debt issues. Budgets are prepared using the modified accrual basis of accounting consistent with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. The following governmental activity debt issuances are serviced by this fund.

Capital Improvement Board 2012 Refunding Lease Revenue Bonds. In May 2012 the Board issued $5,050,000 of 2012 Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds. These bonds were issued to refinance the outstanding 2001 Lease Revenue Bonds, Series C, which will be redeemed on December 1, 2029. The 2001 bonds were used to purchase property and build athletic fields; purchase property for police station expansion; purchase Downtown Plan properties.

The Board has entered into a lease agreement with the City under which the City is responsible for making lease payments to fund the annual debt service requirements.

Capital Improvement Board 2014 Lease Revenue Bonds. In 2014 the Board issued $7,580,000 of 2014 Lease Revenue Bonds. These bonds were issued to finance the expansion of the Los Osos Valley Road interchange at U.S. 101. Debt service related to the interchange is recorded in the Debt Service Fund.

The Board has entered into a lease agreement with the City under which the City is responsible for making lease payments to fund the annual debt service requirements.
2017 Fire Engine and Street Sweeper. Lease-purchase financing was obtained in order to purchase a fire engine and street sweeper. Debt service obligations are recorded in the Debt Service Fund. 2018 Street Sweeper. Lease-purchase financing was obtained in order to purchase a street sweeper. Debt service obligations are recorded in the Debt Service Fund.
2018 Fire Truck. Lease-purchase financing was obtained in order to purchase a fire truck. Debt service obligations are recorded in the Debt Service Fund.

Capital Improvement Board 2018 Lease Revenue Bonds. In 2018 the Board issued $11,072,775 of 2018 Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds. These bonds were issued to refinance the outstanding 2005 Revenue Bonds, 2006 Lease Revenue 128

Page 464 of 714 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021

Page 5 ends

Bonds, and 2009 Lease Revenue Bonds. The original bonds were used to accomplish several high priority capital improvement projects including the headquarters fire station, seismic safety and HVAC improvements to City Hall, Mission Plaza expansion, and various properties and street lighting system purchases. Further, the bonds were used to purchase a parking structure and office building and to the finance the construction of the Public Safety Communications and Emergency Operations Center project.

The Board has entered into a lease agreement with the City under which the City is responsible for making lease payments to fund the annual debt service requirements.
2020 Motorola Radio Lease. Lease-purchase financing was obtained in order to purchase new Motorola radios and related equipment for public safety departments. Debt service obligations are recorded in the Debt Service Fund. 129

Page 465 of 714 ends

Downtown BID
Transportation
Development
Act (TDA) Tourism BID Gas Tax
Assets
Cash and investment $ - $ 4,421 $ 652,224 $ -
Accounts receivable - - - -
Tax receivable - - 224,684 -
Accrued interest receivable - - 838 -
Prepaid expense 38,039 - - -
Cash held by fiscal agent - - - -
Loans receivable - - - -
Total assets $ 38,039 $ 4,421 $ 877,746 $ -
Liabilities, Deferred Inflows of
Resources and Fund Balance
Liabilities:

Accounts payable - $ $ - $ 188,591 $ -
Accrued liabilities - - 10,601 -
Due to other funds 43,071 - - -
Unearned revenue - 4,421 - -
Total liabilities 43,071 4,421 199,192 -
Deferred Inflows of Resources:

Unavailable revenue - - - -
Fund balance:

Nonspendable - - - -
Restricted for:

Debt service - - - -
Transportation projects - - - -
Affordable housing programs - - - -
Impact fee programs - - - -
Parkland development programs - - - -
Public art programs - - - -
Tourism programs - - 678,554 -
Public safety program - - - -
Assigned to:

Contingency fund - - - -
Subsequent years expenditures 750 - - -
Unassigned (5,782) - - -
Total fund balance (5,032) - 678,554 -
$ 38,039 $ 4,421 $ 877,746 $ -
Total liabilities, deferred inflows of
resources, and fund balance
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Combining Balance Sheets
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
June 30, 2021
Special Revenue Funds
130

Page 466 of 714 ends

Community
Development
Block Grant
(CDBG)
Law
Enforcement
Grants
Public Art
Contributions
SB1 Road
Repair
SB1186 CASP
Certify
$ 108,575 $ 58,973 $ 568,666 $ 753,763 $ 85,489
- 13,421 - 2 -
- - 155,129 - -
- - 1,377 1,115 199
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
$ 108,575 $ 72,394 $ 570,043 $ 910,009 $ 85,688
$ - $ - $ 1,642 $ - $ -
- - - - -
- - - - -
- 8,976 - - -
- 8,976 1,642 - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - 910,009 - 85,688
108,575 - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
- 568,401 - - -
- - - - -
- 63,418 - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
108,575 63,418 568,401 910,009 85,688
$ 108,575 $ 72,394 $ 570,043 $ 910,009 $ 85,688
Special Revenue Funds
131

Page 467 of 714 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
Combining Balance Sheets
Nonmajor Governmental Funds, continued
Capital Outlay
Parkland
Development
Open Space
Protection
Airport Area
Impact Fee
Assets
Cash and investment $ 2,355,735 $ 3,396,462 $ 20,268 $ 894,183 Accounts receivable 1,072,704 - - -
Tax receivable - - - -
Accrued interest receivable 3,519 9,006 48 2,511
Prepaid expense - - - -
Cash held by fiscal agent - - - -
Loans receivable - - - -
Total assets $ 3,431,958 $ 3,405,468 $ 20,316 $ 896,694 Liabilities, Deferred Inflows of
Resources and Fund Balance
Liabilities:

Accounts payable 318,719 $ $ - $ - $ -
Accrued liabilities - - - -
Due to other funds - - - -
Unearned revenue - - - -
Total liabilities 318,719 - - -
Deferred Inflows of Resources:

Unavailable revenue - - - -
Fund balance:

Unspendable - - - -
Restricted for:

Debt service - - - -
Transportation projects - - - -
Affordable housing programs - - - -
Impact fee programs - - 896,694 -
Parkland development programs 3,405,468 - - -
Public art programs - - - -
Tourism programs - - - -
Public safety program - - - -
Assigned to:

Contingency fund - - - -
Subsequent years expenditures 3,113,239 - 20,316 -
Unassigned - - - -
Total fund balance 3,113,239 3,405,468 20,316 896,694
$ 3,431,958 $ 3,405,468 $ 20,316 $ 896,694
Total liabilities, deferred inflows of
resources, and fund balance
June 30, 2021
Capital Projects Funds
132

Page 468 of 714 ends

LOVR SubArea Fee
Fleet
Replacement
Info Tech
Replacement
Affordable
Housing
Transportation
Impact Fee
$ 468,543 $ 1,221,208 $ 2,760,833 $ 1,384,673 $ 9,630,564 - - - - -
- - - - -
1,187 2,889 5,833 1,591,406 24,012
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - 7,786,471 - -
$ 469,730 $ 1,224,097 $ 2,766,666 $ 10,762,550 $ 9,654,576 $ - $ - $ 22,219 $ 130,279 - $
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - 22,219 130,279 -
- - 1,578,821 - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - - 9,524,297 -
- - 9,183,729 - -
469,730 - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
500,000 - 400,000 - -
724,097 - 2,344,447 - -
- - - - -
469,730 1,224,097 2,744,447 9,183,729 9,524,297
$ 469,730 $ 1,224,097 $ 2,766,666 $ 10,762,550 $ 9,654,576 Capital Projects Funds
133

Page 469 of 714 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
Combining Balance Sheets
Nonmajor Governmental Funds, continued
Infrastructure
Public Safety
Development
Impact Fee
Parkland
Development
Impact FeeCitywide OASP Park MASP Park
Assets
Cash and investment $ 2,429,587 $ 184,208 $ 548,591 $ 2,324,489 $ 1,630,261 Accounts receivable - - - - -
Tax receivable - - - - -
Accrued interest receivable 5,894 4,147 842 3,617 2,580 Prepaid expense - - - - -
Cash held by fiscal agent - - - - -
Loans receivable - - - - -
Total assets $ 2,435,481 $ 188,355 $ 549,433 $ 2,328,106 $ 1,632,841 Liabilities, Deferred Inflows of
Resources and Fund Balance
Liabilities:

Accounts payable 265 $ $ - $ - $ 79,419 $ -
Accrued liabilities - - - - -
Due to other funds - - - 157 -
Unearned revenue - - - - -
Total liabilities 265 - 79,576 - -
Deferred Inflows of Resources:

Unavailable revenue - - - - -
Fund balance:

Unspendable - - - - -
Restricted for:

Debt service - - - - -
Transportation projects - - - - -
Affordable housing programs - - - - -
Impact fee programs - 549,433 - 2,248,530 1,632,841
Parkland development programs - - - - -
Public art programs - - - - -
Tourism programs - - - - -
Public safety program - - - - -
Assigned to:

Contingency fund - - - - -
Subsequent years expenditures 2,435,216 188,355 - - -
Unassigned - - - - -
Total fund balance 2,435,216 188,355 549,433 2,248,530 1,632,841 $ 2,435,481 $ 188,355 $ 549,433 $ 2,328,106 $ 1,632,841 June 30, 2021
Total liabilities, deferred inflows of
resources and fund balance
Capital Projects Funds
134

Page 470 of 714 ends

OASP
Transportation
Impact Fee Fire Impact Fee
Police Impact
Fee
Park
Improvement
Impact FeeCitywide Debt Service
Total Nonmajor
Governmental
Funds
$ 692,118 $ 66,026 $ 72,552 $ 836,722 $ 2,153,858 $ 35,305,577 - - - - 1,086,127 -
- - - - 379,813 -
491 97 104 1,040 1,662,752 -
- - - - - 38,039
- - - 421,509 - 421,509
- - - - 7,786,471 -
$ 692,609 $ 66,123 $ 72,656 $ 837,762 $ 2,575,367 $ 46,680,288 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 741,134 - $
- - - - - 10,601
- - - - - 45,813
- - - - - 13,397
- - - - 810,945 -
- - - - 1,578,821 -
- - - - - -
- - - 2,575,367 - 2,575,367
- - - - 10,519,994 -
- - - - 9,292,304 -
692,609 66,123 72,656 837,762 7,466,378 -
- - - - 3,405,468 -
- - - - 568,401 -
- - - - 678,554 -
- - - - - 63,418
- - - - 900,000 -
- - - - 8,8 - 26,420
- - - - - (5,782)
692,609 66,123 72,656 837,762 2,575,367 44,290,522
$ 692,609 $ 66,123 $ 72,656 $ 837,762 $ 2,575,367 $ 46,680,288 Capital Projects Funds
135

Page 471 of 714 ends

Downtown
BID
Transportation
Development
Act (TDA) Tourism BID Gas Tax
Revenues:

Use of money and property $ - $ - $ 88 $ -
Subventions and grants 36,409 - 1,038,123 -
Charges for services 249,824 1,381,106 - -
Other revenues - - - -
Total revenues 249,824 36,409 1,381,194 1,038,123
Expenditures:

Current:

Public safety - - - -
Transportation - - - -
Leisure, cultural and social services - - - -
Community development 249,074 997,909 - -
Debt service:

Principal - - - -
Interest and fiscal charges - - - -
Capital:

General Government - - - -
Public safety - - - -
Transportation - - - -
Leisure, cultural and social services - - - -
Community development - - - -
Total expenditures 249,074 997,909 - -
Excess (deficiency) of revenues over
(under) expenditures 750 36,409 383,285 1,038,123
Other financing sources (uses):

Transfers in - - - -
Transfers out (36,409) - (29,498) (894,743)
Total other financing
sources (uses) (36,409) - (29,498) (894,743)
Net change in fund balance 750 353,787 - 143,380
Fund balance, beginning of year, as restated (5,782) 324,767 - (143,380) Fund balance (deficit),
end of year $ (5,032) $ - $ 678,554 $ -
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and
Changes in Fund Balances
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021
Special Revenue Funds
136

Page 472 of 714 ends

Community
Development
Block Grant
(CDBG)
Law
Enforcement
Grants
Public Art
Contributions
SB1 Road
Repair
SB1186 ASP
Certify
$ - $ 79 $ 144 $ 117 $ 21
101,213 - - 851,292 -
- 620 (1,357) - 26,163
- - - - -
101,912 - (1,213) 851,409 26,184
- 71,258 - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - 334 522,049 -
- - 21,149 - -
- - - 76,015 -
- 71,258 21,483 598,064 -
- 30,654 (22,696) 253,345 26,184
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
- 30,654 (22,696) 253,345 26,184
108,575 32,764 591,097 656,664 59,504
$ 108,575 $ 63,418 $ 568,401 $ 910,009 $ 85,688
Special Revenue Funds
137

Page 473 of 714 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and
Changes in Fund Balances
Nonmajor Governmental Funds, continued
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021
Capital
Outlay
Parkland
Development
Open Space
Protection
Airport Area
Impact Fee
Revenues:

Use of money and property $ 368 $ 941 $ 5 $ 262
Subventions and grants 5,066,574 - - -
Charges for services - 1,882,177 - 400
Other revenues 585,217 - - -
Total revenues 5,652,159 1,883,118 5 662
Expenditures:

Current:

Public safety - - - -
Transportation - - - -
Leisure, cultural and social services - - - -
Community development - - - -
Debt service:

Principal - - - -
Interest and fiscal charges - - - -
Capital:

General Government 400,137 - (1) -
Public safety - - - -
Transportation 6,231,986 - 245,534 -
Leisure, cultural and social services 6,185 12,023 - -
Community development 3,332 - - -
Total expenditures 6,641,640 12,023 (1) 245,534
Excess (deficiency) of revenues over
(under) expenditures (989,481) 1,871,095 (244,872) 6
Other financing sources (uses):

Transfers in 1,199,257 128,041 - -
Transfers out (354,750) (3,303,228) - -
Total other financing
sources (uses) 844,507 (3,175,187) - -
Net change in fund balance (144,974) (1,304,092) (244,872) 6 Fund balance, beginning of year, as restated 3,258,213 4,709,560 20,310 1,141,566 Fund balance (deficit),
end of year $ 3,405,468 3,113,239 $ 20,31 $ 6 $ 896,694 Capital Projects Funds
138

Page 474 of 714 ends

LOVR SubArea Fee
Fleet
Replacement
Info Tech
Replacement
Affordable
Housing
Transportation
Impact Fee
$ 124 $ 302 $ 610 $ 224,368 $ 2,509
- - - - -
- 192,122 - 10,600 3,065,470
- 7,325 - - -
124 7,627 192,732 234,968 3,067,979
- - - - -
- - - 367,755 -
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
- 1,954 675,459 - -
- 224 - - -
- - - 1,542,832 -
- - - - -
- - - - -
- 2,178 675,459 1,910,587 -
124 5,449 (482,727) 234,968 1,157,392
- 820,349 - - -
- (152,290) - (58,200) (288,751)
- 668,059 - (58,200) (288,751)
124 5,449 185,332 176,768 868,641
469,606 1,218,648 2,559,115 9,006,961 8,655,656
$ 469,730 $ 1,224,097 $ 2,744,447 $ 9,183,729 $ 9,524,297 Capital Projects Funds
139

Page 475 of 714 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and
Changes in Fund Balances
Nonmajor Governmental Funds, continued
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021
Infrastructure
Public Safety
Development
Impact Fee
Parkland
Development
Impact FeeCitywide OASP Park MASP Park
Revenues:

Use of money and property $ 615 $ 434 $ 88 $ 378 $ 269
Subventions and grants - - - - -
Charges for services - 231,592 - 1,277,620 319,388
Other revenues - - - - -
Total revenues 615 231,680 434 1,277,998 319,657
Expenditures:

Current:

Public safety - - - - -
Transportation - - - - -
Leisure, cultural and social services - - 366,801 - -
Community development - - - - -
Debt service:

Principal - - - - -
Interest and fiscal charges - - - - -
Capital:

General Government - - - - -
Public safety - - - - -
Transportation 228,908 - - - -
Leisure, cultural and social services - - - - -
Community development - - - - -
Total expenditures 228,908 - 366,801 - -
Excess (deficiency) of revenues over
(under) expenditures (228,293) 231,680 434 911,197 319,657 Other financing sources (uses):

Transfers in 119,000 - 317,753 1,355,410 1,313,184
Transfers out - - (18,077) - -
Total other financing
sources (uses) 119,000 - 317,753 1,337,333 1,313,184
Net change in fund balance (109,293) 549,433 434 2,248,530 1,632,841 Fund balance, beginning of year 2,544,509 187,921 - - - Fund balance (deficit),
end of year $ 2,435,216 $ 188,355 $ 549,433 $ 2,248,530 $ 1,632,841 Capital Projects Funds
140

Page 476 of 714 ends

OASP
Transportation
Impact Fee Fire Impact Fee
Police Impact
Fee
Park
Improvement
Impact FeeCitywide Debt Service
Total Nonmajor
Governmental
Funds
$ 50 $ 10 $ 11 $ 108 $ 23 $ 231,924
- - - - 7,093,611 -
909,090 66,113 72,645 517,621 10,201,194 -
- - - - 592,542 -
909,140 66,123 72,656 517,729 18,119,271 23
- - - - - 71,258
216,531 - - - 584,286 -
- - - - 366,801 -
- - - - 1,246,983 -
- - - 1,602,039 - 1,602,039
- - - 808,586 - 808,586
- - - - 1,077,549 -
- - - - - 224
- - - - 8,771,643 -
- - - - - 39,357
- - - - - 79,347
216,531 - - 2,410,625 - 14,648,073
692,609 66,123 72,656 517,729 (2,410,602) 3,471,198
- - 320,033 - 2,759,071 8,332,098
- - - - - (5,135,946)
- - 320,033 - 2,759,071 3,196,152
692,609 66,123 72,656 837,762 348,469 6,667,350
- - - 2,226,898 - 37,623,172
$ 692,609 $ 66,123 $ 72,656 $ 837,762 $ 2,575,367 $ 44,290,522 Capital Projects Funds
141

Page 477 of 714 ends

Variance with
Final Budget
Positive
Original Final Actual (Negative)
Revenues:

Charges for services
Assessments $ 252,588 $ 252,588 $ 249,824 $ (2,764)
Total Revenues 252,588 252,588 249,824 (2,764)
Expenditures:

Current
Community development 252,588 252,588 249,074 3,514
Total Expenditures 252,588 252,588 249,074 3,514
Excess of Revenues Over Expenditures - - 750 750
Net Change in Fund Balance - - 750 750
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year (5,782) (5,782) (5,782) - Fund Balance, End of Year $ (5,782) $ (5,782) $ (5,032) $ 750 Budget
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual June 30, 2021
Downtown Business Improvement District Fund
142

Page 478 of 714 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual June 30, 2021
Variance with
Final Budget
Positive
Original Final Actual (Negative)
Revenues:

Subventions and grants $ 45,900 $ 45,900 $ 36,409 $ (9,491) Total Revenues 45,900 45,900 36,409 (9,491)
Excess of Revenues Over Expenditures 45,900 45,900 36,409 (9,491) Other Financing Uses:

Operating transfers out (45,900) (45,900) (36,409) 9,491 Net Change in Fund Balance - - - -
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year - - - -
Fund Balance, End of Year $ - $ - $ - $ -
Budget
Transportation Development Act (TDA)
143

Page 479 of 714 ends

Use of money and property $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 88 $ (1,312) Assessments 1,253,400 1,253,400 1,381,106 127,706
Total Revenues 1,254,800 1,254,800 1,381,194 126,394
Expenditures:

Current
Community development 1,225,420 1,251,030 997,909 253,121 Total Expenditures 1,225,420 1,251,030 997,909 253,121
Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures 29,380 3,770 383,285 379,515 Other Financing Uses:

Operating transfers out (29,498) (29,498) (29,498) -
Net Change in Fund Balance (118) (25,728) 353,787 379,515 Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 324,767 324,767 324,767 - Fund Balance, End of Year $ 324,649 $ 299,039 $ 678,554 $ 379,515 Budget
Tourism Business Improvement District Fund
144

Page 480 of 714 ends

Subventions and grants $ 1,082,390 $ 1,082,390 $ 1,038,123 $ (44,267) Total Revenues 1,082,390 1,082,390 1,038,123 (44,267)
Excess of Revenues Over Expenditures 1,082,390 1,082,390 1,038,123 (44,267) Other Financing Uses:

Operating transfers out (1,082,390) (1,082,390) (894,743) 187,647 Net Change in Fund Balance - 143,380 - 143,380
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year - (143,380) - -
Fund Balance, End of Year $ - $ - $ - $ 143,380
Budget
Gas Tax
145

Page 481 of 714 ends

Subventions and grants $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total Revenues - - - -
Expenditures:

Current
Community development - - - -
Total Expenditures - - - -
Net Change in Fund Balance - - - -
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 108,575 108,575 108,575 - Fund Balance, End of Year $ 108,575 $ 108,575 $ 108,575 $ - Budget
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund
146

Page 482 of 714 ends

Subventions and grants $ 95,000 $ 111,030 $ 101,213 $ (9,817) Charges for services 2,142 2,142 620 (1,522)
Total Revenues 97,142 113,172 101,912 (11,260)
Expenditures:

Public Safety 24,143 - 71,258 (47,115)
Total Expenditures 24,143 - 71,258 (47,115)
Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures 97,142 89,029 30,654 (58,375) Other Financing Uses:

Operating transfers out - - - -
Net Change in Fund Balance 97,142 89,029 30,654 (58,375) Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 32,764 32,764 32,764 -
Fund Balance, End of Year $ 129,906 $ 121,793 $ 63,418 $ (58,375) Budget
Law Enforcement Grants Fund
147

Page 483 of 714 ends

Use of money and property $ 2,100 $ 2,100 $ 144 $ (1,956) Other revenues 38,500 38,500 (1,357) (39,857)
Total Revenues 40,600 40,600 (1,213) (41,813)
Expenditures:

Capital Projects 15,000 106,667 21,483 85,184
Total Expenditures 15,000 106,667 21,483 85,184
Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures 25,600 (66,067) (22,696) 43,371 Net Change in Fund Balance 25,600 (66,067) (22,696) 43,371 Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 591,097 591,097 591,097 - Fund Balance, End of Year $ 616,697 $ 525,030 $ 568,401 $ 43,371 Budget
Public Art Contributions Fund
148

Page 484 of 714 ends

Use of money and property $ - $ - $ 117 $ 117
Subventions and grants 795,548 795,548 851,292 55,744
Total Revenues 795,548 795,548 851,409 55,861
Expenditures:

Capital Projects 795,548 1,055,947 598,064 457,883
Total Expenditures 795,548 1,055,947 598,064 457,883
Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures (260,399) - 253,345 513,744 Net Change in Fund Balance - (260,399) 253,345 513,744
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 656,664 656,664 656,664 - Fund Balance, End of Year $ 656,664 $ 396,265 $ 910,009 $ 513,744 SB1 Road Repair Fund
Budget
149

Page 485 of 714 ends

Use of money and property $ - $ - $ 21 $ 21
Charges for services - 26,163 - 26,163
Total Revenues - 26,184 - 26,184
Net Change in Fund Balance - - 26,184 26,184
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 59,504 59,504 59,504 -
Fund Balance, End of Year $ 59,504 $ 59,504 $ 85,688 $ 26,184 SB1186 ASP Certify
Budget
150

Page 486 of 714 ends

Use of money and property $ - $ - $ 23 $ 23
Total Revenues - - 23 23
Expenditures:

Principal 1,774,171 1,774,171 1,602,039 172,132
Interest and fiscal charges 984,900 984,900 808,586 176,314 Total Expenditures 2,759,071 2,759,071 2,410,625 348,446 Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures (2,759,071) (2,759,071) (2,410,602) 348,469 Other Financing Uses:

Operating transfers in 2,759,071 2,759,071 2,759,071 -
Total other Financing Uses: 2,759,071 2,759,071 2,759,071 - Net Change in Fund Balance - 348,469 - 348,469
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 2,226,898 2,226,898 2,226,898 - Fund Balance, End of Year $ 2,226,898 $ 2,226,898 $ 2,575,367 $ 348,469 Budget
Debt Service Fund
151

Page 487 of 714 ends

152

Page 488 of 714 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
Custodial Funds
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021
The City of San Luis Obispo has established the following agency funds, which are used to account for funds held by the City as an agent for private donations and programs operated jointly with other local agencies:

Whale Rock Fund. This fund was established to account for the financial activities of the Whale Rock Commission, a joint venture providing water service to the City, the California Polytechnic State University, and the California Men's Colony.

Jack House Fund. This fund was established to account for the financial activities of the Jack House Committee, which includes the rehabilitation and use of a use of the historic Jack House property.

Hazardous Materials Task Force Fund. This fund was established to account for the financial activities of the County task force.

General Agency Fund. This fund was established to account for a broad category of funds, including donations, provided to the City to be utilized for specific purposes.

Boysen Ranch Conservation Easement Fund. This fund was established to account for contributions toward obtaining a conservation easement on the Boysen Ranch property.

Cable Television Public, Educational and Government Funds (PEG) for the City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Coastal Unified School District (SLCUSD) and San Luis Obispo County Public Access, Inc. Public Access Television (PAT). These funds account for collections by Charter Communications from its customers for PEG access equipment and facilities. The City of San Luis Obispo, SLCUSD and PAT annually receive equal shares of collections, restricted for approved uses as stipulated in the cable franchise agreement. 153

Page 489 of 714 ends

Hazardous
Whale Jack Materials Task
Rock Fund House Fund Force Fund
ASSETS
Cash and investments $ 3,317,658 $ 19,090 $ 138,983
Receivables: - -
Accounts 14,528 - -
Interest 7,825 45 803
Prepaid items 49,971 - -
Capital assets 854,674 - -
Total assets 4,244,656 19,135 139,786

LIABILITIES
Accounts payable 82,493 - 3,595
Compensated absence 53,627 - -
Accrued Salaries 26,011 - 877
Other liabilities 2,000 - -
Total liabilities 164,131 - 4,472

NET POSITION
Restricted for
Individuals, organizations, and other governments 4,080,525 19,135 135,314 Total net position $ 4,080,525 $ 19,135 $ 135,314
City of San Luis Obispo
Combining Statement of Fiduciary Net Position
Custodial Funds
For the year ended June 30, 2021
154

Page 490 of 714 ends

General Boysen Ranch Total
Agency Conservation PEG City of PEG Custodial
Fund Easement San Luis Obispo SLCUSD Funds
$ 1,816,128 $ 426,239 $ 149,254 $ 364,596 $ 6,231,948
- - - -
- - 1 1 14,530
- 1,007 318 820 10,818
- - - - 49,971
- - - - 854,674
1,816,128 427,246 149,573 365,417 7,161,941
76,338 24,567 3,800 - 190,793
- - - - 53,627
- - - - 26,888
- - - - 2,000
76,338 24,567 3,800 - 273,308
1,739,790 402,679 145,773 365,417 6,888,633
$ 1,739,790 $ 402,679 $ 145,773 $ 365,417 $ 6,888,633
155

Page 491 of 714 ends

Hazardous
Whale Jack Materials Task
Rock Fund House Fund Force Fund
ADDITIONS:

Charges for services $ 1,015,607 $ 65,000
Charges for public programming
Contribution from developers
Other revenue 1,145,069 - -
Use of money and property 820 5 84
Total additions 2,161,496 5 65,084
DEDUCTIONS:

Administration expenses 184,494 13,695
Contractual services 959,595 25,997
Materials and supplies 9,593 62,528
Public programming
Use of developer deposits
Depreciation 60,809
Total deductions 1,214,491 -102,220
Net increase (decrease) in fiduciary net position 947,005 5 (37,136) NET POSITION:

Beginning of year, as restated 3,133,520 19,130 172,450 End of year $ 4,080,525 $ 19,135 $ 135,314
City of San Luis Obispo
Combining Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Position Custodial Funds
For the year ended June 30, 2021
156

Page 492 of 714 ends

General Boysen Ranch Total
Agency Conservation PEG City of PEG Custodial
Fund Easement San Luis Obispo SLCUSD Funds
$ - $ 1,080,607
38,451 38,450 76,901
1,771,371 1,771,371
- - - 1,145,069 -
- 105 33 86 1,133
1,771,371 105 38,484 38,536 4,075,081
- 198,189
985,592
72,121
8,185 - 8,185
1,452,882 1,452,882
60,809
1,452,882 - 8,185 - 2,777,778
318,489 105 30,299 38,536 1,297,303
1,421,301 402,574 115,474 326,881 5,591,330
$ 1,739,790 $ 402,679 $ 145,773 $ 365,417 $ 6,888,633
157

Page 493 of 714 ends

158

Page 494 of 714 ends

STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED)
159

Page 495 of 714 ends

160

Page 496 of 714 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
Statistical Section Overview
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021
This part of the City of San Luis Obispo’s annual comprehensive financial report presents detailed information as a context for understanding what the information in the financial statements, note disclosures, and required supplementary information says about the government’s overall financial health.

Contents
Financial Trends – Schedules 1-6. These schedules contain trend information to help the reader understand how the City’s financial performance and well-being have changed over time.

Revenue Capacity – Schedules 7-13. These schedules contain information to help the reader assess the government’s most significant local revenue sources, sales and property taxes.

Debt Capacity – Schedules 14-19. These schedules present information to help the reader assess the affordability of the City’s current levels of outstanding debt and the City’s ability to issue additional debt in the future.

Demographic and Economic Information – Schedules 20-22. These schedules offer demographic and economic indicators to help the reader understand the environment within which the government’s financial activities take place.

Operating Information – Schedules 23-26. These schedules contain service and infrastructure data to help the reader understand how the information in the City’s financial report relates to the services the government provides and the activities it performs.
161

Page 497 of 714 ends

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Governmental activities: Net investment in capital assets $ 141,686,600 $ 142,239,500 $ 145,266,043 $ 150,430,226 $ 163,449,992 $ 165,100,426 $ 171,472,251 $ 174,431,254 $ 177,335,648 $ 184,205,733 Restricted 2,620,700 2,374,800 4,825,662 2,350,838 2,762,387 2,268,499 421,954 20,458,677 29,901,136 35,137,179 Unrestricted 23,583,000 29,927,200 (66,610,104) (57,421,778) (49,031,893) (41,496,841) (49,909,657) (72,041,172) (73,806,116) (63,601,328) Total governmental activities net position $ 167,890,300 $ 174,541,500 $ 83,481,601 $ 95,359,286 $ 117,180,486 $ 125,872,084 $ 121,984,548 $ 122,848,759 $ 133,430,668 $ 155,741,584 Business-type activities: Net investment in capital assets $ 119,957,600 $ 123,510,200 $ 119,116,303 $ 125,801,845 $ 128,390,611 $ 131,149,516 $ 136,694,402 $ 139,659,544 $ 149,617,018 $ 160,750,886 Restricted 2,293,900 2,254,200 2,248,979 2,261,213 2,278,392 2,276,526 1,558,795 500,645 4,037,611 2,493,859 Unrestricted 37,759,000 41,712,200 35,224,987 42,117,143 49,495,220 53,421,102 50,866,147 57,379,689 53,983,005 54,470,820 Total business-type activities net position $ 160,010,500 $ 167,476,600 $ 156,590,269 $ 170,180,201 $ 180,164,223 $ 186,847,144 $ 189,119,344 $ 197,539,878 $ 207,637,634 $ 217,715,565 Primary government (City wide totals): Net investment in capital assets $ 261,644,200 $ 265,749,700 $ 264,382,346 $ 276,232,071 $ 291,840,603 $ 296,249,942 $ 308,166,653 $ 314,090,798 $ 326,952,666 $ 344,956,619 Restricted 4,914,600 4,629,000 7,074,641 4,612,051 5,040,779 4,545,025 1,980,749 20,959,322 33,938,747 37,631,038 Unrestricted 61,342,000 71,639,400 (31,385,117) (15,304,635) 463,327 11,924,261 956,490 (14,661,483) (19,823,111) (9,130,508) Total primary government net position $ 327,900,800 $ 342,018,100 $ 240,071,870 $ 265,539,487 $ 297,344,709 $ 312,719,228 $ 311,103,892 $ 320,388,637 $ 341,068,302 $ 373,457,149 Schedule 1
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Net Assets by Component
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(Accrual basis of accounting)
162

Page 498 of 714 ends

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Expenses:

Governmental activities:

Public safety $ 27,993,900 $ 28,859,200 $ 29,651,702 $ 26,881,732 $ 29,318,821 $ 31,806,692 $ 42,097,557 $ 34,320,108 $ 34,670,383 $ 35,323,339 Transportation 7,778,000 8,551,500 8,975,047 11,457,311 8,792,028 9,668,840 9,229,042 7,546,278 7,416,335 8,040,919 Culture and recreation 9,500,300 10,078,700 10,239,853 10,332,740 9,808,545 9,824,262 11,125,792 9,469,520 10,063,304 11,122,003Community development 8,782,200 8,866,900 10,183,782 10,960,778 12,900,275 14,656,604 13,457,993 12,573,953 11,882,018 11,918,019General Government - - - - - - -22,429,785 22,058,724 17,276,491 Interest on long-term debt 1,198,000 1,217,200 1,221,205 1,015,011 1,351,468 1,170,984 1,488,183 702,885 839,661 731,045 Total governmental activities expenses 55,252,400 57,573,500 60,271,589 60,647,572 62,171,137 67,127,382 77,398,567 87,042,529 86,930,425 84,411,816Business-type activities:

Water 17,455,200 17,019,000 17,575,961 17,128,041 18,136,120 19,069,967 19,523,736 20,986,430 22,914,013 21,469,967Sewer 9,530,400 10,189,400 10,647,255 10,132,214 10,842,451 11,683,262 14,158,612 13,967,717 13,100,905 15,064,551 Parking 3,598,000 3,678,600 3,636,607 3,556,637 3,900,052 3,791,493 4,098,840 4,088,681 4,145,364 4,057,242 Transit 3,778,900 3,903,900 4,059,138 3,994,194 4,088,423 4,076,871 4,355,103 4,320,976 4,384,344 4,023,536 Total business-type activities expenses 34,362,500 34,790,900 35,918,961 34,811,086 36,967,046 38,621,593 42,136,291 43,363,804 44,544,626 44,615,296Total primary government expenses $ 89,614,900 $ 92,364,400 $ 96,190,550 $ 95,458,658 $ 99,138,183 $ 105,748,975 $ 119,534,858 $ 130,406,333 $ 131,475,051 $ 129,027,112 Program Revenues:

Governmental activities:

Charges for services:

Public safety $ 1,750,700 $ 1,599,000 $ 1,589,278 $ 1,697,748 $ 1,673,800 $ 1,771,383 $ 1,881,725 $ 1,633,223 $ 3,045,294 $ 3,991,193 Transportation 418,000 221,200 1,321,323 1,270,787 1,691,757 1,793,010 1,669,563 2,399,692 531,424 91,509 Culture and recreation 1,834,200 1,926,800 3,048,274 2,155,411 2,048,780 3,501,837 3,487,225 4,078,539 2,508,565 3,430,224Community development 4,563,200 4,126,400 4,981,211 7,210,132 7,974,880 8,144,128 7,355,831 9,941,951 11,812,417 15,929,420General Government - - - - - - -1,391,940 760,606 654,039 Operating grants and contributions 2,152,700 2,814,700 2,412,469 2,509,323 2,667,058 2,488,706 4,015,502 2,990,211 4,828,837 3,601,973Capital grants and contributions 2,021,800 1,991,900 3,680,440 7,911,867 9,355,707 40,531 39,781 47,234 2,504,722 5,688,200 Total governmental activities program revenues 12,740,600 12,680,000 17,032,995 22,755,268 25,411,982 17,739,595 18,449,627 22,482,790 25,991,865 33,386,558 Business-type activities:

Charges for services:

Water $ 16,753,100 $ 18,148,200 $ 19,755,909 $ 20,446,730 $ 19,884,850 $ 20,180,931 $ 22,202,069 $ 24,026,385 $ 25,666,777 $ 28,340,075 Sewer 14,789,700 16,212,000 17,151,212 18,007,064 16,460,140 16,272,533 16,753,094 18,674,547 19,042,384 21,501,547 Parking 3,533,300 4,693,400 3,998,730 4,905,494 7,408,729 4,666,970 5,226,780 5,443,038 3,293,941 2,567,908 Transit 552,900 682,700 688,585 649,899 659,471 666,296 703,451 776,808 633,566 331,352 Operating grants and contributions 2,502,500 2,673,500 2,458,640 3,148,651 2,888,820 4,180,386 3,099,618 3,259,975 4,712,832 3,742,594Capital grants and contributions 750,900 731,300 82,359 60,063 ------ Total business-type activities programs revenues 38,882,400 43,141,100 44,135,435 47,217,901 47,302,010 45,967,116 47,985,012 52,180,753 53,349,500 56,483,476 Total primary government program revenues $ 51,623,000 $ 55,821,100 $ 61,168,430 $ 69,973,169 $ 72,713,992 $ 63,706,711 $ 66,434,639 $ 74,663,543 $ 79,341,365 $ 89,870,034 Net Revenues (Expenses):

Governmental activities $ (42,511,800) $ (44,893,500) $ (43,238,594) $ (37,892,304) $ (36,759,155) $ (49,387,787) $ (58,948,940) $ (64,559,739) $ (60,938,560) $ (51,025,258) Business-type activities 4,519,900 8,350,200 8,216,474 12,406,815 10,334,964 7,345,523 5,848,721 8,816,949 8,804,874 11,868,180 Total primary government $ (37,991,900) $ (36,543,300) $ (35,022,120) $ (25,485,489) $ (26,424,191) $ (42,042,264) $ (53,100,219) $ (55,742,790) $ (52,133,686) $ (39,157,078) Schedule 2
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Changes in Net Position, Last Ten Fiscal Years
(Accrual Basis of Accounting)
163

Page 499 of 714 ends

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Schedule 2
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Changes in Net Position, Last Ten Fiscal Years
(Accrual Basis of Accounting)
General Revenues and Other Changes in Net Position:Governmental activities:

Sales and use taxes $ 19,527,500 $ 20,736,000 $ 22,180,173 $ 22,408,980 $ 24,676,377 $ 24,068,665 $ 24,559,570 $ 26,444,775 $ 24,125,439 $ 32,847,453 Property taxes 8,367,000 9,176,600 8,960,010 9,631,890 10,186,858 10,756,477 11,425,510 12,238,357 13,301,736 14,197,869 Transient occupancy tax 5,222,000 5,572,400 6,063,232 6,805,742 7,127,756 7,381,989 7,514,289 8,061,087 6,325,841 6,960,035Utility users tax 4,584,100 4,916,100 5,345,342 5,211,207 5,413,720 5,539,407 5,627,356 4,919,892 5,439,144 5,225,979Property tax in-lieu of vehicle license fees 3,492,400 3,533,200 3,645,692 3,849,341 4,113,244 4,353,912 4,637,253 4,961,080 5,290,215 5,660,661 Other taxes and fees 4,299,800 4,607,600 4,779,570 4,993,285 4,800,592 3,929,377 5,006,594 4,332,557 4,883,677 5,578,944 Investment earnings 770,100 237,100 566,931 467,348 825,760 997,995 164,434 1,618,354 3,368,951 435,243Miscellaneous and other 227,200 349,900 679,127 707,781 - - - 146,579 1,001,369 1,019,626Gain (loss) on disposal of capital assets - (11,000)- - - - - - - - Prior period adjustment - 2,657,100 (833,234) ------ (582,547) Cumulative change in accounting principle (GASB 65) - (345,400) -------- Transfers 1,820,900 115,100 (73,771) (329,452) 1,436,048 1,051,563 1,198,027 2,456,035 1,889,900 1,992,911 Total governmental activities 48,311,000 51,544,700 51,313,072 53,746,122 58,580,355 58,079,385 60,133,033 65,178,716 65,626,272 73,336,174 Business-type activities
Investment earnings 726,10 $ 0 $ 73,500 $ 364,551 $ 361,627 $ 845,906 $ 182,261 $ 320,471 $ 2,516,216 $ 2,880,634 $ 577,722 Cumulative change in accounting principle - (842,600) -------- Income from investment in joint venture - - - -239,200 206,700 209,300 (25,469) 153,949 519,677 Prior period adjustment --------- 420,482Transfers (1,820,900) (115,100) 73,771 329,452 (1,436,048) (1,051,563) (1,198,027) (2,456,035) (1,889,900) (1,992,911) Total business-type activities (1,094,800) (884,200) 438,322 691,079 (350,942) (662,602) (668,256) 34,712 1,144,683 (475,030) Total primary government $ 47,216,200 $ 50,660,500 $ 51,751,394 $ 54,437,201 $ 58,229,413 $ 57,416,783 $ 59,464,777 $ 65,213,428 $ 66,770,955 $ 72,861,144 Change in net position:

Governmental activities $ 5,799,200 $ 6,651,200 $ 8,074,478 $ 15,853,818 $ 21,821,200 $ 8,691,598 $ 1,184,093 $ 618,977 $ 4,687,712 $ 22,310,916 Business-type activities 3,425,100 7,466,000 8,654,796 13,097,894 9,984,022 6,682,921 5,180,465 8,851,661 9,949,557 11,393,150 Total primary government $ 9,224,300 $ 14,117,200 $ 16,729,274 $ 28,951,712 $ 31,805,222 $ 15,374,519 $ 6,364,558 $ 9,470,638 $ 14,637,269 $ 33,704,066 164

Page 500 of 714 ends

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 General fund: Nonspendable: Prepaid items - $ 2,777,000 $ 3,191,055 $ 60,181 $ 56,020 $ 3,173,248 $ 3,520,473 $ 51,636 $ - $ 41,155 $ Restricted for: (Note 1) Debt service 602,800 331,600 312,037 303,126 489,056 128,102 159,724 - - - Committed to: (Note 1) General government programs 1,288,200 1,768,200 4,973,497 3,942,459 4,468,863 9,428,034 8,693,113 - 9,299,971 - Contingency Fund - - - - - - - - 11,830,380 -
Risk management - - - - - - - - 1,955,966 -
Assigned to:

Contingency Fund - 10,458,000 - 10,486,931 11,092,782 10,902,368 10,171,464 13,418,400 10,251,000 - Establishment of Section 115 Trust - - - - - - - 1,400,000 - 2,000,000 Revenue stabilization - - - - - - - 1,000,000 - -
Development Services - - 1,848,386 - 382,396 41,110 596,796 531,000 899,277 710,657 Public Safety - - - 97,239 - - - 1,096,215 - 929,344
Risk management - - - - - - - 1,498,078 - -
City Attorney - - - - 100,000 - 100,000 100,000 - 100,000 CalPERS pension payment - - - - - - - - 10,200,000 -
Subsequent years expenditures 11,900 - - 2,716,534 - - 9,908,932 - 10,284,119 4,738,806 Unassigned 11,781,500 14,060,900 1,382,590 7,828,485 10,419,881 2,723,292 6,334,870 6,185,574 7,122,607 5,311,792 Total general fund 13,684,400 18,937,700 20,317,179 24,566,807 29,625,532 26,496,154 29,576,440 30,095,542 33,651,296 47,118,071 For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30
Schedule 3
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Fund Balances, Governmental Funds
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(Modified Accrual Basis of Accounting)
165

Page 501 of 714 ends

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30
Schedule 3
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Fund Balances, Governmental Funds
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(Modified Accrual Basis of Accounting)
All other governmental funds:Unspendable - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 5,642 $ (71,687) $ 292,641 $ - $ - $ Restricted for: (Note 1) Debt service 2,017,900 2,043,200 2,043,222 2,140,980 2,119,724 2,119,611 1,653,109 1,791,026 2,226,898 2,575,367 Law enforcement grant programs 20,500 22,900 27,145 16,886 23,492 20,786 3,073 - 32,332 63,418 Transportation projects - - - - - - - 8,151,487 9,371,824 10,519,994 Affordable housing programs - - - - - - - 2,944,549 8,698,494 9,292,304 Impact fee programs - - - - - - - 1,870,656 3,126,925 7,466,378 Parkland development programs - - - - - - - 3,528,662 4,709,560 3,405,468 Public art programs - - - - - - - 620,934 591,097 568,401 Tourism programs - - - - - - - 456,023 322,975 678,554
Committed to: Affordable housing programs 1,052,000 1,254,900 2,946,847 2,601,882 2,562,825 5,054,332 3,974,629 - - - Assessment district programs 183,000 - - - - - - - - -
Capital outlay 1,227,700 1,326,000 6,045,091 3,632,641 2,954,223 - - - - - General government programs - 4,743,552 - 1,084,221 7,463,605 8,092,594 - - - - Impact Fees Programs 4,069,800 3,542,700 411,592 9,410,273 549,349 8,795,074 595,256 - - - Open space programs 183,400 194,300 1,582,425 983,402 1,265,620 588,743 2,363,347 - - - Parkland development programs 1,057,100 1,209,600 - - 2,728,883 - - - - - Contingency fund - - - - - 519,885 - - - -
Public art programs 373,700 347,400 - - - - - - - -
Assigned to: Contingency fund - - - - 900,000 - 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 Subsequent years expenditures 4,359,300 5,413,900 3,552,319 2,606,757 3,559,851 5,846,873 5,861,455 6,382,294 8,521,320 8,826,420 Unassigned - (2,500) 1,039 (83) - - (318,422) - (149,162) (5,782) Total all other governmental funds 14,544,400 15,352,400 21,353,232 22,476,959 20,498,689 26,059,944 23,891,661 26,619,850 38,352,263 44,290,522 Total all governmental funds $ 28,228,800 $ 34,290,100 $ 41,670,411 $ 47,043,766 $ 50,124,221 $ 52,556,098 $ 53,468,101 $ 56,715,392 $ 72,003,559 $ 91,408,593 Note:The City implemented GASB Statement No. 54 in the 2010-11 fiscal year which requires the City to use new designations of ending fund balances. 166

Page 502 of 714 ends

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Revenues: Sales and use - general 13,290,000 $ 14,242,200 $ 15,405,808 $ 15,272,683 $ 17,498,218 $ 16,737,005 $ 17,055,085 $ 17,805,482 $ 16,571,064 $ 20,067,740 $ Sales and Use - local sales tax 6,237,500 6,493,800 6,774,365 7,136,297 7,178,159 7,331,660 7,504,485 8,325,230 7,554,375 12,779,713 Prop. 172 Public Safety tax 307,400 327,700 391,567 409,590 405,066 405,512 397,488 314,063 416,459 425,136 Property tax 8,367,000 9,176,600 8,960,010 9,631,890 10,186,858 10,756,477 11,425,510 12,238,357 12,913,661 13,727,986 Transient Occupancy 5,222,000 5,572,400 6,063,232 6,805,742 7,127,756 7,381,989 7,514,289 8,061,087 6,325,841 6,960,035 Utility users tax 4,584,100 4,916,100 5,345,342 5,211,207 5,413,720 5,539,407 5,627,356 4,919,892 5,439,144 5,225,979 Property tax in-lieu of VLF (Note 1) 3,492,400 3,533,200 3,645,692 3,849,341 4,113,244 4,353,912 4,637,253 4,961,080 5,290,215 5,660,661 Franchise fees 2,462,300 2,552,300 2,636,599 2,790,077 1,537,922 1,557,128 1,597,655 1,428,296 1,888,414 1,796,829 Business tax 1,837,500 2,055,300 2,142,971 2,203,208 2,491,516 2,372,249 2,663,686 2,630,499 2,995,263 3,782,115 Real property transfer 144,000 256,300 287,560 298,191 366,088 332,314 347,765 273,762 388,075 469,883 Fines, forfeitures and penalties 174,300 159,700 150,185 184,320 172,353 139,534 199,374 155,269 239,048 223,882 Use of money and property 770,100 237,100 566,931 467,348 825,760 260,169 164,434 1,996,382 2,005,968 219,403 Vehicle License Fees (Note 1) 45,600 19,300 - - - - - - - - Subventions and grants 3,932,100 4,603,140 5,989,881 10,858,570 11,771,980 2,624,753 4,156,333 3,110,689 7,538,893 10,719,698 Charges for services 8,954,500 8,106,600 11,167,033 12,450,887 13,622,945 15,173,707 14,672,746 18,394,586 17,828,561 22,090,479 Other revenues 36,500 526,500 357,469 217,710 242,744 446,456 634,391 590,796 708,579 717,442 Total revenues 59,857,300 62,778,240 69,884,645 77,787,061 82,954,329 75,412,272 78,597,850 85,205,470 88,103,560 104,866,981 Expenditures:Current: General Government $ 8,175,200 $ 8,723,300 $ 9,362,031 $ 10,534,463 $ 12,409,567 $ 11,824,360 $ 12,709,324 $ 13,769,778 $ 14,503,410 $ 13,041,242 Public safety 23,953,200 23,973,400 24,798,500 24,356,077 26,468,454 28,091,747 28,862,906 31,714,220 30,216,995 31,714,578 Transportation 2,865,100 2,798,200 2,882,241 2,969,111 3,317,177 3,780,804 3,565,022 3,495,909 3,710,943 4,450,572 Culture and recreation 6,704,200 6,790,300 7,155,619 7,250,398 7,428,198 7,712,834 8,571,184 8,636,582 8,416,687 9,458,448 Community development 6,986,300 7,777,400 8,389,957 10,047,272 10,770,827 10,300,894 10,815,667 10,677,334 10,477,062 11,101,465 Debt service: Principal 1,493,200 1,543,000 1,534,668 3,856,325 1,792,849 2,101,296 15,665,904 1,974,050 1,605,239 1,602,039 Interest 1,211,800 1,192,700 1,048,671 1,063,820 1,349,216 1,215,504 1,524,180 809,977 993,697 808,586 Debt issuance costs - - - - - - - - - -
Capital: Public safety 447,900 457,700 892,351 2,371,865 1,220,759 1,772,454 506,491 706,918 182,235 107,965 Transportation 9,121,000 5,228,300 4,859,863 14,302,937 15,038,306 4,161,966 6,419,137 6,441,229 6,412,541 11,452,721 Culture and recreation 862,000 395,500 1,272,510 2,399,211 1,463,269 1,499,704 981,768 597,187 1,213,682 537,118 Community development (Note 2) 705,300 70,900 939,017 123,258 149,537 2,078,181 525,105 1,568,147 785,517 105,142 General government 274,900 429,700 145,199 1,684,045 590,263 633,682 1,192,424 4,695,978 2,081,482 2,492,435 Total expenditures 62,800,100 59,380,400 63,280,627 80,958,782 81,998,422 75,173,426 91,339,112 85,087,309 80,599,490 86,872,311 Excess of revenues over(under) expenditures (2,942,800) 3,397,840 6,604,018 (3,171,722) 955,907 238,846 (12,741,262) 118,161 7,504,070 17,994,670 Schedule 4
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds Last Ten Fiscal Years
(Modified accrual basis of accounting)
167

Page 503 of 714 ends

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Schedule 4
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds Last Ten Fiscal Years
(Modified accrual basis of accounting)
Other FinancingSources(Uses):Sale of surplus property 30,200 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Issuance of debt/refunding debt 5,050,000 - 850,775 8,372,323 688,500 1,141,468 12,472,698 673,095 - - Cost of debt issuance - (11,500) - - - - - - - -
Payment to refunded bond escrow agent (5,442,200) - - - - - - - - - Transfers in 8,121,200 8,407,600 13,834,998 11,682,079 12,747,578 15,739,036 19,815,144 9,064,256 9,455,785 15,460,955 Transfers out (8,101,100) (8,292,500) (13,908,769) (12,011,531) (11,311,530) (14,687,473) (18,617,117) (6,608,221) (7,565,885) (13,468,044) Total other financing sources(uses) (341,900) 103,600 777,004 8,042,871 2,124,548 2,193,031 13,670,725 3,129,130 1,889,900 1,992,911 Net change in fund balance (3,284,700) $ 3,501,440 $ 7,381,022 $ 4,871,150 $ 3,080,455 $ 2,431,877 $ 929,463 $ 3,247,291 $ 9,393,970 $ 19,987,581 $ Debt service as a percentage of noncapital expenditures 6.68% 6.62% 5.98% 8.92% 5.20% 5.37% 26.64% 4.08% 3.86% 3.46%Notes:1. Beginning in 2005-06 the State implemented a "VLF swap," under which an equal amount of Vehicle License Fees was "swapped" for an equal amount of revenues to be collected on the property tax roll. 2. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) expenditures are included in the Community Development total for purposes of this schedule. 168

Page 504 of 714 ends

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Staffing: Salaries and wages: Regular salaries 23,432,400 $ 23,214,900 $ 23,242,170 $ 23,804,510 $ 24,790,947 $ 26,944,188 $ 26,666,447 $ 27,520,149 $ 28,601,004 $ 29,014,941 $ Temporary salaries 1,626,900 1,812,700 2,191,214 2,137,487 1,964,521 1,793,360 1,711,755 1,898,331 1,882,307 2,294,603 Overtime 2,763,100 3,309,000 3,018,181 3,222,698 3,473,489 3,604,336 4,420,756 4,241,294 3,292,469 4,527,789 Benefits: Retirement 8,444,000 7,661,900 7,637,931 7,943,827 9,323,782 10,394,523 10,570,883 15,150,755 12,593,753 13,344,252 Group health/disability ins (Note 1) 3, 3,463,500 441,700 3,387,101 3,319,117 3,828,238 4,129,004 4,638,471 4,193,021 4,291,139 4,142,150 Medicare 371,200 384,400 393,913 408,889 418,704 455,966 469,688 477,925 481,571 505,450 Unemployment Reimbursements 26,200 28,800 31,634 48,588 5,159 150,929 61,972 - 61,240 - Total staffing 40,105,500 39,875,200 39,902,144 40,885,116 43,804,840 47,472,306 48,539,972 53,481,475 51,203,483 53,829,185 Contract services 4,306,000 5,208,900 5,725,290 5,903,638 6,271,607 6,962,949 6,940,018 6,557,939 6,444,957 8,044,482Other operating expenditures Communications & utilities 1,658,000 1,842,300 2,034,997 1,945,243 2,192,384 2,023,057 2,190,695 2,444,564 2,115,821 2,494,018 Rents & leases 136,800 139,600 197,104 159,718 164,729 170,288 171,909 180,478 160,045 88,615 Insurance: General liability & property 1,475,600 1,320,700 1,425,450 1,646,605 1,847,422 1,273,133 1,658,319 1,600,962 2,196,462 1,323,824 Workers compensation 594,400 918,000 1,405,916 1,631,585 2,019,722 1,627,423 2,145,046 2,422,843 2,611,827 2,037,611 Other operating expenditures 2,696,500 2,910,900 2,991,619 3,635,542 3,079,347 3,345,191 3,017,537 3,575,930 4,902,050 4,256,574 Total operating expenditures 6,561,300 7,131,500 8,055,086 9,018,693 9,303,604 8,439,092 9,183,506 10,224,777 11,986,205 10,200,642 Minor capital 14,200 99,400 195,473 78,414 92,853 203,098 90,346 - - 1,070 Total program expenditures 50,987,000 52,315,000 53,877,993 55,885,861 59,472,903 63,077,445 64,753,842 70,264,191 69,634,645 72,075,379 Reimbursed expenditures (3,774,900) (3,732,100) (3,897,420) (3,451,208) (4,008,992) (4,164,747) (4,264,633) (3,981,789) (4,277,664) (4,578,402) Total general fund operating expenditures $ 47,212,100 $ 48,582,900 $ 49,980,573 $ 52,434,653 $ 55,463,911 $ 58,912,698 $ 60,489,209 $ 66,282,402 $ 65,356,981 $ 67,496,977 Note:1. Beginning in 2008-09, the City began to fund retiree health costs on a full accrual basis. The added cost compared with the prior "pay-as-you-go" approach in 2011-12 is $364,800. While this change in accounting increases costs initially, in the not-so-distant future (about 12 years), it becomes a much less expensive option than continuing "pay-as-you-go" cash funding.

Schedule 5
City of San Luis Obispo, California
General Fund Operating Expenditures by Type
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(Modified Accrual Basis of Accounting)
169

Page 505 of 714 ends

Fiscal Sales Local Property Transient Utility Property Franchise Business Other Year and Use Sales (Note 2) (Note 1) Occupancy Users in-lieu of VLF Fees Tax Taxes Total 2011-12 13,290,000 $ 6,237,500 $ 8,367,000$ 5,222,000$ 4,584,100$ $ 3,492,400 $ 2,462,300 1,837,500$ $ 227,200 $ 45,720,000 2012-13 14,242,200 6,493,800 9,176,600 5,572,400 4,916,100 3,533,200 2,552,300 2,055,300 349,900 48,891,800 2013-14 15,405,808 6,774,365 8,960,010 6,063,232 5,345,692 3,645,692 2,636,599 2,142,971 679,127 51,653,496 2014-15 15,272,683 7,136,297 9,631,890 6,805,742 5,211,207 3,849,341 2,790,077 2,203,208 707,781 53,608,226 2015-16 17,498,218 7,178,159 10,186,858 7,127,756 5,413,720 4,113,244 1,537,922 2,491,516 771,154 56,318,547 2016-17 16,737,005 7,331,660 10,756,477 7,381,989 5,539,407 4,353,912 1,557,128 2,372,249 737,826 56,767,653 2017-18 17,055,085 7,504,485 11,425,510 7,514,289 5,627,356 4,637,253 1,597,655 2,663,686 745,253 58,770,572 2018-19 18,119,545 8,325,230 12,238,357 8,061,087 4,919,892 4,961,080 1,428,296 2,630,499 273,762 60,957,748 2019-20 16,571,064 7,554,375 12,913,661 6,325,841 5,439,144 5,290,215 1,888,414 2,995,263 388,075 59,366,052 2020-21 20,067,740 12,779,713 13,772,733 6,960,035 5,225,979 5,660,661 1,796,829 3,782,115 425,136 70,470,941 Notes:1. Property tax revenues are presented net of SB2557 County administrative fees (approximately 3% of total property tax revenues). The City has elected to receive its property tax revenues based on the Teeter Plan method of collection whereby the County remits 100% of taxes levied, pursues collection and retains any delinquent taxes and related penalties and interest.2. In November 2014 voters in San Luis Obispo reauthorized the local half-percent sales and use tax measure (Measure G) .In November 2020 voters in San Luis Obispo replaced the local half-percent sales and use tax with a 1.5% local sales and use tax (Measure G-20). (Accrual Basis of Accounting)
Schedule 6
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Governmental Activities Tax and Franchise Revenues by Source Last Ten Fiscal Years
170

Page 506 of 714 ends

Fiscal Year Homeowners Secured Roll Nonunitary Unsecured Total Direct Market Value of Market Exemptions Gross Value Utilities Roll TOTAL Tax Rate (Note 1) Value 2011-12 41,988,100 5,894,189,700 6,842,300 275,800,100 6,176,832,100 1.00% 6,176,832,100 100% 2012-13 41,572,300 5,963,182,500 5,382,272 279,203,900 6,261,931,900 1.00% 6,261,931,900 100% 2013-14 41,327,300 6,152,693,400 5,300,173 295,626,200 6,467,600,400 1.00% 6,467,600,400 100% 2014-15 41,185,200 6,512,370,260 5,032,204 297,325,321 6,814,727,785 1.00% 6,814,727,785 100% 2015-16 41,518,400 6,965,233,454 4,883,115 305,427,553 7,275,544,122 1.00% 7,275,544,122 100% 2016-17 42,109,709 7,393,890,993 5,269,573 303,122,262 7,702,282,828 1.00% 7,702,282,828 100% 2017-18 42,702,377 7,844,131,236 4,369,188 331,183,030 8,179,683,454 1.00% 8,179,683,454 100% 2018-19 43,352,906 8,688,541,007 4,231,993 359,588,899 9,052,361,899 1.00% 9,052,361,899 100% 2019-20 43,335,854 9,156,811,458 3,990,145 360,372,662 9,521,174,265 1.00% 9,521,174,265 100% 2020-21 43,445,185 9,872,892,242 4,194,503 371,969,399 10,249,056,144 1.00% 10,249,056,144 100% Notes: 1. Valuations are established by the County Assessor of the County of San Luis Obispo, except for property owned by private utility companies, which is valued by the State of California. The City assumes that Market Values are equal to total Assessed Valuation.2. For comparison purposes, gross assessed valuations include homeowners' exemptions. Although these exemptions reduce property tax collections, the revenue loss is reimbursed by the State of California. As such, gross assessed valuation is the revenue base used in establishing property tax-related revenues.

Source: HdL, Coren & Cone ACFR 2020-21 report - 2020/21 Roll Summary table.

Gross Assessed Valuation (Notes 1 and 2)
Schedule 7
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Assessed Value and Estimated Actual Value of Taxable Property Last Ten Fiscal Years
171

Page 507 of 714 ends

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Proposition 13 maximum tax rate (Note 2) 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000Voter approved indebtedness: State Water Bond 0.00300 0.00400 0.00400 0.00400 0.00374 0.00400 0.00400 0.00400 0.00400 0.00400 Cuesta Community College 2014 A & A1 - - - - 0.01925 0.01925 0.01925 0.01925 0.01925 0.01925 San Luis Coastal Usd 2014 Series A & B - - - - 0.04900 0.04900 0.04900 0.04900 0.04900 0.03900 Total (Notes 1 and 3) 1.00300 1.00400 1.00400 1.00400 1.07199 1.07225 1.07225 1.07225 1.07225 1.06225 Notes:1. Property tax rates are levied per $100 of assessed valuation. The tax rate information provided is for Tax Rate Area 003-000, which is the largest tax rate area in the City.2. The passage of Proposition 13 on June 6, 1978 established a maximum County-wide levy for general revenue purposes of 1% of market value. Voter-approved tax rates for the retirement of long-term liabilities were excluded from this limit.3. It is not possible to identify tax rates for individual agencies however, the following is a summary of derived property tax allocations within Tax Rate Area 003-000 for Fiscal Year 2020-21Source: HdL, Coren & Cone ACFR 2020-21 report - Property Tax Dollar Breakdown and Direct & Overlapping Property Tax Rates table Base ERAF NetRate Allocation Apportionment
San Luis Coastal Unified School District 36.10 0.00 36.10San Luis Obispo County - General Fund 30.32 (8.09) 22.23City of San Luis Obispo 18.36 * (3.48) 14.88 San Luis Obispo Community College District 6.42 0.00 6.42County School Services 3.81 0.00 3.81 City/County Library 1.98 (0.32) 1.66Port San Luis Harbor 1.63 (0.44) 1.19 Other Agencies 1.38 (0.32) 1.06
Education Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) 0.00 12.65 12.65 Total 100% 0% 100%
*The County further adjusts the 18.4% base rate for revenue shifts to school districts as directed by the State as part of their cuts to local agencies,resulting in an effective rate for the City of approximately 14.9%. Source: San Luis Obispo County Assessor 2019-20 Post ERAF TRA Allocation Factors Schedule 8
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Property Tax Rates
Last Ten Fiscal Years
172

Page 508 of 714 ends

Number of Secured Percent of Total Number of Secured Percent of Total Owner Parcels Assessed Value Rank City Assessed Value Parcels Assessed Value Rank City Assessed ValueJamestown Premier San Luis Obispo Retail 10 $ 113,440,375 1 1.14% $ - CAP VIII - Mustang Village LLC 5 97,029,544 2 0.98% -Sierra Vista Hospital Inc. 8 83,300,472 3 0.84% 7 76,036,123 1 1.23% San Luis Obispo Promenade DE LLC 10 70,305,018 4 0.71% - Charles Pasquini Jr Trust Et Al 4 51,837,596 5 0.52% 6 43,787,019 3 0.71% Irish Hills Plaza East LLC 6 51,635,556 6 0.52% 0
Presidio WH SLR 80 Towns LLC 1 37,802,987 7 0.38% -Costco Wholesale Corporation 1 37,173,300 8 0.37% 1 32,075,399 6 0.52% BRE Atlas Property Owner LLC 1 33,760,401 9 0.34% -
Hotel San Luis Obispo LLC 1 33,416,677 10 0.34% -CSHV Mustang Village LLC 4 75,358,197 - 2 1.22% Irish Hills Plaza West LLC - 2 34,073,604 4 0.55%JM Wilson Promenade Properties II LLC - 10 32,700,000 5 0.53%Charter Communications Properties LLC - 3 19,380,050 7 0.43%Marigold Center LLC - 9 25,144,996 8 0.41%Stephen N Dorsi Trust - 9 21,282,472 9 0.34%CP Court Street LLC - 1 20,345,049 10 0.33% Total 47 609,701,926 $ 6.14% 52 380,182,909 $ 6.27% Source: HdL, Coren & Cone ACFR 2020-21 and 2011-12 reports - Top Ten Property Taxpayers table.

Schedule 9
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Principal Property Tax Payers
Current Year and Nine Years Ago
2020-21 2011-12
173

Page 509 of 714 ends

Total Secured Current Year Percent
Fiscal Tax Levy Current Year Percent Delinquencies Delinquent Year (Notes 1 and 2) Collections Collected (Note 3) (Note 3) 2011-12 $ 8,269,300 $ 8,269,300 100% $ - $ -
2012-13 8,151,000 8,151,000 100% - -
2013-14 8,601,630 8,601,630 100% - -
2014-15 9,097,280 9,097,280 100% - -
2015-16 9,707,340 9,707,340 100% - -
2016-17 10,250,205 10,250,205 100% - -2017-18 10,868,920 10,868,920 100% - -2018-19 11,648,706 11,648,706 100% - -2019-20 12,180,662 12,180,662 100% - -2020-21 12,957,910 12,957,910 100% - - Schedule 10
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Secured Property Tax Roll Levies and Collections
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Notes:1. The secured property tax roll is composed of ad valorem taxes as well as special assessments, and is calculated by the San Luis Obispo County Auditor-Controller. The San Luis Obispo County Tax Collector is responsible for all property tax roll collections within the City of San Luis Obispo. The amount reported is before the SB2557 County administrative fees of approximately 3% of total property tax revenues.3. The City has elected the Teeter Plan method of property tax collection, whereby the County remits 100% of taxes levied and pursues collection and retains any delinquent taxes and related penalties and interest.Source: San Luis Obispo County Auditor-Controller - 2020-21 Property Tax Estimates and Delinquencies Report2. The secured levy does not include supplemental assessments, unsecured tax revenues, or prior year adjustments, which can be significant. For example, in 2012-13 revenue to the City from supplemental assessments was $99,500 and $215,100 from unsecured. A one-time refund was received from the County Auditor-Controller, refunding $632,800 representing prior overcharges for the SB2557 fee. Property tax revenues totaled $8,740,762. 174

Page 510 of 714 ends

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Sales In Thousands of DollarsApparel stores $ 70,240 71,723$ 73,170$ 73,241$ 75,037$ 72,522$ 74,300$ 72,735$ 71,058$ $ 50,586 General merchandise stores 148,869 171,667 173,940 179,551 182,530 179,478 182,184 179,353 181,492 173,776Food and drug stores 39,565 39,704 40,638 41,985 43,799 43,473 46,065 47,138 48,805 49,999Eating & drinking palces 127,627 142,844 147,953 159,828 172,341 178,362 184,366 184,909 188,430 138,499Building materials & farm tools 102,999 111,633 126,123 133,143 140,258 142,370 159,569 162,295 163,186 165,484Auto dealers & supplies 193,085 227,510 269,602 287,880 304,905 306,812 319,977 323,272 322,174 325,247Service stations 103,659 107,588 103,094 101,510 88,116 78,033 83,481 94,320 95,367 67,374Other retail stores 256,828 263,571 262,668 267,764 277,591 282,844 278,792 279,760 263,986 243,728 Total retail stores 1,042,872 1,136,240 1,197,188 1,244,902 1,284,577 1,283,894 1,328,734 1,343,782 1,334,498 1,214,693All other outlets 286,156 278,271 293,532 311,225 359,242 363,023 372,575 431,884 421,068 513,322 Total 1,329,028 1,414,511 1,490,720 1,556,127 1,643,819 1,646,917 1,701,309 1,775,666 1,755,566 1,728,015 Source: HdL, Coren & Cone ACFR 2020-21 report - Taxable Sales by Category table Schedule 11
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Schedule of Taxable Sales and Permits by Category
Last Ten Calendar Years
175

Page 511 of 714 ends

Effective End State Local City Combined
Date Date Jurisdiction Transportation Fund Rate Rate
8/1/1933 6/30/1935 (Note 2) 2.50% 2.50%
7/1/1935 6/30/1943 3.00% 3.00%
7/1/1943 6/30/1949 2.50% 2.50%
7/1/1949 12/31/1961 3.00% 3.00%
1/1/1962 7/31/1967 3.00% 1.00% 4.00%
8/1/1967 6/30/1972 4.00% 1.00% 5.00%
7/1/1972 6/30/1973 3.75% 0.25% 1.00% 5.00%
7/1/1973 9/30/1973 4.75% 0.25% 1.00% 6.00%
10/1/1973 3/31/1974 3.75% 0.25% 1.00% 5.00%
4/1/1974 11/30/1989 4.75% 0.25% 1.00% 6.00%
12/1/1989 12/31/1990 5.00% 0.25% 1.00% 6.25%
1/1/1991 7/14/1991 4.75% 0.25% 1.00% 6.00%
7/15/1991 12/31/2000 6.00% 0.25% 1.00% 7.25%
1/1/2001 12/31/2001 5.75% 0.25% 1.00% 7.00%
1/1/2002 6/30/2004 6.00% 0.25% 1.00% 7.25%
7/1/2004 3/31/2007 (Note 3) 6.25% 0.25% 0.75% (Note 3) 7.25% 4/1/2007 3/31/2009 6.25% 0.25% 1.25% (Note 4) 7.75%
4/1/2009 6/30/2011 7.25% 0.25% 1.25% 8.75%
7/1/2011 12/31/2012 6.25% 0.25% 1.25% 7.75%
1/1/2013 12/31/2016 7.25% 0.25% 0.50% (Note 5) 8.00%
1/1/2017 3/31/2021 7.00% 0.25% 0.50% 7.75%
4/1/2021 current 7.00% 0.25% 1.50% (Note 6) 8.75%
Notes:1. The Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law was enacted in 1955. The law authorizes cities and counties to impose a sales and use4. In November 2006, voters in San Luis Obispo approved a local sales tax measure increasing the City rate by 1/2%, which became effective tax. Effective January 1, 1962, all cities and counties have adopted ordinances for the State Board of Equalization to collect the local tax. 2. Sales tax only. The use tax was enacted effective July 1, 1935.3. In March 2004, a State ballot measure was passed issuing deficit reduction bonds for State purposes. Funding was provided effective July 1, 2004 by 6. In November 2020, voters in San Luis Obispo approved a local sales tax measure increasing the City rate by 1.5%, which became effective April 1, 2021. The sales tax measure has no sunset provision and replaced the 2014 Measure G.Source: State Board of Equalization, State of California Schedule 12
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Historical Sales and Use Tax Rates
April 1, 2007. The sales tax measure has a sunset provision of 8 years. The local Sales Tax was extended as Measure G in the November 2014 election for 8 years.5. Proposition 30, The Schools and Local Public Safety Protection Act of 2012 , was approved by California voters in November 2012 to temporarily increase the sales and use tax by 0.25%. The sales and use tax imposed by Proposition 30 expired December 31, 2016. repealing 25% of the local 1% sales tax and then adopting a new 1/4-cent sales tax dedicated to repayment of the deficit reduction bonds. Cities and counties would then be "made whole" by the State from increased property tax allocations via reduced contributions to ERAF. This "triple flip" is theoretically revenue-neutral, and as such, the effective rate for revenue purposes remains at 1%. 176

Page 512 of 714 ends

No. of No. of
Certificates Percent Certificates Percent
Construction 888 11.6% 932 12.1%
Manufacturing 128 1.7% 143 1.9%
Transportation/Utilities 45 0.6% 45 0.6%
Wholesale 122 1.6% 129 1.7%
Retail 941 12.3% 972 12.7%
Professional 1,074 14.0% 1,159 15.1%Residential Rental 2,097 27.3% 2,134 27.8% Commercial Rental 300 3.9% 294 3.8%
Services 1,787 23.3% 1,867 24.3%
Total business certificates issued 7,382 96% 7,675 100% Home occupations 661 9.0% 693 9.0%Located outside City limits 1,767 23.9% 1,839 24.0%Located in Downtown Business Improvement District 546 7.4% 572 7.5%Source: City of San Luis Obispo Finance Department - Revenue Division Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 2021 and 2020
Schedule of Business Tax Certificates Issued
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Schedule 13
2021 2020
177

Page 513 of 714 ends

Percentage of
Fiscal Lease Purchase Lease Purchase Installment Total Primary Per Gross Assessed Year Bonds Financing Loans Bonds Financing Sales Agreement Loans Government Capita Value 2011-12 24,962,100 955,900 - 30,082,900 302,300 1,735,000 22,976,300 81,014,500 1,788 1.31% 2012-13 23,574,900 823,400 2,025,100 28,625,150 - 1,620,000 20,309,200 76,977,750 1,690 1.23% 2013-14 22,152,010 711,622 850,775 27,083,025 - 8,979,000 19,446,784 79,223,216 1,742 1.27% 2014-15 28,556,715 1,127,606 766,092 25,983,320 - 8,481,043 18,559,851 83,474,627 1,836 1.28%2015-16 27,762,893 1,374,773 679,314 25,323,405 - 7,932,327 17,647,622 80,720,334 1,741 1.16%2016-17 26,328,540 1,898,652 591,647 24,072,708 - 7,366,468 16,709,160 76,967,175 1,660 0.99%2017-18 23,484,450 1,599,769 503,101 21,815,204 - 6,783,114 15,743,808 69,929,446 1,497 0.91%2018-19 22,171,441 1,413,937 413,667 19,542,657 - 6,181,902 14,750,783 64,474,387 1,385 0.79%2019-20 21,084,777 1,381,486 323,380 18,185,089 - 5,562,462 26,133,837 72,671,031 1,583 0.76%2020-21 20,038,779 734,673 232,111 16,772,171 - 4,919,407 56,229,546 98,926,687 2,102 0.97% Source: City of San Luis Obispo Finance Department
Schedule 14
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Per Capita Outstanding Debt By Type
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Governmental Activities Business-Type Activities
178

Page 514 of 714 ends

Service Ratio of Net
Total Taxable General Payable from Net Bonded Debt Net Bonded Assessed Bonded Enterprise Bonded to Assessed Debt per
Fiscal Year Population Value Debt Revenues Debt Value Capita 2011-12 $ 6,176,832,100 45,308 $ - $ $ - $ - 0.0% $ -
2012-13 6,261,931,900 45,541 - - - 0.0% -
2013-14 6,467,600,400 45,473 - - - 0.0% -2014-15 6,814,727,785 45,484 - - - 0.0% -2015-16 7,275,544,122 46,117 - - - 0.0% -2016-17 7,702,282,828 46,724 - - - 0.0% -2017-18 8,179,683,454 46,548 - - - 0.0% -2018-19 9,052,361,899 46,802 - - - 0.0% -2019-20 9,521,174,265 45,920 - - - 0.0% -2020-21 10,249,056,144 47,063 - - - 0.0% -Notes:1. Valuations are established by the County Assessor of the County of San Luis Obispo, except for property owned by private utility companies, which is valued by the State of California.2. See Schedule of Demographic and Economic Statistics for population data. 3. Personal income information is not available. Net Bonded Debt is expressed as a ratio to Assessed Value. Source: HdL, Coren & Cone ACFR 2020-21 report - Demographic and Economic Statistics tableDemographics changed from FY to Calendar Year Schedule 15
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Ratio of Net General Bonded Debt to Assessed Value and Net Bonded Debt per Capital Last Ten Fiscal Years
179

Page 515 of 714 ends

Amount Applicable
Percent Applicable to the City of
to the City of San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo as of June 30, 2021
Direct long-term debt: City of San Luis Obispo 2018 Water Revenue Refunding Bonds 100.000% $ 8,785,000 City of San Luis Obispo 2012 Refunding Revenue Bonds (2001) 100.000% 2,970,000 City of San Luis Obispo 2012 Water Revenue Refunding Bonds (2002) 100.000% 1,080,000 City of San Luis Obispo 2014 LOVR Lease Revenue Bonds 100.000% 6,635,000 City of San Luis Obispo 2018 Lease Revenue Bonds 14,065,000 33,535,000
Overlapping long-term debt (percentage of overlapping agency's assessed valuation located within boundaries of the City): San Luis Obispo County General Fund Obligations 16.450% 3,988,804 San Luis Obispo County Pension Obligations 16.450% 5,495,679 City of San Luis Obispo Lease Revenue Bonds 100.000% 25,589,892 35,074,375
Less: City of San Luis Obispo obligations supported by enterprise revenues 4,852,425 Total gross direct and overlapping long-term debt 30,221,950 Less self-supporting issues: City of San Luis Obispo 2018 Water Revenue Refunding Bonds 8,785,000 City of San Luis Obispo 2012 Water Revenue Refunding Bonds (2002) 1,080,000 Total self-supporting issues 9,865,000Net direct and overlapping long-term debt $ 20,356,950 Ratio of long-term debt to assessed valuation and population Gross Assessed Valuation $ 9,521,174,265
Population 47,063
Percent of Gross Per Capita
Amount Assessed Valuation Long-Term Debt
Direct and Overlapping Debt:

Gross $30,221,950 0.3% $642.16Net 20,356,950 0.2% 433
Direct Debt:

Gross $33,535,000 0.4% $712.56Net 23,670,000 0.2% 503
Source: California Municipal Statistics, Inc., HdL, Coren & Cone ACFR 2020-21 report - Demographic and Economic Statistics table Schedule 16
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Direct and Overlapping Long-Term Debt
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021
180

Page 516 of 714 ends

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Legal debt limit 231,384 $ 234,822 $ 241,812 $ 244,175$ 272,833$ 288,836$ 306,738$ 339,464$ $ 357,044 $ 357,044 Total debt applicable to limitLegal debt margin 231,384 234,822 241,812 244,175 272,833 288,836 306,738 339,464 357,044 357,044 Total debt applicable to the limit
as a percentage of debt limit 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Legal Debt Margin Calculation for Fiscal Year 2020-21Gross Assessed Valuation $ 9,521,174,265 Legal Debt Limit - 3.75% of Gross Assessed Valuation $ 357,044,035Long-term Debt:

Revenue Bonds Secured by Capital Leases $ 23,670,000
Water Revenue Bonds 9,865,000
33,535,000
Less deductions allowed by law:

Revenue Bonds Secured by Capital Leases 23,670,000Water Revenue Bonds 9,865,000 33,535,000
Total debt applicable to computed limit $ -Legal debt margin $ 357,044,035 Note: The California Government Code provides for a legal debt limit of 15% of gross assessed valuation based on 25% of market value, or a legal debt limit of 3.75%. The City's debt management policy, however, sets a more restrictive debt limit of 2% of assessed valuation.

Schedule 17
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Computation of Legal Debt Margin
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(Amounts Expressed in Thousands)
181

Page 517 of 714 ends

Less Operating & Net Revenue Coverage
Fiscal Operating Development Other Maintenance Available for With Year Revenues Impact Fees Revenues Expenses Bond Debt Service Principal Interest Total Coverage Impact Fees 2011-12 16,266,300 (643,200) 825,400 (13,666,100) 2,782,400 1,146,885 1,137,445 2,284,330 122% 150% 2012-13 18,250,700 (1,578,100) 97,500 (13,353,300) 3,416,800 1,096,215 995,419 2,091,634 163% 239%2013-14 19,676,199 (819,477) 215,915 (13,996,427) 5,076,210 1,160,700 964,148 2,124,848 239% 277%2014-15 20,552,417 (2,471,501) 59,594 (13,451,298) 4,689,212 1,285,686 906,775 2,192,461 214% 327%2015-16 20,137,422 (1,543,268) 53,731 (14,056,603) 4,591,282 1,245,486 881,318 2,126,804 216% 288%2016-17 19,873,517 (1,266,674) 410,484 (14,754,114) 4,263,213 1,290,748 837,657 2,128,405 200% 260%2017-18 21,997,054 (2,131,345) 325,268 (16,250,751) 3,940,226 1,336,267 792,337 2,128,604 185% 285%2018-19 23,992,758 (3,745,666) 948,324 (15,995,459) 5,199,957 2,281,739 858,471 3,140,210 166% 285%2019-20 25,666,777 (3,723,460) 663,838 (19,485,472) 3,121,683 1,367,920 637,348 2,005,268 156% 341%2020-21 28,340,076 (4,744,361) 65,386 (17,765,625) 5,895,476 960,390 527,682 1,488,072 396% 715% Notes:2. The City refinanced its 2005 Refunding Lease Revenue Bonds, 2006 Lease Revenue Bonds, and 2009 Lease Revenue Bonds into the 2018 Lease Revenue Bonds.4. Net revenues available for debt service exclude development impact fees. 5. Operating expenses exclude depreciation and amortization.Source: City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department City of San Luis Obispo, California
Schedule 18

3. Principal and interest amounts do not include the subordinate private placement loan retired in 2013.

Bonded Debt Service Requirements

1. Debt service requirements include 2012 Refunding Revenue Bonds, 2006 Refunding Revenue Bonds, and the 2004 state revolving loan Last Ten Fiscal Years
Revenue Bond Coverage - Water Fund
182

Page 518 of 714 ends

Net Revenue
Fiscal Gross Operating Available for
Year Revenues Expenses Bond Debt Service Principal Interest Total Coverage 2011-12 3,688,200 (2,351,400) 1,336,800 642,600 408,100 1,050,700 127% 2012-13 4,726,000 (2,440,600) 2,285,400 663,500 386,000 1,049,500 218% 2013-14 4,122,860 (2,488,797) 1,634,063 690,600 361,822 1,052,422 155% 2014-15 4,905,494 (2,409,027) 2,496,467 447,962 504,407 952,369 262% 2015-16 4,606,249 (2,757,299) 1,848,950 466,185 501,631 967,816 191% 2016-17 4,659,562 (2,671,028) 1,988,534 481,981 487,407 969,388 205% 2017-18 6,651,038 (2,998,555) 3,652,483 498,058 469,314 967,372 378% 2018-19 5,443,038 (3,100,113) 2,342,925 672,346 353,790 1,026,136 228% 2019-20 3,840,059 (3,080,588) 759,471 513,480 354,806 868,286 87% 2020-21 2,768,419 (3,093,183) (324,764) 531,091 295,489 826,580 -39% Notes:1. In 1994 the Capital Improvement Lease Revenue Bonds were refinanced resulting in new debt of $11,780,000, of which $7,421,400 is designated for the Parking Fund. In 2004 the 1994 bonds were refinanced with a maturity date of 2014. In 2006 Lease Revenue Bonds were issued resulting in new debt of $16,160,000, of which $8,726,400 is allocated to the Parking Fund.3. Operating expenses exclude depreciation.Source: City of San Luis Obispo Finance Department. 2. The City refinanced its 2005 Refunding Lease Revenue Bonds, 2006 Lease Revenue Bonds, and 2009 Lease Revenue Bonds into the 2018 Lease Revenue Bonds.

Bonded Debt Service Requirements
Schedule 19
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Revenue Bond Coverage - Parking Fund
Last Ten Fiscal Years
183

Page 519 of 714 ends

Personal Public Elementary and Cuesta College
Calendar Income Median Secondary School Full Time Enrollment Unemployment Year Population (1) in 000's (2) Age (2) Enrollment (3) SLO Campus (4) Rate (2) 2011 45,308 1,178 24.5 7,402 6,187 10.2%
2012 45,541 1,163 24.5 7,368 5,651 6.7%
2013 45,473 1,242 25.3 7,366 5,751 5.7%
2014 45,484 1,191 25.0 7,636 5,116 5.9%
2015 46,117 1,211 25.0 7,638 5,402 4.9%
2016 46,724 1,270 25.4 7,718 4,757 4.5%
2017 46,548 1,300 26.1 7,755 4,988 3.2%
2018 46,802 1,398 26.5 7,813 4,515 2.5%
2019 45,920 1,505 26.2 7,801 4,627 2.4%
2020 47,063 1,625 26.7 7,491 1,114 7.7%
Sources:1. Beginning in 2020, population data source is US Census2. HdL, Coren & Cone ACFR 2020-21 report - Demographic and Economic Statistics table3. CA Dept of Education DataQuest: Enrollment Reports, by Academic Year start date4. https://www.cuesta.edu/about/depts/research/Enrollment_Management.html Post Term FTES Dashboard, 320 Year Reported by academic year start date Schedule 20
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Demographic and Economic Statistics
For The Last Ten Calendar Years
184

Page 520 of 714 ends

Percentage Percentage
Number of Total City Number of Total City
Employer Employees Rank Employment Employees Rank EmploymentCal Poly State University 3,100 1 13.08% 2,426 2 8.48%County of San Luis Obispo 2,920 2 12.32% 2,601 1 9.09%Dept. of State Hospitals - Atascadero 2,140 3 9.03%Pacific Gas & Electric Company 1,950 4 8.23%California Men's Colony 1,500 5 6.33% 1,768 3 6.18%Tenet Health Central Coast 1,305 6 5.51%Compass Health 1,200 7 5.06%San Luis Coastal Unified School District 1,200 8 5.06% 828 6 2.90%Dignity Health Central Coast 1,000 9 4.22%Lucia Mar Unified School District 1,000 10 4.22% 1,100 4 3.85%King Ventures 850 5 2.97%French Hospital 520 7 1.82%Rabobank 450 8 1.57%San Luis Obispo County Office of Education 450 9 1.57%City of San Luis Obispo 377 10 1.32%Total 17,315 73.06% 11,370 30.66% Source for the 2020-21 employers information is Pacific Business Times Top Employers of San Luis Obispo County List. 2011-12 data is from the City's ACFR.

Schedule 21
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Principal Employers
Current Year and Nine Years Ago
2020-21 2011-12
185

Page 521 of 714 ends

Function 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Public Safety
Police Sworn 57.0 57.0 60.0 60.0 61.0 61.0 61.5 61.5 64.5 65.0 Non-sworn 26.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 24.0 24.0 24.0 25.5 Fire Sworn 44.0 44.0 49.0 49.0 50.0 47.0 47.0 47.0 47.0 47.0 Non-sworn 7.8 6.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.5 Public Utilities 60.9 61.9 64.8 64.8 67.1 69.1 69.1 69.1 69.1 69.9Transportation 31.8 31.8 28.9 28.9 36.8 36.8 36.8 36.8 36.8 37.1Culture and recreation 32.0 32.0 34.0 34.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 34.0 33.0Community Development 42.8 43.8 39.5 40.0 51.0 51.0 47.4 47.9 47.5 47.5General Government 50.5 52.2 56.0 56.0 57.0 61.0 61.0 62.3 64.8 72.3Total 353.3 355.0 361.7 362.2 387.4 396.4 391.8 393.6 397.7 406.8 Ratio of Sworn Police Personnel per 1,000 Population:* 1.26 1.25 1.32 1.32 1.33 1.31 1.38 1.31 1.34 1.38 Ratio of Sworn Fire Personnel per 1,000 Population:* 0.97 0.97 1.08 1.08 1.06 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.02 1.00 *Does not include the Cal Poly student and faculty population served.Note: See Schedule of Demographic and Economic Statistics for population data.Source: City of San Luis Obispo Finance Department Schedule 22
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Regular Authorized Positions
Last Ten Fiscal Years
186

Page 522 of 714 ends

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Function/Program:Police:Calls for police/fire service 34,751 36,236 34,659 36,515 38,300 39,620 39,103 37,825 37,335 40,907Incident numbers issued 29,991 31,156 29,277 31,048 32,542 33,360 32,730 31,471 31,472 35,695Police reports written 8,322 9,192 8,665 8,435 8,852 8,675 7,735 6,999 6,297 5,852 Traffic citations issuedOther citations issuedViolations cited 8,119 7,213 5,793 6,648 7,673 7,649 7,524 5,874 4,020 3,445 Citations issued 7,718 6,665 5,275 6,204 7,038 7,030 6,752 5,287 3,660 3,056 Collision reports 669 643 625 630 587 608 609 623 481 419 Violent crimes:* 134 117 158 237 173 177 178 191 187 201 Willful homicide* 2 1 00000101
Forcible rape* 24 18 31 44 29 38 44 55 39 37
Robbery* 34 19 26 25 13 21 23 33 34 24
Aggravated assault* 74 79 101 168 131 118 111 103 114 139 Property crimes:* 714 804 713 542 637 731 644 728 728 793 Burglary* 330 414 328 206 225 251 172 244 277 284 Motor vehicle theft* 107 81 63 71 87 95 94 74 74 117 Larceny-theft:* 1,345 1,476 1,384 1,162 1,335 1,730 1,516 1,493 1,387 1,219 Over $400* 277 309 322 265 325 385 378 410 377 392
$400 and under* 1,068 1,167 1,062 897 1,010 1,345 1,138 1,083 1,010 827 Fire:Medical responses*(Note 1) 2,856 2,985 3,232 3,417 3,540 4,538 4,248 3,715 3,884 3,544 Fire suppression responses*(Note 1) 102 95 105 111 151 143 163 122 127 133Hazardous materials responses*(Note 1 and Note 2) 17 21 15 21 22 21 17 25 29 98 Other responses*(Note 1) 1,552 1,812 1,840 1,929 2,158 1,799 1,785 2,100 2,140 1,745 Total service responses* 4,527 4,913 5,192 5,478 5,871 6,501 6,213 5,962 6,180 5,520Fire Suppression Training Hours 7,602 9,061 8,782 8,149 6,714 6,348 7,719 8,410 10,835 11,033 Fire and life-safety inspections* (Note 3) 2,431 2,494 644 2,476 2,516 3,756 3,738 2,002 3,128 1,871 Arson investigations* (Note 4) 18 49 44 17 44 8 12 24 21 13Education activities (# of people)* 23,120 23,377 23,945 23,697 23,680 23,575 23,540 2,690 2,700 2,031 Public Utilities:

Water/Sewer customer accounts 14,695 14,742 14,899 14,953 15,167 15,188 15,505 15,555 15,672 15,958 Miles of sewerline 137 137 197 139.6 138 143 143 146 148Miles of waterline (Note 5) 185 187 187 187 191 197 187 190 191 191 Water service line repairs and renewals 50 66 58 60 50 50 57 38 48 35 Sewer main stoppages 7 12 15 13 11 4 10 8 11
Acre feet of water delivered - Nacimiento 2,321 663 1,506 839 3,574 3,817 3,753 3,484 1,470 2,449 Acre feet of water delivered - Salinas 2,149 2,378 1,444 1,986 8 273 853 790 2,165 1,337 Acre feet of water delivered - Whale Rock 1,277 2,875 3,212 2,615 1,375 949 924 800 1,556 1,641 Last Ten Fiscal Years
Operating Indicators and Capital Asset Statistics by Function City of San Luis Obispo, California
Schedule 23
187

Page 523 of 714 ends

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Last Ten Fiscal Years
Operating Indicators and Capital Asset Statistics by Function City of San Luis Obispo, California
Schedule 23
Transportation:Signals and lights: Intersections with traffic signals - - 70 68 70 70 70 70 70 72 Traffic signal service requests - - 85 80 85 90 60 71 59 93 Streetlights operated & maintained - 2,300 - 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,280 2,280 2,280 2,400 Streetlight service requests - 180 - 175 45 50 13 8 11 33 Roadways: Estimated miles of paved streets 132 132 133 133 133 133 134 197 134 137 Pavement condition index 72 71 72 72 71 71 70 73 70 73
Number of street lights 2,270 2,270 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,280 2,280 2,280 2,280 Traffic collisions 621 593 660 720 531 482 501 431 441 259 Parking spaces provided (lot, garage & street) 3,065 3,071 3,119 3,176 2,953 2,892 2,871 2,865 2,865 2,765 Parking citations written 26,515 28,690 23,957 20,690 24,213 23,348 21,647 24,415 21,240 17,748 Total transit passengers 1,118,519 1,109,600 1,122,000 1,099,274 1,209,708 1,131,716 945,288 981,995 715,380 179,456 Culture and recreation (Note 6)Open space acres maintained 3,510 3,510 3,510 3,510 3,510 3,510 3,775 4,040 4,040 4,040 Open space easement acres 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,500 3,500 3,500 Trail mileage 45 47 49 49 52 52 55 55 56 62
Total golf rounds played 34,699 33,067 34,766 33,674 30,572 28,196 35,670 24,662 16,428 24,222 Acres of park landscape maintained 157 157 157 157 157 157 500 570 530 530 City Maintained Trees 18,700 18,700 18,700 19,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000Children's services program enrollment totals 1,755 1,605 2,338 2,360 2,115 2,115 1,950 2,050 1,775 1,483 Triathlon participants, spectators and volunteers (Note 7) 6,000 6,525 6,000 5,500 5,200 5,000 887 869 - - Annual senior attendance (total) (Note 8) 14,000 14,200 - - - 265 331 350 315 192 Facility permits processed 1,803 1,269 1,416 836 1,305 1,073 864 909 650 298Annual aquatics attendance (total) 56,042 67,000 73,903 83,107 68,403 96,687 97,701 87,690 55,202 51,235Adult athletic teams registered 320 325 338 320 325 325 362 292 184 112 Youth athletic participants registered 1,400 1,300 1,200 1,350 1,300 1,150 1,115 1,140 618 611Special event applications processed 78 84 103 103 77 101 88 95 40 2 Banner permits processed 86 76 82 47 87 56 45 81 78 48
Instructional class enrollments 1,400 1,308 1,424 1,751 1,151 1,724 1,439 1,118 595 626 188

Page 524 of 714 ends

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Last Ten Fiscal Years
Operating Indicators and Capital Asset Statistics by Function City of San Luis Obispo, California
Schedule 23
Community Development (Note 9):Housing characteristics: Single family units (annually cumulative) 10,951 10,969 10,994 11,133 11,230 11,306 11,413 11,510 11,596 11,853 2-4 units (annually cumulative) 2,634 2,650 2,656 2,692 2,695 2,789 2,851 2,865 2,855 2,888 5 or more unit structures (annually cumulative) 5,596 5,596 5,647 5,767 5,804 6,038 6,097 6,148 6,158 6,309 Mobile homes (annually cumulative) 1,482 1,482 1,482 1,482 1,482 1,482 1,482 1,482 1,483 1,483 Total (annually cumulative) 20,663 20,697 20,779 21,074 21,211 21,615 21,843 22,005 22,092 22,533 Housing units (replaces above categories) Households (replaces above categories)Building permits issued (Note 10): Residential: Single family residential (Note 11) 13 48 59 114 97 62 125 159 171 253 Multi-family residential (includes second units & ADUs) 10 6 8 32 5 13 18 19 17 33 Non-residential 5 7 9 27 13 14 10 15 12 2 Other permits: Additions, alternations, demolitions (Note 12) 459 530 458 460 522 545 502 381 510 371 Other improvements (motel rooms) 1 Total 487 591 534 633 637 634 655 575 710 659 Approximate value of building permits (in thousands) Residential: Single family residential $ 3,278 $ 15,698 15,412$ 36,722$ $ 26,441 $ 15,024 19,707$ 24,300$ 28,026$ $ 50,758 Multi-family residential 3,847 1,560 6,744 26,499 13,500 8,172 17,249 21,162 33,606 10,545 Non-residential 5,142 1,935 15,310 9,791 11,484 51,110 6,248 20,430 16,981 17,475 Other permits: Additions, alternations, demolitions (Note 12) 16,589 20,761 19,139 22,897 30,230 27,711 14,928 34,596 60,812 78,780 Other improvements Total $ 28,856 39,954$ 56,605$ $ 95,909 $ 81,655 $ 102,017 $ 58,132 $ 100,488 139,425$ $ 157,558 Building inspections conducted 13,685 10,543 8,996 6,641 7,195 10,745 9,974 7,537 8,670 7,959 Home occupation permits processed/applied for 117 142 129 113 163 144 112 112 131 112 Development permit applications received 148 217 311 293 253 236 215 215 338 242 189

Page 525 of 714 ends

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Last Ten Fiscal Years
Operating Indicators and Capital Asset Statistics by Function City of San Luis Obispo, California
Schedule 23
General Government:Business tax certificates issued: Located outside city limits 1,670 1,670 1,472 1,602 2,018 1,699 1,872 1,948 1,839 1,767 Total certificates issued 7,086 7,086 6,934 7,805 7,597 8,118 8,230 8,205 7,675 7,382 Human resources recruitments (total) 59 91 105 129 103 103 97 99 86 90 Fleet vehicles maintainedCity-wide fleet & equipment assets 290 290 290 300 318 323 339 338 340 345 Replaces prior categoryTelephone lines managed 1,024 981 995 1,037 1,005 998 907 971 963 1,071 Cell phones and cellular modems supported 338 344 383 460 453 476 492 481 487 464 IT users supported 498 498 490 511 515 467 471 488 475 487 * Data based on calendar yearNotes: Some workload indicators are projections.1. Beginning in FY 2010-11, numbers reported used observed code from Spillman rather than condition code. 2. Beginning in FY 2020-21, the Fire Department is including all "Hazardous Condition" calls for service as categorized by the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS). Previously only chemical or flammible liquid spills were captured under this function. Moving forward this function also includes electrical and biological hazards among others.3. Beginning in 2020, the fire department is counting inspections by the building rather than the number of individual units within the building due to a change in inspection software4. Police Department conducts Arson Investigations, Fire Department conducts Cause and Origin Investigations. Reported number is Cause and Origin Investigations5. Beginning in FY 2013-14, the amount includes recycled waterline6. Culture and Recreation Indicators for FY 19-20 were lower compared to previous years due to COVID-19 program closures and capacity restrictions.7. Beginning in FY 2017-18, the amount only includes participants and volunteers8. Beginning in FY 2016-17, the amount only includes senior center membershipSource: City of San Luis Obispo Departments9. Beginning in FY 2016-17, building permit data reported by calendar year to align with State-mandated reporting requirements. Beginning in FY 2019-20, all Community Development Indicators reported by calendar year10. Excludes special permits such as plumbing, mechanical, electrical, signs, and grading as well as plan check permits.11. Condominiums are included with single family residential.12. Swimming pools are included with additions, alterations and demolitions. 190

Page 526 of 714 ends

Fiscal Historic Increase/ Sales Increase/ Deliveries Increase/ Year Connections (Decrease) Revenues (Decrease) In Acre Feet (Decrease) 2009-10 14,875 2.64% 13,025,900 4.65% 5,612 -11%
2010-11 14,777 -0.66% 13,302,800 2.13% 5,909 5%2011-12 14,537 -1.62% 15,291,008 14.95% 5,999 2%2012-13 14,758 1.52% 16,163,012 5.70% 5,823 -3%2013-14 14,899 0.01% 18,398,901 13.83% 5,933 2%2014-15 14,847 0.01% 17,530,717 -4.72% 5,354 -10%2015-16 15,167 1.40% 17,939,024 2.33% 4,957 -7%2016-17 15,357 1.25% 18,196,937 1.44% 5,039 2%2017-18 15,505 0.96% 19,159,169 5.29% 5,530 10%2018-19 15,555 0.32% 19,577,182 2.18% 5,074 -8%2019-20 15,672 0.75% 21,519,632 9.92% 5,191 2%2020-21 15,958 1.82% 22,757,325 5.75% 5,602 8% Source: City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department.

Schedule 24
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Water System
Statistical Data
191

Page 527 of 714 ends

As of Monthly Single family
June 30 of Each Year Consumption Price per hcf* Multi-family dwelling Commercial Landscape dwelling Multi-family dwelling Commercial 2012 0-5 hcf $ 5.73 $7.01 min. charge per $7.01 min. charge per $7.01 min. charge per 6-25 hcf 7.17 dwelling unit account account
26 + hcf (note 2) 8.99 $7.73/unit volume charge ** $7.73/unit volume charge ** $7.73/unit volume charge 2013 Base Fee $ 5.00 $7.43 min. charge per $7.43 min. charge per $7.43 min. charge per 0-8 hcf 6.25 dwelling unit dwelling unit dwelling unit
8 + hcf 7.82 $8.19/unit volume charge ** $8.19/unit volume charge ** $8.19/unit volume charge 2014 Base Fee $ 5.28 $7.73 min. charge per $7.73 min. charge per $7.73 min. charge per 1-8 hcf 6.56 dwelling unit dwelling unit dwelling unit
8 + hcf 8.20 $8.52/unit volume charge** $8.52/unit volume charge** $8.52/unit volume charge 2015 Base Fee $ 9.98 $7.96 min. charge per $7.96 min. charge per $7.96 min. charge per 1-8 hcf 6.92 dwelling unit dwelling unit dwelling unit
8 + hcf 8.65 $8.77/unit volume charge** $8.77/unit volume charge** $8.77/unit volume charge 2016 Base Fee $ 9.98 $8.32 min. charge per $8.32 min. charge per $8.32 min. charge per Base Fee Drought Surcharge 0.74 dwelling unit dwelling unit dwelling unit 1-8 hcf 6.92 $9.17/unit volume charge** $9.17/unit volume charge** $9.17/unit volume charge Drought Surcharge 1.10
9 + hcf 8.65
Drought Surcharge 1.37
2017 Base Fee $ 9.98 $8.57 min. charge per $8.57 min. charge per $8.57 min. charge per Base Fee Drought Surcharge 0.74 dwelling unit dwelling unit dwelling unit 1-8 hcf 6.92 $9.44/unit volume charge** $9.44/unit volume charge** $9.44/unit volume charge Drought Surcharge 1.10
9 + hcf 8.65
Drought Surcharge 1.37
2018 Base Fee $ 12.33 $8.57 min. charge per $8.57 min. charge per $8.57 min. charge per 1-8 hcf 7.27 dwelling unit dwelling unit dwelling unit
9 + hcf 9.08 $9.44/unit volume charge** $9.44/unit volume charge** $9.44/unit volume charge 2019*** Residential SFR Base Fee $ Base fee determined Base fee determined Base fee determined Base fee determined 20.61 Base fee determined Base fee determined 1-5 hcf by meter size**** by meter size**** by meter size**** 5.90 by meter size **** by meter size **** by meter size **** 6-12 hcf $6.73/unit volume charge $8.17/unit volume charge $10.02/unit volume charge $7.85/unit volume charge** $7.85/unit volume charge** $7.85/unit volume charge** 6.87 13 + 12.59
2020 Residential SFR Base Fee $ Base fee determined Base fee determined Base fee determined Base fee determined 21.74 Base fee determined Base fee determined 1-5 hcf by meter size**** by meter size**** by meter size**** 6.22 by meter size **** by meter size **** by meter size **** 6-12 hcf $7.10/unit volume charge $8.62/unit volume charge $10.57/unit volume charge $8.28/unit volume charge** $8.28/unit volume charge** $8.28/unit volume charge** 7.25 13 + 13.28
Schedule 25
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Water and Sewer Rates
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Water Rates (Note 1) Sewer Rates (Monthly)
192

Page 528 of 714 ends

As of Monthly Single family
June 30 of Each Year Consumption Price per hcf* Multi-family dwelling Commercial Landscape dwelling Multi-family dwelling Commercial Schedule 25
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Water and Sewer Rates
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Water Rates (Note 1) Sewer Rates (Monthly)
2021 Residential SFR Base Fee $ Base fee determined Base fee determined Base fee determined Base fee determined 22.52 Base fee determined Base fee determined 1-5 hcf by meter size**** by meter size**** by meter size**** 6.44 by meter size **** by meter size **** by meter size **** 6-12 hcf $7.36/unit volume charge $8.93/unit volume charge $10.95/unit volume charge $8.58/unit volume charge $8.58/unit vo 7.51 lume charge $8.58/unit volume charge 13 + 13.76
*hcf = 100 cubic feet** Total monthly volume charge capped based on average winter water consumption.*** Beginning FY 18-19, different rate structures for SFR, Multi-Family, Commercial, and Landscape****See table below *****2020-21 rate increase deferred to February 1, 2021 due to COVID-19Notes:1. Rates are for services inside the City, outside the City rates are double.2. Third tier applies only to single-family residential customers. Source: City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department As of Water Sewer
June 30 of Each Year Base charge Base Charge
2020 3/4 inch or less 21.74 $ 19.72 $
1-inch 36.29 32.93

1.5-inch 72.43 65.66
2-inch 115.89 105.103-inch 217.44 197.184-inch 362.45 328.706-inch 724.73 657.198-inch 1,159.60 1,051.54 10-inch 1,511.75
2021***** 3/4 inch or less $ 22.52 $ 20.43
1-inch 37.60 34.12

1.5-inch 75.04 68.02
2-inch 120.06 108.883-inch 225.27 204.284-inch 375.50 340.536-inch 750.82 680.858-inch 1,201.35 1,089.40 10-inch 1,566.17
Base fee charges for Multi-Family, Non-Residential, Irrigation Meter Size
193

Page 529 of 714 ends

Service Water Use Percent of
Name Type (acre-feet) Total
City of San Luis Obispo Parks Landscape 69.65 21.1%Silver City Mobile Home Park Mobile Homes 48.96 14.8%ELL-CAP 97-Laguna Lake Mobile Homes 43.25 13.1%Creekside Community Mobile Homes 35.99 10.9%CAP VIII - Mustang Village LLC Apartments 25.12 7.6%Embassy Suites Hotel 23.03 7.0%SLO Coastal Unified School 22.31 6.8%Dignity Health #366 Care Facilities 21.67 6.6%Sierra Vista Hospital Care Facilities 20.99 6.4%Irish Hills Hamlet Apartments 19.12 5.8%Total 330.09 100.00%Source: City of San Luis Obispo - Utilities Department Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021
Water System - Ten Largest Water Users
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Schedule 26
194

Page 530 of 714 ends

Item 7b
Department: Public Works
Cost Center: 5101
For Agenda of: 1/18/2022
Placement: Business
Estimated Time: 45 Minutes
FROM: Matt Horn, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Gaven Hussey, Parking Manager, Alex Fuchs, Parking Services Supervisor, and Paul Fields, Administrative Analyst
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR

THE ACCESS & PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE

RECOMMENDATION

1. Provide staff with direction on the scope of work to be included with the Access and Parking Management Plan Update Request for Proposals (RFP); and

2. Authorize the issuance of an RFP for an update of the City’s Access and Parking Management Plan; and

3. Reallocate $100,000 from the Parking Fund’s working capital to the program’s contract services account; and

4. Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with the selected consultant for the Access and Parking Management Plan up to the project budget of $100,000.

DISCUSSION
Background
The City’s 2011 Access and Parking Management Plan (APMP) (Attachment B) is the Parking Services Program’s strategic document and provides guidance regarding critical access to parking facilities and resources throughout the City with a focus on the downtown area and residential neighborhoods. The APMP serves as an instrument for the implementation parking and access management strategies and projects for the General Plan Circulation Element. The Parking Program performs five major functions to implement the parking management goals, policies and actions set forth in the APMP: (1) compliance and enforcement, (2) revenue management, (3) maintenance, (4) structure operations and (5) parking management and demand reduction.

The APMP went through a minor update in 2011 to include policies for downtown residents but the thrust of the document has largely remained unchanged since the last major update in 2002. There have been obvious significant changes in parking habits, technologies, preferences, policies and related City plans for the community that render the current APMP outdated. A major update to the Plan is necessary to ensure best parking and access management practices and to ensure that the current and future needs of the City are incorporated into the document. The updated plan will provide policy direction and guidance to City Leadership, City staff, property owners, and businesses to move toward a holistic and systemic approach to parking and mobility.

Page 531 of 714 ends

Item 7b
Scope of Work
The selected consultant will be responsible for development of the updated APMP, including stakeholder engagement and public outreach. The consultant will review current policies, climate objectives, development forecasts, financial demands, and other factors to develop an updated APMP. The final report will also include an analysis of existing resources and utilization rates, vision, goals and policies, a forecast of future operational requirements, and an implementation plan.

It is likely given the time since a comprehensive update has been done that the new document will be wholly different than it does today. Lastly, the consultant will incorporate best practices and identify changes to existing policies, programs, ordinances that are resulting in outcomes different than those of the City
The draft request for proposals (Attachment A) includes the following tasks to be completed by the consultant:
 Project Management
 Individual Meetings with Council Members
 Public Outreach / Ad Hoc Committee Meetings
 Compile information regarding existing Resources and Utilization Rate Analysis  Development of Vision, Goals, and Policies
 Review of applicable best management practices
 Forecasting Future Operations Requirements
 Development of Strategies and Actions
 Implementation Plan Including Evaluative Criteria
 Comprehensive Report
 Implementation Plan
Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
The City Council adopted an Access and Parking Management Plan via resolution in July 2002 (Attachment C). The plan was amended in December 2011 to achieve compliance with the Housing Element of the City’s General Plan (Attachment D). No updates have been made since the amendment in 2011.

Policy Context
The General Plan Circulation Element identifies how transportation services will be provided to land uses envisioned by the Land Use Element (Attachment E). One of these transportation services is vehicle parking. The plan will provide specific direction for the management of parking in a way that supports the Circulation Element’s overall transportation strategy.

Page 532 of 714 ends

Item 7b
Public Engagement
This is an administrative item for authorization to advertise a request for proposals, the scope of work includes coordinating public engagement as a part of the plan’s development. This includes identification of internal and external stakeholders and coordinating the creating of an Ad Hoc Committee

CONCURRENCE
The Community Development Department and Transportation Planning and Engineering Program will be involved in the plan’s development. The APMP will align with the City’s Active Transportation Plan and the City’s General Plan.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to the recommended action on this report because the action does not constitute a “Project” under CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15378.

FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: 2021-22
Funding Identified: Yes
Fiscal Analysis:

Funding was approved for this project in the Fiscal Year 2020-21 Mid-Year Report.

Because the funding was not appropriated in the year it was allocated for, staff is requesting to reallocate the funding from working capital to the parking program’s contract services account. The Parking Fund had a working capital of $13 million at June 30, 2021, none of which has been allocated for appropriation.

Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General
Fund
$- $- $- $-
State $- $- $- $-
Federal $- $- $- $-
Fees $- $- $- $-
Other:

Parking Fund
$- $100,000 $- $-
Total $- $100,000 $- $-

Page 533 of 714 ends

Item 7b

ALTERNATIVES

1. Authorize staff to issue an RFP contingent upon the revision of the project’s scope based on City Council’s feedback. This is recommended if the City Council has minor recommended revisions to the project’s scope.

2. Delay authorization to issue an RFP and have staff return to the City Council with an updated scope based on input. This is recommended if the City Council recommends major revisions to the project scope.

ATTACHMENTS
A - Draft RFP for update of the City Access and Parking Management Plan B - Access and Parking Management Plan
C - 2002 Resolution Adopting the Access and Parking Management Plan D - 2011 Amended Access and Parking Management Plan
E - General Plan Circulation Element

Page 534 of 714 ends

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.

Notice Requesting Proposals for Access and Parking Management Plan Update (Parking-2021-2) The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting sealed proposals for services associated with the updating of the City’s Access and Parking Management Plan.

All firms interested in receiving further correspondence regarding this Request for Proposals (RFP) will be required to complete a free registration using BidSync (https://www.bidsync.com/bidsync-appweb/vendor/register/Login.xhtml). All proposals must be received via BidSync by the Department of Finance at or before March 2, 2022 when they will be opened publicly in the City Hall Conference Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401.

Project packages and additional information may be obtained at the City’s BidSync website at www.BidSync.com. Please contact Gaven Hussey, Parking Services Manager, at [email protected] with any questions. Responses to questions will be uploaded to BidSync.

For technical help with BidSync please contact BidSync tech support at 800-990-9339.

Page 535 of 714 ends

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION A. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 2 SECTION B. SCOPE OF WORK ........................................................................................................................ 3 SECTION C. PROJECT SCHEDULE ................................................................................................................... 5 SECTION D. PROJECT BUDGET...................................................................................................................... 5 SECTION E. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ......................................................................................... 5 SECTION F. SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.......................................................................................... 11 SECTION G. PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCESS..................................................................... 12 SECTION H: FORM OF AGREEMENT............................................................................................................ 16 SECTION I: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................... 18 SECTION J: PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORM .................................................................................................. 20

Page 536 of 714 ends

City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-2-
SECTION A. INTRODUCTION
The City is seeking a comprehensive update to the City’s Access and Parking Management Plan (APMP) which serves as the guiding document for the City’s Parking Services Program. The current APMP was adopted in July 2001 and last amended it in 2011 (See Appendix A). The City now desires to update this Plan to reflect updated/new access and parking management goals that incorporates current industry leading parking programs and best practices.

The updated plan will provide policy direction and guidance to City Leadership, City staff, property owners, and businesses to move toward a holistic and systemic approach to parking and mobility. To that end, the updated Plan must align with other plans adopted by the City including the Active Transportation Plan (See Appendix B), the Downtown Concept Plan (See Appendix C), and the General Plan’s Circulation Element (See Appendix D).

Background
In 1947, the City of San Luis Obispo introduced paid parking and parking meters. In 1975, the Parking Enterprise Fund was established to account for parking revenues and expenditures separate from the General Fund. The main management and enforcement of parking was moved from the Police Department to Public Works Department in the 1980s. Since that time the management, operation, and substantial enforcement of parking has been its own program in the department. The mission of the Parking Services Program is to provide equitable and high-quality parking services to the community members, visitors, and businesses in the City of San Luis Obispo.

Parking Services Major Functions
The Parking Services Program is principally a vertically integrated program with all of the major functions listed below performed almost entirely by in-house employees. The Program performs five major functions: (1) compliance and enforcement, (2) revenue management, (3) maintenance, (4) structure operations, and (5) parking management and demand reduction. The Parking Services Program’s administrative staffs have a relatively wide range of duties whereby one employee will be involved in several of the major functions described above. The purpose of the major functions of the Parking Services Division is to implement the Parking Management goals, policies, and actions set forth in the Access and Parking Management Plan.

Compliance and enforcement
Compliance and enforcement is comprised of patrolling of on-street and off-street parking including the downtown, residential permit districts, Railroad Square district, and the overall city as well as the issuance of citations. Compliance and enforcement is currently accomplished by three full-time Parking Enforcement Officers and two part-time Parking Enforcement Officers. Aside from compliance and enforcement, Parking Enforcement Officers duties also include patrolling parking structures and assisting the public with parking and non-parking related issues.

Revenue management
Revenue management refers to the collection and adjustment of fees and fines pertaining to parking meters, citations, parking permit sales, and lease payments. These functions are currently performed by various Program employees and an outside contractor.

Page 537 of 714 ends

City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-3-
Maintenance
Maintenance refers to any and all repairs that may occur during the lifetime of parking meters and parking structures including janitorial maintenance.

Structure operations
Structure operations refer to all functions involved in operation of City parking structures including collection of fees, scheduling of staff, equipment maintenance, elevator maintenance, deck sweeping, janitorial services, landscape maintenance, and various other functions.

Parking management and demand reduction
Parking management and demand reduction refers to development and implementation of strategies for the use of existing and future parking spaces including the management of shared parking in city-owned parking structures. Parking management and demand reduction is handled primarily by the Parking Services Manager through inter-departmental coordination. Parking management and demand reduction is different from the other major functions in that it focuses on the development of new parking strategies while the former four major functions focus on implementation of existing parking strategies.

Existing Conditions
Parking Services Program is responsible for on-street and off-street public parking facilities including: 5 public parking lots downtown, 3 parking structures, 11 residential parking permit districts, 49 multi-space pay stations, and over 1,100 single space parking meters. Parking Services Program also oversees 15,000 sq. ft. of retail space, 2,100 sq. ft. of office space, and three residential parcels that total 22,000 sq. ft.

Future Development in the Downtown Area
The City is currently in the process of developing the fourth public parking structure on the corners of Palm Street, Nipomo Street, and Monterey Street where the surface parking lot #14 is located. Site work is scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-23 with vertical construction beginning in FY 2023-24. The structure is designed to be 416 spaces and is anticipated to assist with the implementation of the Downtown Concept Plan, creating a more Active Transportation oriented downtown area.

Access and Parking Management Plan (APMP) Objectives
The City wishes to develop a APMP that incorporates the vision of other transportation related planning documents and develop parking strategies that addresses the City’s current needs as we transition to our future goals. It is important for the City to lead by example in an inclusive manner, and the updated APMP will play an important role in achieving these objectives with focus on sustainable and alternate transportation methods.

SECTION B. SCOPE OF WORK
The City has developed a detailed Scope of Work (SOW), shown below, but welcome the consultant’s vision and input to provide a more robust access and parking strategy. 1) Project Management
a) Kickoff meeting
b) Monthly project team meetings
c) Monthly project updates

Page 538 of 714 ends

City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-4-
2) Public Outreach for Plan Updates
a) Create Ad Hoc Committee of stakeholder representatives including but not limited to representatives from the following groups:
i) Downtown SLO (Business Improvement Association)
ii) Chamber of Commerce
iii) Active Transportation and Transit Advocates
iv) Resident groups/Concerned Citizens
v) Active Transportation Committee
vi) Mass Transit Committee
vii) Human Relations Commission
b) 3 – 5 Ad Hoc Committee meetings
c) 1 Planning Commission Meeting
d) 2 Active Transportation Committee Meetings
e) 1 City Council Workshops
f) Final approval from Planning Commission and City Council (1 – 2 meeting each) g) Perform a parking survey and provide recommendations i) Work with City staff, including the communications team to attain a viable sample size representative of key stakeholders affected by City parking operations; downtown businesses (owners/employees), City residents, tourists, students etc. ii) Determine stakeholder understanding of City parking operations and priorities for the future. 3) Analysis of Existing Resources and Utilization Rates a) Determine existing supply and utilization
b) Document existing parking programs
c) Document existing mobility and access system, including gaps and needs d) Update on progress/accomplishments of previous plan
e) Document existing parking marketing materials/methods and determine effectiveness f) Prepare existing conditions report
4) Identification of Case Studies
a) Best programs and practices for commercial districts b) Best programs and practices for mixed used districts c) Best program and practices for residential areas
d) Best program and practices for transition areas (i.e., areas where commercial, mixed use and residential zones converge)
5) Development of Vision, Goals, and Policies consistent with existing City Polices and Goals a) Vision – Describes the desired outcome of the new plan b) Goals – Key elements needed to achieve the vision
c) Policies – Provide policy direction to address parking issues 6) Forecasting Operational Requirements
a) Future parking and access demand
b) Provide parking demand reduction strategies
c) Determine future parking supply needs
d) Determine mobility and access improvements and programs, including curbside management e) Identify parking and access triggers to implement improvements and programs f) Prepare financial projections of both revenues and costs g) Prepare future conditions report
7) Development of Strategies and Actions
a) Strategies – Areas of focus to achieve each goal
b) Actions – Specific actions to implement the strategies

Page 539 of 714 ends

City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-5-
8) Implementation and Measurement of Success
a) Develop Priorities – When will the actions occur, anticipated lead times and in what order b) Define how the actions will be accomplished
c) Define who will be responsible for implementing strategies and actions and who will play a support role
d) Identify needed resources, staff time, costs, etc.
e) Define how success will be measured and how it will be reported 9) Deliverables, Drafts, and Final Document
a) Prepare administrative review document and submit to City for review b) Update administrative review document based on City comments c) Submit draft document for review and approval by Planning Commission d) Submit final draft document for review and approval by City Council e) Submit final City Council approved document
SECTION C. PROJECT SCHEDULE
Preliminary Schedule Tasks
Ongoing Project Management
Beginning in March 2022 Public Outreach
March-April 2022 Existing Conditions
May 2022 Development of Goals and Policies
May-June 2022 Determining Future Conditions
June 2022 Development of Strategies and Actions
Summer 2022 Planning Commission Meeting, Active
Transportation Committee Meeting and
City Council Workshop
June-July 2022 Draft Document
July 2022 Final Document
Fall 2022 Presentation of Final Plan to Planning
Commission and City Council
SECTION D. PROJECT BUDGET
San Luis Obispo City Council has approved a not-to-exceed budget of $100,000, including contingencies, for the Plan update. Optional tasks may be proposed but must stay within budget.

SECTION E. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS

PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

1. Requirement to Meet All Provisions. Each individual or firm submitting a proposal (bidder) shall meet all the terms, and conditions of the Request for Proposals (RFP) project package. By virtue of its proposal submittal, the bidder acknowledges agreement with and acceptance of all provisions of the RFP specifications.

Page 540 of 714 ends

City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-6-

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 submitted electronically via BidSync. However, if you can’t submit electronically, please send your bid copy in a sealed envelope to the Department of Finance, City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401. To guard against premature opening, the proposal should be clearly labeled with the proposal title, project number, name of bidder, 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 bidder’s insurance coverage during proposal evaluation; as discussed under paragraph 11 below, endorsements are not required until contract award. The City’s insurance requirements are detailed in Section I.

4. Proposal Quotes and Unit Price Extension. The extension of unit prices for the quantities indicated and the lump sum prices quoted by the bidder must be entered in figures in the spaces provided on the Proposal Submittal Form(s). The Proposal Submittal Form(s) must be totally completed. If the unit price and the total amount stated by any bidder for any item are not in agreement, the unit price alone will be considered as representing the bidder’s intention and the proposal total will be corrected to conform to the specified unit price.

5. Proposal Withdrawal and Opening. A bidder 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 bidder 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. Bidders 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 as the primary submitter 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 bidder submitting a proposal, or who has quoted prices on materials to such bidder, is not thereby disqualified from submitting a sub-proposal or from quoting prices to other bidders submitting proposals.

7. Communications. All timely requests for information submitted in writing will receive a written response from the City. Telephone communications with City staff are not permitted. Any such oral communication shall not be binding on the City.

CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION

8. 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

Page 541 of 714 ends

City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-7-
proposal and accept the other, except to the extent that proposals are qualified by specific limitations. See the “special terms and conditions” in Section F of these specifications for proposal evaluation and contract award criteria.

9. Competency and Responsibility of Bidder. The City reserves full discretion to determine the competence and responsibility, professionally and/or financially, of bidders. Bidders will provide, in a timely manner, all information that the City deems necessary to make such a decision.

10. Contract Requirement. The bidder to whom award is made (Contractor) shall execute a written contract with the City within fourteen (14) 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.

CONTRACT PERFORMANCE

11. Insurance Requirements. The Contractor shall provide proof of insurance in the form, coverages and amounts specified in Section H of these specifications.

12. Business License & Tax. The Contractor must have a valid City of San Luis Obispo business license & tax certificate within ten (10) days of execution of the contract. Additional information regarding the City’s business tax program may be obtained by calling (805) 781-7134.

13. 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 all federal, state, county, city, and special district laws, ordinances, and regulations.

14. 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 San Luis Obispo ordinances, regulations and adopted codes during its performance of the work.

15. Payment of Taxes. The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes that the Contractor is required to pay.

16. Permits and Licenses. The Contractor shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices necessary.

17. Safety Provisions. The Contractor shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to safety established by OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety.

18. 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 State pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and other applicable laws shall be employed in the performance of the work hereunder.

19. 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

Page 542 of 714 ends

City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-8-
in employment of persons because of age, race, color, sex, national origin or ancestry, sexual orientation, or religion of such persons.

20. 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.

21. 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).

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. Hold Harmless and Indemnification.
(a) Non-design, non-construction Professional Services: To the fullest extent permitted by law (including, but not limited to California Civil Code Sections 2782 and 2782.8), Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, and its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, and agents (“City Indemnitees”), from and against any and all causes of action, claims, liabilities, obligations, judgments, or damages, including reasonable legal counsels’ fees and costs of litigation (“claims”), arising out of the Consultant’s performance or Consultant’s failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement or out of the operations conducted by Consultant, including the City’s active or passive negligence, except for such loss or damage arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City. In the event the City Indemnitees are made a

Page 543 of 714 ends

City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-9-
party to any action, lawsuit, or other adversarial proceeding arising from Consultant’s performance of this Agreement, the Consultant shall provide a defense to the City Indemnitees or at the City’s option, reimburse the City Indemnitees their costs of defense, including reasonable legal fees, incurred in defense of such claims.
(b) Non-design, construction Professional Services: To the extent the Scope of Services involve a “construction contract” as that phrase is used in Civil Code Section 2783, this paragraph shall apply in place of paragraph A. To the fullest extent permitted by law (including, but not limited to California Civil Code Sections 2782 and 2782.8), Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, and its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, and agents (“City Indemnitees”), from and against any and all causes of action, claims, liabilities, obligations, judgments, or damages, including reasonable legal counsels’ fees and costs of litigation (“claims”), arising out of the Consultant’s performance or Consultant’s failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement or out of the operations conducted by Consultant, except for such loss or damage arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City. In the event the City Indemnitees are made a party to any action, lawsuit, or other adversarial proceeding arising from Consultant’s performance of this Agreement, the Consultant shall provide a defense to the City Indemnitees or at the City’s option, reimburse the City Indemnitees their costs of defense, including reasonable legal fees, incurred in defense of such claims. (c) Design Professional Services: In the event Consultant is a “design professional”, and the Scope of Services require Consultant to provide “design professional services” as those phrases are used in Civil Code Section 2782.8, this paragraph shall apply in place of paragraphs A or B. To the fullest extent permitted by law (including, but not limited to California Civil Code Sections 2782 and 2782.8) Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City and its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers and agents (“City Indemnitees”), from and against all claims, damages, injuries, losses, and expenses including costs, attorney fees, expert consultant and expert witness fees arising out of, pertaining to or relating to, the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Consultant, except to the extent caused by the sole negligence, active negligence or willful misconduct of the City. Negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of any subcontractor employed by Consultant shall be conclusively deemed to be the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Consultant unless adequately corrected by Consultant. In the event the City Indemnitees are made a party to any action, lawsuit, or other adversarial proceeding arising from Consultant’s performance of this Agreement, the Consultant shall provide a defense to the City Indemnitees or at the City’s option, reimburse the City Indemnitees their costs of defense, including reasonable legal fees, incurred in defense of such claims. In no event shall the cost to defend charged to Consultant under this paragraph exceed Consultant’s proportionate percentage of fault. However, notwithstanding the previous sentence, in the event one or more defendants is unable to pay its share of defense costs due to bankruptcy or dissolution of the business, Consultant shall meet and confer with other parties regarding unpaid defense costs.

(d) The review, acceptance or approval of the Consultant’s work or work product by any indemnified party shall not affect, relieve or reduce the Consultant’s indemnification or defense obligations. This Section survives completion of the services or the termination of this contract.

The provisions of this Section are not limited by and do not affect the provisions of this contract relating to insurance.

Page 544 of 714 ends

City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-10-

26. 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.

27. Termination for Convenience. The City may terminate all or part of this Agreement for any or no reason at any time by giving 30 days written notice to Contractor. Should the City terminate this Agreement for convenience, the City shall be liable as follows: (a) for standard or off-the-shelf products, a reasonable restocking charge not to exceed ten (10) percent of the total purchase price; (b) for custom products, the less of a reasonable price for the raw materials, components work in progress and any finished units on hand or the price per unit reflected on this Agreement.

For termination of any services pursuant to this Agreement, the City’s liability will be the lesser of a reasonable price for the services rendered prior to termination, or the price for the services reflected on this Agreement. Upon termination notice from the City, Contractor must, unless otherwise directed, cease work and follow the City’s directions as to work in progress and finished goods.

28. 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 terminations 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 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 workin-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.

Page 545 of 714 ends

City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-11-
SECTION F. SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1. Contract Award. Subject to the reservations set forth in Paragraph 9 of Section E (General Terms and Conditions) of these specifications, the contract will be awarded to the lowest responsible, responsive proposer.

2. Labor Actions.

In the event that the successful proposer is experiencing a labor action at the time of contract award (or if its suppliers or subcontractors are experiencing such a labor action), the City reserves the right to declare said proposer is no longer the lowest responsible, responsive proposer and to accept the next acceptable low proposal from a proposer that is not experiencing a labor action, and to declare it to be the lowest responsible, responsive proposer.

3. Failure to Accept Contract.

The following will occur if the proposer to whom the award is made (Contractor) fails to enter into the contract: the award will be annulled; any bid security will be forfeited in accordance with the special terms and conditions if a proposer's bond or security is required; and an award may be made to the next lowest responsible, responsive proposer who shall fulfill every stipulation as if it were the party to whom the first award was made.

4. Contract Term.

The supplies or services identified in this specification will be used by the City for up to one year.

The prices quoted for these items must be valid for the entire period indicated above unless otherwise conditioned by the proposer in its proposal.

5. Contractor Invoices.

The Contractor must deliver a monthly invoice to the City with attached copies of detail invoices as supporting detail.

6. Start and Completion of Work. Work on this project shall begin immediately after contract execution and shall be completed within 365 calendar days thereafter, unless otherwise negotiated with City by mutual agreement.

7. Change in Work. The City reserves the right to change quantities of any item after contract award.

If the total quantity of any changed item varies by 25% or less, there shall be no change in the agreed upon unit price for that item. Unit pricing for any quantity changes per item in excess of 25% shall be subject to negotiation with the Contractor.

8. Submittal of References. Each proposer shall submit a statement of qualifications and references on the form provided in the RFP package.

9. Statement of Contract Disqualifications. Each proposer shall submit a statement regarding any past governmental agency bidding or contract disqualifications on the form provided in the RFP package.

Page 546 of 714 ends

City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-12-
SECTION G. PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCESS

1. Proposal Content. Your proposal must include the following information:

Submittal Forms
a. Proposal submittal form.
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 work and projects relevant to the Scope of Services outlined and described in the request. e. Resumes of the individuals who would be assigned to this project, including any subconsultants, with their corollary experience highlighted and specific roles in this project clearly described.
f. Standard hourly billing rates for the assigned staff, including any sub-consultants. g. 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. h. Relevant project experience for three to five projects for both primary firm and subconsultants. Provide timeframe, client name, contact person, and current contact information. Reference projects shall include a brief description of the project and the outcome as well as how it is relevant to this project. Include the name of any proposed team members that worked on the project.

Work Program
i. Description of your approach to completing the work. j. Schedule by task and sub-task for completing the work. k. Estimated hours for your staff in performing each phase and task of the work, including sub-consultants.
l. Budget by task and sub-task for completing the work. m. Services or data to be provided by the City.
n. Services and deliverables provided by the Consultant(s). o. Any other information that would assist us in making this contract award decision. p. Description of assumptions critical to development of the response which may impact cost or scope.

Requested Changes to Terms and Conditions
q. The City desires to begin work soon after selecting the preferred Consultant Team. To expedite the contracting process, each submittal shall include requested redlined changes to terms and conditions, if necessary.

Proposal Length

Page 547 of 714 ends

City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-13-
r. Proposal length should be no longer than thirty (30) pages including attachments and supplemental materials.

2. Proposal Evaluation and Selection. Proposals will be evaluated by issuing Division / Department and evaluated on the following criteria:
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 experience in successfully performing similar services. e. Proposed budget to complete the work.
f. Background and experience of the specific individuals assigned to this project.

As reflected above, contract award will not be based solely on price, but on a combination of factors as determined to be in the best interest of the City. 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 and/or method and amount of 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 January 26, 2022
b. Receive proposals March 2, 2022
c. Complete proposal evaluations March 16, 2022
d. Conduct finalist interviews and finalize recommendation March 28, 2022 e. Execute contract April 11, 2022
f. Kick-off Meeting April 18, 2022

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 the 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:

Page 548 of 714 ends

City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-14-
a. One electronic submission - digital-ready original .pdf of all final documents. If you wish to file a paper copy, please submit in sealed envelope to the address provided in the RFP. b. Corresponding computer files compatible with the following programs whenever possible unless otherwise directed by the project manager:

Word Processing: MS Word
Spreadsheets: MS Excel
Desktop Publishing: InDesign
Virtual Models: Sketch Up
Digital Maps: Geodatabase shape files in
State Plan Coordinate System as
specified by City GIS staff
c. 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.

ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS

8. 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 alternative and discuss under what circumstances the City would prefer one alternative to the other(s).

9. Attendance at Meetings and Hearings. As part of the work scope and included in the contract price is attendance by the Contractor at up to nine public meetings to present and discuss its findings and recommendations. Contractor shall attend as many "working" meetings with staff as necessary in performing work-scope tasks.

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. In preparing its proposal, the bidder 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 bidder to inquire prior to proposal submittal. Failure to so inquire shall cause any such ambiguity or defect to be construed against the bidder. An ambiguity or defect shall be considered patent if it is of such a nature that the bidder, 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 bidder 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 bidder to achieve the project’s objective or standard beyond the amounts provided there for in the proposal.

Page 549 of 714 ends

City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-15-
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.

Page 550 of 714 ends

City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-16-
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 [CONTRACTOR’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 [______________], per Project No. Parking2021-2 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 Contractor's proposal dated [date] is hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement and attached as Exhibit A. The City’s terms and conditions are hereby incorporated in an made a part of this Agreement as Exhibit B. To the extent that there are any conflicts between the Contractor’s fees and scope of work and the City’s terms and conditions, the City’s terms and conditions shall prevail, unless specifically agreed otherwise in writing signed by both parties.

3. CITY'S OBLIGATIONS. For providing the services as specified in this Agreement, City will pay, and Contractor shall receive therefore compensation [xxxxxxx].

4. CONTRACTOR/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 specifications.

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 City Manager.

6. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings specifically incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties hereto.

Page 551 of 714 ends

City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-17-
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 Name
Dept.

Address
Consultant Name
Title
Address
Address

8. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both City and Contractor do covenant that everyone 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.

CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO:

By:_____________________________________
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONSULTANT:
________________________________ By: _____________________________________ City Attorney Name of CAO / President
Its: CAO / President

Page 552 of 714 ends

City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-18-
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.

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

Page 553 of 714 ends

City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-19-
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.

Page 554 of 714 ends

City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-20-
SECTION J: PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORM
The undersigned declares that she or he has carefully examined Specification No. Parking-2021-2, 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 Quantity Unit Price Total
Project Management Per hour
Public Outreach / Ad Hoc Committee Meetings Per hour
Existing Resources and Utilization Rate Analysis Per hour Development of Vision, Goals, and Policies Per hour
Determining the Future Per hour
Development of Strategies and Actions Per hour
Implementation and Measurement of Success Per hour
Final Document Drafting and Approval Per hour

TOTAL BASE PRICE
Other (provide detail on a separate sheet)
TOTAL $
Delivery of equipment to the City to be within _______ calendar days after contract execution and written authorization to proceed.

Certificate of insurance attached; insurance company’s A.M. Best rating: __________________.

Firm Name and Address
Contact Phone
Signature of Authorized Representative
Date

Page 555 of 714 ends

City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-21-

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:

Agency Name
Contact Name
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Description of services provided
including contract amount, when
provided and project outcome

Reference No. 2:

Agency Name
Contact Name
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Description of services provided
including contract amount, when
provided and project outcome

Page 556 of 714 ends

City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-22-
Reference No. 3
Agency Name
Contact Name
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Description of services provided
including contract amount, when
provided and project outcome

Page 557 of 714 ends

City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-23-

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

Page 558 of 714 ends

City of San Luis Obispo City of San Luis Obispo City of San Luis Obispo

ACCESS AND PARKING

MANAGEMENT PLAN
Amended November, 2011

CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PUBLIC WORKS

DEPARTMENT, PARKING SERVICES
1260 Chorro Street, Suite B, San Luis Obispo, California 93401

Page 559 of 714 ends

1 City of San Luis Obispo

ACCESS & PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN

SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
Jan Marx, Mayor
John Ashbaugh, Vice Mayor
Dan Carpenter
Andrew Carter
Kathy Smith

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Jay Walter, Director
Tim Bochum, Deputy Director
Peggy Mandeville, Principal Transportation Planner
Robert Horch, Parking Manager

CITY ADMINISTRATION
Katie Lichtig, City Manager
Michael Codron, Assistant City Manager

Page 560 of 714 ends

2 ____ CITY TRANSPORTATION PLANS_____________________
The City of San Luis Obispo adopts and maintains plans that help direct the implementation of the General Plan Circulation Element. These plans include:

Title of Document Status
Access & Parking Management Plan (this
document)
Amended November, 2011 to
include parking policies for
downtown residents
Updated July, 2001
Bicycle Transportation Plan Updated May, 2007
Short Range Transit Plan Updated May, 2009
Pavement Management Plan Updated October, 2009
For more information about City transportation plans, projects and programs, contact the San Luis Obispo Public Works Department, Transportation Division at (805) 781-7210.

Page 561 of 714 ends

3 ____ TABLE OF CONTENTS_________________________________ Topic Page
Introduction..............................................................................…...........................................................4 Relationship to Other Plans and Policies ...............................................................................................5 Scope of Plan..........................................................................................................................................5 Parking Management Goals...................................................................................................................6 Definitions..............................................................................................................................................6 General Use of Parking..........................................................................................................................7 Employee Use of Parking.......................................................................................................................8 Juror Use of Parking...............................................................................................................................9 Use of Parking for Downtown Residents.............................................................................................10 Expansion of Parking ...........................................................................................................................10 Enforcement..........................................................................................................................................11 Financing of Commercial Core Parking...............................................................................................11 Residential Parking...............................................................................................................................12 Program Administration and Promotion ..............................................................................................13

APPENDIX
A.1 Map of Downtown Parking and Business Improvement Area Showing Existing Parking...........15 A.2 Approved Parking Management and Demand Reduction Programs.............................................16 A.3 Map of Existing Residential Parking Districts .............................................................................17 A.4 City Council Resolution # 9350 (2002 Series) revising this plan ................................................18

Page 562 of 714 ends

4 _ INTRODUCTION_______________________________________ Between 1977 and 1987, a number of studies were conducted to assess the vehicle parking situation in downtown San Luis Obispo. As a result of this work, the City built two parking structures that house 669 vehicles. The first parking structure located at the corner of Palm and Morro Streets was completed in 1988. The second garage at the corner of Chorro and Marsh Streets was completed in 1990. An expansion of the Marsh Street garage that added 342 spaces (net increase of 245 spaces) will be completed in September 2002. These three projects resulted in a total of 1,007 garage spaces.

In addition, the City manages over 1,600 spaces located in surface lots and along downtown streets.

Another result of these early parking studies was the City's adoption of its first Parking Management Plan in 1987. The management plan was updated in 1990 and again in 1995 to reflect the completion of some of the major parking projects and to better define management policies.

In February 1993, a group of local architects and designers completed a Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center (commonly known as the Downtown Concept Plan). The City Council has adopted, in concept, the Plan and feels that it should be considered when making planning decisions that affect the City's center. The Plan was revised in 1997 to reflect changes to the Court Street Parking Lot area. The Concept Plan suggests that a number of new parking structures be built and that the pedestrian character of the commercial core be improved.

In November 1994, the City adopted a new General Plan Circulation Element. The adopted Circulation Element directs the City to conduct studies of downtown parking needs and to consider ways of reducing traffic congestion by promoting the use of other types of transportation. The Circulation Element also directs the reevaluation of the use of curb space in the commercial core with the aim of creating more short-term parking spaces.

This plan has been revised to address a number of events and decisions that have occurred since 1995, including the following:
In 1997, a Downtown Parking and Access Plan was completed by Meyer-Mohaddes and Associates. While never adopted by the City Council, this draft plan estimated future parking demand, identified candidate parking garage locations, as well as a variety of actions that the City could take to better manage its current parking supply and reduce employee demand for downtown parking.
As a way of incrementally implementing the draft Downtown Parking and Access Plan, the City Council authorized the implementation of a variety of measures to encourage employees to use means other than their private vehicles to access the downtown. In July 2001 a “Gold Pass” program was initiated that provides subsidized monthly transit passes to downtown employees. Parking stalls for car pools have also been reserved in existing parking structures.

Other parking management activities have also been pursued. Appendix A.2 identifies these approved activities.
On 05/01/2001 the City Council amended Section 6.1 of the Parking Management Plan to provide clarity on the use of Parking Fund revenues.

Page 563 of 714 ends

5 The City Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with private property owners that, among other things, calls for the construction of a new office/parking structure on the southeast corner of Palm and Morro Streets that will house 243 vehicles. This project is designed to satisfy parking demand created by the retirement of the Court Street parking lot and the development of a retail commercial project on that site (the “Copelands Project”). The City Council authorized its staff to solicit proposals from consultants to prepare schematic plans for a transit-parking-mixed use facility east of Santa Rosa Street. Entitled the “North Area Regional Facility (NARF),” this design work will investigate opportunities for constructing new parking garages to serve the downtown core and the expanded County Administrative Complex.

The San Luis Obispo Downtown Association participated in the review of the 1995 Parking Management Plan. This updated plan will be used as a management tool to help direct how vehicle parking should be provided and used throughout San Luis Obispo and how the demand for downtown parking will be managed.
_ __RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS AND POLICIES________
The City's General Plan Land Use Element establishes the pattern of land uses throughout San Luis Obispo. The General Plan Circulation Element identifies how transportation services will be provided to land uses envisioned by the Land Use Element. One of these transportation services is vehicle parking. This plan provides specific direction for the management of vehicle parking in a way that supports the Circulation Element's overall transportation strategy. This plan focuses on the management of vehicle parking in the community's commercial core. Parking of bicycles is addressed by the Bicycle Transportation Plan (2002) but is an issue that is relevant to the use of City parking structures and surface lots.
_ __SCOPE OF THIS PLAN___________________________________ This plan establishes vehicle parking policies and programs that apply throughout San Luis Obispo.

However, its primary focus is the management of parking in the commercial core. This plan also identifies, in Appendix A.2, approved management techniques for putting to better use existing parking spaces, and for reducing the employee demand for parking spaces in the commercial core.

This plan may be revised from time to time to address parking needs in areas beyond and within the commercial core. For more information about City parking programs, contact the Parking Section of the Public Works Department at (805) 781-7230.

Page 564 of 714 ends

6 _ __PARKING MANAGEMENT GOALS________________________
 Support the commercial as a viable economic and cultural center and preserve its historic character.
 Support the goals of the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center.  Provide enough parking in the commercial core for visitors and employees. Reduce the demand for employee parking through various programs such as carpooling, vanpools, transit subsidies, and bicycle and pedestrian systems development. Support the transportation strategy presented in the General Plan Circulation Element. Support the residential component of mixed use development downtown as presented in the Land Use Element.
Carry out actions described in this plan within budget constraints and consistent with Financial Plan goals and policies that are updated every two years. _ __DEFINITIONS___________________________________________ The following words and phrases used throughout this plan have the following meanings:

Commercial Core is the central business district in San Luis Obispo. Its boundaries are the same as the Downtown Association Area (see Appendix A.1).

Commercial Deliveries are made to businesses in the commercial core using trucks that are commercially licensed.

Downtown Association (DA) Advisory Board is an 11-member group established pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 12.36 by the City Council to promote the economic health of the commercial core. The DA (and its advisory committees) participates in the development of City programs that affect the downtown and provide advice to City staff and the City Council.

Long-Term Parking spaces may be free or metered, are located along streets, in monthly permit lots or parking structures, and typically allow parking for 10 hours or more.

Parking Structures are multi-level buildings that are managed by the City and provide parking for the general public, commercial core employees, and jurors at the Palm Street parking structure.

Short-Term Parking spaces may be free or metered and typically have a two-hour or less time limit.

Page 565 of 714 ends

7 _ __GENERAL USE OF PARKING __________________________

POLICIES

1.1 The City should maximize the use of all parking structures and surface lots.

1.2 The City should encourage any development of surface parking lots in the commercial core to conform, to the degree possible, to the “Conceptual Physical Plan for the City’s Center.”

1.3 Curb parking spaces are intended for short-term parking. People parking for longer periods should use monthly permit lots and long-term metered spaces and parking structures.

1.4 The City may install parking meters or post parking time limits where at least 75% of a block's frontage is developed with commercial uses. The City will consider requests by a majority of residential and commercial property owners along a block to install parking controls.

1.5 Thirty-minute parking spaces shall be placed at the ends of blocks in the commercial core where short-term parking is needed. The City will consider requests by property owners to locate 30-minute spaces at other locations.

1.6 Parking for commercial deliveries in the commercial core should be managed so that:
Illegal double parking or excessive circulation by delivery vehicles is discouraged. Deliveries are discouraged during peak traffic periods and during retail business hours. Merchants may consider lockbox systems that allow for unassisted nighttime access for deliveries.
Oversized vehicles do not attempt deliveries.

ACTIONS

1.7 The City will:
Publicize the availability of parking spaces in underused lots and will offer incentives to increase their use.
Take actions that better direct people to parking structures and underused parking lots and long-term metered curb parking areas.
Continue to offer permits for 10-hour metered parking spaces. Maintain long-term metered spaces on Pacific Street and alongside streets near the Marsh Street parking structure for overflow parking, but periodically evaluate their use.

Page 566 of 714 ends

8 1.8 The City will consider:
Allowing the mixture of daily and monthly parking in underused permit lots. Managing employee use of the Marsh Street parking structure so that (A) more spaces can be reserved for shoppers, and (B) more employees are encouraged to use the Palm Street structure, which has more vacant spaces. Allowing the use of long term parking for downtown residential uses in City owned parking facilities.

1.9 City staff will periodically evaluate and revise as appropriate:
The placement of 15- and 30-minute parking meters.
The layout of existing parking lots or structures when they are resurfaced or restriped with the aim of: (a) maximizing their use, (b) improving circulation and (c) complying with requirements to provide parking for the disabled. The use of curb space in the downtown (including no parking and loading zones) to identify opportunities for creating more short-term spaces. The optimum mixture of long- and short-term metered spaces and the expansion of metered curb areas.

1.10 If congestion levels in the commercial core exceed standards set by the Circulation Element, the City will adopt an ordinance that limits times for commercial deliveries.

_ __EMPLOYEE USE OF PARKING___________________________

POLICIES

2.1 Employee parking programs will be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Circulation Element.

2.2 The City and County should develop programs that reduce the number of their employees that are driving alone to work.

2.3 Commercial core employers should establish programs that encourage employees to:
Use Palm Street Parking Structure, monthly permit lots, and long-term metered spaces.

Page 567 of 714 ends

9 Use other types of transportation to get to work or to carpool. A listing of approved programs is included as Appendix A.2.

ACTIONS

2.4 The City will establish a program in the commercial core that fosters carpooling by employees and visitors.

2.5 The Downtown Association (DA) and Chamber of Commerce should sponsor on-going education programs that discourage employees from using curb parking and promote alternate transportation.

2.6 The City should discourage long-term employee use of curb parking in the commercial core by:
Expanding areas with two-hour parking limits when needed to maintain convenient customer parking opportunities.
Monitoring the use of 15- and 30-minutes curb spaces; Consider increasing the fines for overtime violations; As requested, consider establishing resident parking districts in areas adjoining the commercial core and office districts.

2.7 The City will institute a trip reduction program for its employees in compliance with goals established by the Circulation Element.

2.8 The City should develop a bulk discount rate for its transit passes without negatively affecting transit funding. Employers should purchase passes and make them available to employees who substitute riding the bus for driving to work.

2.9 The City will install bicycle lockers at convenient locations in the commercial core and will promote their use by commercial core employees on a space-available basis.

2.10 The City will work to consider park-and-ride lots that serve the commute needs of commercial core employees. The City will evaluate outlying parking lots for their use by commercial core employees with a shuttle connecting these lots with the core. _ __JUROR USE OF PARKING________________________________

POLICIES

3.1 The City will provide free parking for jurors in the Palm Street parking structure or in metered spaces when the Palm Street parking structure is full or when a juror drives an oversized vehicle as per the agreement with the County for limited use.

ACTIONS

Page 568 of 714 ends

10 3.2 City staff will work with the Jury Commissioner to inform prospective jurors of the City's parking policies. Staff will monitor the amount of jury parking and inform the Jury Commissioner if overflow parking becomes a problem.
_ __USE OF PARKING FOR DOWNTOWN RESIDENTS_________

POLICIES

4.1 As a pilot program, the City will provide a limited number of parking spaces to accommodate residential tenants within the Downtown-Commercial (C-D) zone consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policy 4.22 and Housing Element Policy 3.12.4. These spaces may be provided in structures or other locations that are suitable for overnight parking programs.

4.2 Monthly fees for such parking spaces shall be as adopted by City Council Resolution to financially contribute to the cost of the new program.

4.3 Parking spaces shall be in locations suitable for overnight use and shall be in locations that do not significantly interfere with necessary parking for downtown customers and employees or encroach into adjacent residential neighborhoods.

ACTIONS

4.4 The City shall establish a pilot program to allow residents within the downtown core to utilize public parking and to monitor the amount of residential parking required.

4.5 The City Council shall adopt a resolution that establishes a fee program, use limitations and enforcement options for regulating use of parking for downtown residents.

4.6 The Municipal Code shall be amended to include parking options for downtown residences.

4.7 The City will assist owners of downtown residences to inform prospective tenants of the City’s parking policies and transportation choices. The Parking Services web page is one element that could be used as a component of this information source. _ __EXPANSION OF PARKING_______________________________

POLICIES

5.1 Parking should be provided in the commercial core for shoppers, tourists, employees and patrons of government and private offices.

5.2 Building parking structures is the best way of providing more parking facilities while minimizing the use of valuable commercial land. City-owned land earmarked for parking structures may be used as temporary surface parking lots.

5.3 Existing City-owned surface parking lots purchased by the Parking Fund which are not earmarked for parking structure locations may be sold to finance expansion of parking in permanent structures when and after new parking structures have been built to take their place.

Page 569 of 714 ends

11 5.4 Parking structures and surface lots should be located along the periphery of the commercial core as a means of eliminating traffic congestion and enhancing pedestrian activities.

ACTIONS

5.5 Develop a program to encourage use of underutilized parking lots, which would benefit the commercial core.
_ __ENFORCEMENT________________________________________

POLICIES

6.1 Parking laws will be strictly enforced to:
Discourage overtime parking;
Discourage habitual parking violations -- people with six or more violations; Encourage meter payments; and
Direct people parking for long periods to use long-term parking spaces.

ACTIONS

6.2 City enforcement officers will strictly enforce all parking laws, especially overtime violations and the misuse of loading zones.

6.3 The City in cooperation with the BIA will develop a plan to discourage habitual violators. _ __FINANCING OF COMMERCIAL CORE PARKING__________

POLICIES

7.1 The City’s Parking Program will be self-supporting. The principal purpose of Parking Fund revenues will be used to:
Maintain and expand parking operations and supply, including effective parking demand reduction programs
Repay bonds that financed the construction of the parking structures.

Pilot or “test case” parking demand reduction activities may also be funded, provided that they are well defined and monitored for a defined period of time and a measurement of effectiveness is predetermined.

7.2 Commercial core merchants, business owners, and property owners should help finance the

Page 570 of 714 ends

12 parking program.

ACTIONS

7.3 The City will deposit all revenues from parking fines into the Parking Fund.

7.4 The City will:
Review parking meter and citation rates every two years and make adjustments as needed.
Continue to charge variable rates for different types of parking. Continue to collect in-lieu fees from development projects in the commercial core. Consider new fee programs applicable to commercial core merchants, business owners and property owners.

7.5 The City, upon Council direction, will evaluate the elimination of parking meters in the commercial core and the creation of a comprehensive financing plan to finance the Parking Program.
_ __RESIDENTIAL PARKING________________________________

POLICIES

8.1 Parking along streets in residential areas should be used by residents and their guests.

However, no individual household has the exclusive right to use a particular section of curb parking and curb parking is not guaranteed in front of each household.

8.2 The City may prohibit or limit curb parking in residential areas to ensure safe traffic flow, pedestrian crossing conditions or to install motor vehicle or bicycle lanes consistent with the Circulation Element or the Bicycle Transportation Plan.

8.3 The City will create residential parking districts when needed to manage parking and maintain the quality of life in residential areas.

8.4 All residential parking districts must comply with provisions of Section 10.36.170 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code.

Page 571 of 714 ends

13 ACTIONS

8.5 Upon receiving a petition from a 60% majority of affected residents living within a proposed parking district, the City Council may create a district consistent with provisions of the municipal code. (For the location of existing Residential Parking Districts, see Appendix A.3.)

PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND PROMOTION

POLICIES

9.1 The City's Parking Manager is responsible for interpreting and implementing the provisions of this plan.

9.2 As the need arises, the City will evaluate the potential for hiring a private company to manage its parking structures.

9.3 The Parking Manager will continue to work with the Downtown Association (DA), Chamber of Commerce, and County government to cooperatively implement this plan.

9.4 The Parking Manager will undertake a wide range of actions to make the public aware of the provisions of this plan.

9.5 Applications for amending the Access and Parking Management Plan shall be filed with the City’s Parking Manager. Applications will receive and extensive review process and will be acted on no more frequently than annually by the City Council.

Page 572 of 714 ends

14 APPENDIX
A.1 Map of Downtown Parking and Business Improvement Area Showing Existing Parking A.2 Approved Parking Management and Demand Reduction Programs A.3 Map of Existing Residential Parking Districts
A.4 City Council Resolution # 10317 (2011 Series) amending this plan G:\Transportation-Data\_Unsorted Stuff\Transportation\Transportation Projects\Parking\Current Projects\Downtown Parking 2010\CAR\2010 Access and Parking Management Plan Final Edit.docx

Page 573 of 714 ends

Page 574 of 714 ends

16 APPENDIX A.2
Approved Parking Management and
Demand Reduction Programs
# Description Status
Parking Demand Reduction Programs
1 Increase the maximum charge for garage parking Approved/Completed 2 Transit pass subsidies for downtown employees Approved/Completed 3 Reduce monthly parking pass costs for high-occupancy vehicles Approved/Completed 4 Improve bicycle access to the downtown Approved/Ongoing 5 Establish an advertising program for downtown parking demand reduction (PDR) programs
Approved/Ongoing
6 Encourage the county to establish a trip reduction program similar to the City’s program
Approved/Ongoing
Parking Management Programs
1 Reduce free parking in garages from 90 minutes to 60 minutes Approved/Completed 2 Increase the in-lieu parking fee charged to new development to better reflect the cost of downtown parking
Approved/Completed
3 Increase 2-hour parking in the commercial core and limit long-term parking
Approved/Completed
Respond to citizen proposals to establish residential parking districts in neighborhoods adjoining the downtown.

Approved/Ongoing
4 Increase long-term parking at the periphery of the downtown Approved/Ongoing 5 Work with the Downtown Association to establish a program for discouraging habitual violators
Approved/Ongoing

Page 575 of 714 ends

Page 576 of 714 ends

18 RESOLUTION NO. 10317 (2011 Series)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO

AMENDING THE ACCESS AND PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the City adopted its first Parking Management Plan in 1987 and revised the Plan in 1990 and 1995 and revised and retitled the Plan in 2002; and WHEREAS, the City's General Plan contains policies and programs to encourage housing
development in the downtown core, including allowing more flexible parking regulations for housing developments through amendments to the Zoning Regulations and Access and Parking Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted public hearings on May 25, 2011, July 27, 2011, and August 24, 2011, and recommended approval of amendments to Access and Parking Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on November 15 ,
2011 to consider amendments to the Access and Parking Management Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Negative Declaration of environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of
interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:

SECTION 1. Findings . The Council makes the following findings:

1. The proposed amendments will not significantly alter the character of the City or cause significant health, safety or welfare concerns.

2. The proposed amendments further the goals and policies of the General Plan in support of downtown residential development.

SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (GPI/ER 83-07) prepared for the Access and Parking Management Plan and Zoning Regulations amendments adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental Guidelines, and reflects the independent judgment of the Council. The Council hereby adopts the Negative Declaration.

Page 577 of 714 ends

Page 578 of 714 ends

council
M. 6" D,
July 16, 2002
agenba izEpoat
ltm.

CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Michael McCluskey, Director ofPublic Works s*"
Prepared By: Terry Sanville, Principal Transportation Planner ES SUBJECT: 2002 UPDATE OF THE 1995 PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN AND

DISPOSITION OF UNRESOLVED PARKING AND ACCESS ISSUES

CAO RECOMMENDATION
The City Council should;

1. Adopt a resolution approving a Negative Declaration . and adopting the Access and Parking Management Plan (July 2002).

2. Review unresolved parking and access issues and identify those that should be considered for inclusion as a Council Goal in the upcoming 2003- 2005 Financial Plan.

DISCUSSION
This agenda report presents two separate but related elements. Staff recommends that the City Council first adopt a resolution adopting the Access and Parking Management Plan ( July 2002) Recommendation # 1), then discuss unresolved parking issues and, by motion, act on Recommendation# 2.

A. Amending the Parking Management Plan. At its April 30, 2002 meeting, the City Council directed staff to schedule a Council business item to consider amending the 1995 Parking Management Plan ( PMP). The limited scope of these amendments was to include the variety of parking demand management and parking management activities ( called Tier 1 and Tier 2 activities) previously acted on by the Council. These activities are identified in Appendix A.2 ofthe updated plan. In addition to Council direction, staff has updated the PMP to include the following minor changes:

1. Revise the Introduction on page 4 to reflect major events that have occurred since the plan was last amended in 1995;

2. Change the references to the Business Improvement Area throughout the document to the Downtown Association•,

3. Amend Actions 1. 9 and 2. 6 to reflect the fact that the City now provides 15- minute parking in the downtown. Change Policy 7.5 to reflect recent changes in the Municipal Code that address petition requirements for Residential Parking Districts.

4. Change the title of the plan to" Access and Parking Management Plan" as suggested by Council Member Marx. Staff supports this change since the Plan now includes alternative access strategies( Tier 1 and 2). 6- 1

Page 579 of 714 ends

Council Agenda Report: 2002 Access and Parking Management Plan

Page 2 ends

A legislative draft of the amended and retitled Plan accompanies this report as Exhibit A to Attachment 1. Staff has prepared an Initial Environmental Study( Attachment 2) that evaluates the impacts of the proposed amendments and the Community Development Director has recommended that a Negative Declaration be granted.

Staff wants to emphasize that, in order to update the PMP at this time, the Council should limit its review of language amendments to only-those areas already acted on by the Council. Matters not yet acted on should be handled in the manner suggested below.

B. Review of Unresolved Parking and Access Issues. At its April 30, 2002 meeting, the Council also directed that the Planning Commission consider some of the more costly and complex parking demand reduction proposals ( called Tier 3) and determine if the Commission is capable of administering these programs or whether a new standing or ad hoc advisory body should be created to do this work. The Planning Commission is scheduled to consider the Tier 3 proposals at its July 10, 2002 meeting, with recommendations forthcoming to the City Council.

However, beyond those issues that are covered by Tier 1, 2 and 3 activities, there remains unresolved issues that were addressed by the draft Parking and Downtown Access Plan ( PDAP).

These residual issues have been debated from time to time by the City Council over the past five years. Staff has identified them below. The City Council should review each issue and identify those that should be considered for inclusion as a Council Goal in the upcoming 2003- 2005 Financial Plan. Staff recommendations for the disposition of each issue are provided below.

Issue 1: Establishing.Parking Utilization Thresholds( triggers). The draft PDAP includes a series of parking utilization thresholds that would need to be exceeded before the design and constriction of additional parking garages could proceed. Staff believes that existing and future City Councils will fully consider the issue of" need" before committing millions of dollars to additional parking structures and that each project will be subject to significant public scrutiny and input. Therefore including " triggers" in the Access and Parking Management Plan that either stifle or permit new structures is unwarranted.

Staff. Recommendation: Exclude from further consideration. The need for additional parking strictures will be established as part of the Financial Planning process.

Issue 2: Implementation Timing of PDR and Parking Supply Activities. The City Council has been approving PDR and parking management activities on an ad hoc basis. The preparation of each Financial Plan will involve City Councils establishing financial priorities for PDR and parking supply projects. The current 1995 Parking Management Plan calls for these types of projects.

However, it does not address the balancing of effort between constructing parking structures and reducing downtown employee parking demand, nor does it include methodologies for determining the success or failure of individual or combined PDR activities.

Staff Recommendation: Include for consideration as a Council Goal as part of the 2003- 05 Financial Plan to study policy options for balancing supply and demand reduction activities and establishing performance standards for each. This further analysis would not attempt top4lish specific time frames ( tied to calendar years) but should evaluate the appropriate sege of

Page 580 of 714 ends

Council Agenda Report: 2002 Access and Parking Management Plan

Page 3 ends

implementation, with levels of effort being set by the Financial Plan process. Depending on the level of interest expressed by the Planning Commission at its July l0a'
meeting, the Commission
may assist Council in reviewing and prioritizing the different strategies.

Issue 3: Location of Parking Structures and Priorities. The draft Parking and Downtown Access Plan ( PDAP) divided the community' s central area into quadrants, forecast parking demand within these quadrants, then established general parking garage locations ( Palm H, Fremont Quadrant, Palm- Nipomo and Wells Fargo as optional sites). Recent history has shown that redevelopment of downtown properties ( the Court Street Project and the County Administrative Complex) has a major influence on parking structure location, size, and priority. Availability and configuration of property, potential zoning changes ( eg. the CC Zone expansion proposal) and compliance with General Plan and Parking Management Plan policies are other factors that have a major influence on site selection and project scale. Given the fluid nature of downtown changes, staff believes that establishing fixed locations and priorities, and committing to garage construction may have limited value.

Staff Recommendation: Exclude from further consideration. Staff believes that existing and future City Councils will thoroughly evaluate opportunities and constraints when determining the appropriate location for a parking garage or when setting implementation priorities.

Furthermore, decisions to select specific sites are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA). An environmental document and the public review process required by CEQA will be required when specific sites are officially selected for garage development.

CONCURRENCES
On Friday, June 28, 2002, the Downtown Association Parking Committee reviewed the administrative draft ofthe PMP. The Committee suggested that certain minor technical changes be incorporated into the Plan. These changes are identified by item A.4 on the first page of this Agenda Report. The DA Parking Committee passed the following motions:

1. The Downtown Association Board should concur with the revisions to the Parking Management Plan, including the technical changes recommended by the Parking Committee.

2. The Downtown Association Board should ask the City Council to be informed of the schedule for undertaking a more comprehensive revision of Parking Management Plan and include the Downtown Association as part of that revision process.

FISCAL IMPACT
Amending the Parking Management Plan will have no fiscal impact to the City.

ALTERNATIVES. The City Council may:

1. Continue consideration of one or both of the action items and request additional information from staff.
6-3

Page 581 of 714 ends

I
Council Agenda Report: 2002 Access and Parking Management Plan

Page 4 ends

2. Consider incorporating other amendments into the Access and Parking Management Plan so long as these supplementary amendments do not increase environmental concerns beyond those addressed in the Initial Environmental Study.

3. Delay consideration of updating the Parking Management Plan until Planning Commission recommendations on Tier 3 activities are received and acted on.

Attachments
Attachment 1: Resolution Amending the 1995 Parking Management Plan Exhibit A: Legislative Draft ofthe 2002 Access and Parking Management Plan Attachment. 2: Initial Environmental Study for Amending the 1995 Parking Management Plan 6-4

Page 582 of 714 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO (2002 Series)

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING AND RETITLING THE 1995 PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION 8480 ( 1996 SERIES)
WHEREAS, the City adopted its first Parking Management Plan in 1987 and revised the plan in 1990 and 1995; and
WHEREAS, the City recognizes its responsibility to effectively manage parking throughout the community to help maintain the quality of life in residential areas and the economic and cultural vitality of the commercial core; and
WHEREAS, the City further recognizes that reducing the employee demand for private vehicle parking through implementation of trip reduction measures also contributes to the downtown' s economic- and cultural vitality and quality of environment; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed the revised and retitled Parking Management Plan, has determined that its implementation will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, and has prepared a Negative Declaration consistent with the provisions ofthe California Environmental Quality Act( CEQA); and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the environmental determination made bythe Community Development Director, and has determined that it is prudent to revise the Parking Management Plan to maintain consistency with the Circulation Element and to refine parking and access management policies and programs.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:

1. Council finds no significant environmental impact. The findings ofthe environmental review of the revised Parking Management Plan will not result in any significant environmental impact and the Council hereby adopts the Negative Declaration prepared for the revised Plan.

2. The revised Parking Management Plan, retitled the " Access and Parking Management Plan July 2002), " attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby adopted.

3. Copies of the Access and Parking Management Plan ( July 2002) will be distributed to City departments and made available to the public at the Public Works Department and City Clerk' s offices.

On motion of seconded by and
on the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 92002. 616

Page 583 of 714 ends

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 2 ends

Mayor Allen K. Settle
ATTEST:

City Clerk
APPROVED:
e,olyd
Agor y
Jorgensen
6-5

Page 584 of 714 ends

EXHIBIT A
MY of San WIS OBISPO

ACCESS AND PARKING

MANAGEMENT
PLAN
Updated Decembet 1995
R TIN 700?
CITY
II
f l
sir- n-_..- i--f ''
wt .

J ®
roti
OF SAN LUIS / : ' /

PUBLIC WORKS SECTION
61 Chorro Street, Suite C San Luis Obispo, California 93401 1

Page 585 of 714 ends

city of san luis ® IS ®

ACCESS & PARKING MANAGEMENT
PLAN

SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
Allen K. Settle, Mayor
Jan Howell Marx, Vice Mayor
John Ewan
Ken Schwartz
Christine Mulholland

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Mike McCluskey, Director
Timothy Bochum, Deputy Director of Public Works
Terry Sanville, Principal Transportation Planner
Keith Opalewski, Parking Manager

CITY ADNUNISTRATION
Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer
Wendy George, Assistant City Administrative Officer
i
6- 8

Page 586 of 714 ends

CITY TRANSPORTATION PLANS
The City of San Luis Obispo adopts and maintains plans that help direct the implementation of the General Plan Circulation Element. These plans include:

Title of Document Status
Access Parking Management Plan ( this document) i 1pdated 1nly, - O( l? Bicycle Transportation Plan i l=dated May, 2M
Short Range Transit Plan Adopted November, 1997
Pavement Management Plan Adopted February, 1988
For more information about City transportation plans, projects and programs, contact the San Luis Obispo Public Works Department, Transportation Division at( 805) 781- 7210. 2 6- 9

Page 587 of 714 ends

o TABLE OF CONTENTS
Topic Page
Introduction............................................................................................................................................ 4 Relationship to Other Plans and Policies..............................................................................................4 Scopeof Plan......................................................................................................................................... 5 ParkingManagement Goals ................................................................................................................... 6 Definitions .........................................................................................:................................................... 6 GeneralUse ofParking.......................................................................................................................... 7 EmployeeUse ofParking......................................................................................................................8 JurorUse ofParking..............................................................................................................................9 Expansionof Parking ..........................................................................•...............................................10 Enforcement.............................................:........................................................................................... 10 Financing ofCommercial Core Parking............................................:................................................11 ResidentialParking ••••.........................................................................................................................12 Program Administration and Promotion............................................................................................. 12

APPENDIX
A. 1 Map of Downtown Parking and Business Improvement Area Showing Existing Parking....... 14 A 2 Approved Parking Management and Demand Rednction Programs,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 15 A.23. Map ofExisting Residential Parking Districts............................................:.............................. 16 A.34 City Council Resolution # 2.002 Series. revising this VInn........................ .............. 17 3 6- 10

Page 588 of 714 ends

o INTRODUCTION
Between 1977 and 1987, a number of studies were conducted to assess the vehicle parking situation in downtown San Luis Obispo. As a result of this work, the City built two parking structures that house 669 vehicles. The first parking structure located at the corner of Palm and Morro Streets was completed in 1988. The second garage at the corner of Chorro and Marsh Streets was completed in 1990. An expansion of the Marsh Street garage that add-, 342 .spaces ( net increase of 745 nacecl will he completed in Sedtemher 2002_ These three pmjectc resulted in a total of 1, 007 garage spaces In addition, the City manages over 1, 600 spaces located in surface lots and along downtown streets. Another result of these early parking studies was the City's adoption of its first Parking Management Plan in 1987. The management plan was updated in 1990 and again in 1995 to reflect the completion of some of the major parking projects, and to better define management policies.

In February 1993, a group of local architects and designers completed a Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center ( commonly known as the Downtown Concept Plan). The City Council has adopted, in concept, the Plan and feels that it should be considered when making planning decisions that affect the City's center- The Plan was revised in 1997 to reflect changes to the Court Street Parking l.nt area The Concept Plan suggests that a number ofnew parking structures be built and that the pedestrian character of the commercial core be improved.

In November 1994, the City adopted a new General Plan Circulation Element. The adopted Circulation Element directs the Cityto conduct studies of downtown parking needs and to consider ways of reducing traffic congestion by promoting the use of other types of transportation. The Circulation Element also directs the reevaluation of the use of curb space in the commercial core with the aim of creating more short- term parking spaces.

This plan has been revised to address a number of events and decisions that have occurred since 19965, including the following:

Q in 1997, a Downtown Parking and Access Plan was completed by Meyer- Mohaddee and Associates_ While never adopted by the City Council, this draft plan estimated fimirear: king demand, identified candidatean rking garage location-, as well as a variety of actions that the City could take to hetter manage its currentap rking supply and reduce employee demand for downtownar: kingAc a way of incrementally implementingthe draft Dnwntnwn Parking and Access Plan, the.

Council authorized the implementation of a variety of meacnrec to encourage employpec to nce means other than their private vehicle-, to access the downtown in Inly 7001 a " C,nld Pacc" program was initiated that provides subsidized montbly transit passes to downtown emI2Iny= yParking stalls for car = only have also been reserved in existing arking_ ctnirhirec Other parking management activities have also been pursued_ Appendix A_2 identifies these. ap nved activities_
Q On 05/ 01/ 2001 the City Council amended Section 6 1 of the Parking Management Plan to 4 6- 11

Page 589 of 714 ends

provide clarity on the use.,of Parking Find revenues
Q The City Council approved a Memorandum of I Jndemtanding ( M011) with private nrorrtv developers that, among other things, calls for the constniction of.9 new parking stmcttire nn the southeast corner of Palm and Morrn Streets that will house 243 vehicles This project is designed to satisfyap rking demand created by the retirement of the Court S tap rking int and
the development of a retail commercial project on that site (theeelands Project") Q The City Council authorized its staff to solicit proposals from consultants to prepare s h math plans for aap rking- mixed use facility east of Santa Rosa Street Entitled the " North Area Regional Facility( NARF)," this design work will investig tae opportunities for cnnstmcting new parking garages to serve the downtown core and the expanded County Administrative Complex
The San Luk Obispo Downtown Association participated
in the review of this the 1995 Parking Management Plan. This updated plan will be used as a management tool to help direct how vehicle parking should be provided and used throughout San Luis Obispo and how the demand for downtown a
rking will he managed.

RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS AND POLICIES
The City's General Plan Land Use Element establishes the pattern of land uses throughout San Luis Obispo. The General Plan Circulation Element identifies how transportation services will be provided to land uses envisioned by the Land Use Element. One of these transportation services is vehicle parking. This plan provides specific direction for the management of vehicle parking in a way that supports the Circulation Element' s overall transportation strategy. This plan focuses on the management of vehicle parking in the community' s commercial core. Parking of bicycles is addressed by the Bicycle Transportation Plan (20.02 1993) but is an issue that is relevant to the use of City parking structures and surface lots.

SCOPE OF THIS PLAN
This plan establishes vehicle parking policies and programs that apply throughout San Luis Obispo.

However, its primary focus is the management of parking in the commercial core. This plan also identifies, inpp ndi x A ?. ap= ved management techniques for better using exighng parking sees, and for reducing the employee demand forap rking spaces in the nmm r ial core This plan may be revised from time to time to address parking needs in areas beyond and within the commercial core. For more information about City parking programs, contact the Parking Section of the Public Works Department at( 805) 781- 7230.

MEM PARKING MANAGEMENT GOALS
5 6- 12

Page 590 of 714 ends

I i
Support the commercial core as a viable economic and cultural center and preserve its historic character.

Support the goals of the Domitown eoncept Pim, Conceptual P yciral Plan firer thy'--y Canter.

Provide enough parking in the commercial core for visitors and employees.

Reduce the demand for employee parking through various programs such as carpooling, vanpools, transit suhsidieSand hicycle and pedestrian systems development_ Support the transportation strategy presented in the General Plan Circulation Element.

C3Except as officivyise stzftd aird vvidifi, badget constraints, Cant' out actions described in this plan wiffrin five yezus of its adupdon by die eity eumicii within budget constrains and consistent with Financial Plan goals and policies that are undated ey= two years15WEM DEFINITIONS The following words and phrases used throughout this plan have the following meanings:

Commercial Core is the central business district in San Luis Obispo. Its boundaries are the same as the Downtown Association Area ( see Appendix
A.1).

Commercial Deliveries are made to businesses in the commercial core using trucks that are commercially licensed.

Downtown Business frupiuvement 21aex ( BW Downtown Association ( DA) Advisory Board is an 11- member group established pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 12. 36 by the City Council to promote the economic health of the commercial core. The DA ( and its advisory committees) participates in the development of City programs that affect the downtown and provide advise to City staff and the City Council.

Long-Term Parking spaces may be free or metered, are located along streets, in monthly permit lots or parking structures, and typically allow parking for 10 hours or more.

Parking Structures are multi-level buildings that are managed by the City and provide parking for the general public, commercial core employees, and jurors at the Palm Street parking structure.

Short-Term Parking spaces may be free or metered and typically have a two-hour or less time limit.
6 6- 13

Page 591 of 714 ends

Oiibi GENERAL USE OF PARKING POLICIES

1. 1 The City should maximize the use of all parking structures and surface lots.

1. 2 The City should encourage any development of surface parking lots in the commercial core to conform, to the degree possible, to the Bomitom, Physiml Pimi " Conce teal Physical Plan for the City' s Center."

1. 3 Curb parking spaces are intended for short-term parking. People parking for longer periods should use monthly permit lots and long-term metered spaces and parking structures.

1. 4 The City may install parking meters or post parking time limits where at least 75% of a block's frontage is developed with commercial uses. The City will consider requests by a majority of residential and commercial property owners along a block to install parking controls.

1. 5 Thirty-minute parking spaces shall be placed at the ends of blocks in the commercial core where short-term parking is needed. The City will consider requests by property owners to locate 30-minute spaces at other locations.

1. 6 Parking for commercial deliveries in the commercial core should be managed so that:

Illegal double parking or excessive circulation by delivery vehicles is discouraged.

Q Deliveries are discouraged during peak traffic periods and during retail business hours.

Merchants may consider lockbox systems that allow for unassisted nighttime access for deliveries.

Oversized vehicles do not attempt deliveries.

ACTIONS

1. 7 The City will:

C3 Publicize the availability of parking spaces in underused lots and will offer incentives to increase their use.
3 Take actions that better direct people to parking structures and underused parking lots and longt .rm metered .nrhan rking aromas
7 6- 14

Page 592 of 714 ends

3 Continue to offer permits for 10- hour metered parking spaces.

Maintain long-term metered spaces on Pacific Street and along side streets near the Marsh Street parking structure for overflow parking, but periodically evaluate their use.

1. 8 The City will consider:

Allowing the mixture ofdaily and monthly parking in underused permit lots.

Managing employee use of the Marsh Street parking structure so that ( A) more spaces can be reserved for shoppers, and ( B) more employees are encouraged to use the Palm Street structure, which has more vacant spaces.

1. 9 City staff will periodically evaluate and revise as appropriate:
c3 The placement of 15- and 30-minute parking meters.

The layout of existing parking lots or structures when they are resurfaced or restriped with the aim of. (a) maximizing their use, ( b) improving circulation, and ( c) complying with requirements to provide parking for the disabled.

The use of curb space in the downtown ( including no parking and loading zones) to identify opportunities for creating more short- term spaces.

Q The optimum mixture of long- and short-term metered spaces and the expansion of metered curb areas.

1. 10 If congestion levels in the commercial core exceed standards set by the Circulation Element, the City will adopt an ordinance that limits times for commercial deliveries.

EMPLOYEE USE OF PARKING

POLICIES

2. 1 Employee parking programs will be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Circulation Element.

2.2 The City and County should develop programs that reduce the number of their employees that are driving alone to work.

2. 3 Commercial core employers should establish programs that encourage employees to:

C3 Use Palm Street Parking Structure, monthly permit lots, and long-term metered spaces. s
6- 15

Page 593 of 714 ends

I
Use other types of transportation to get to work or to carpool. A listing of Councilapproved pro= ms is included aS Appendix A

ACTIONS

2.4 The City will establish a program in the commercial core that fosters carpooling by employees and visitors.

2.5 The Downtown Association ( DA) and Chamber
of Commerce should sponsor on-going education programs that discourage employees from using curb parking and promote alternate transportation.

2.6 The City should discourage long-term employee use of curb parking in the commercial core by:

Q Expanding areas with two-hour parking limits when needed to maintain convenient customer parking opportunities.
c3 Monitoring the use of 15- and 30- minutes curb spaces; Consider increasing the fines for overtime violations;
Q As requested, consider establishing resident parking districts in areas adjoining the commercial core and office districts.

2. 7 The City will institute a trip reduction program for its employees in compliance with goals established by the Circulation Element.

2. 8 The City should develop a bulk discount rate for its transit passes without negatively affecting transit funding. Employers should purchase passes and make them available to employees who substitute riding the bus for driving to work.

2. 9 The City will install bicycle lockers at convenient locations in the commercial core and will promote their use by commercial core employees on a space- available basis..

2. 10 The City will work with to consider park- and-ride lots that serve the commute needs of commercial core employees. The City will evaluate outlying parking lots for their use by commercial core employees with a shuttle connecting these lots with the core.

JUROR USE OF PARKING
9 6- 16

Page 594 of 714 ends

POLICIES

3. 1 The City will provide free parking for jurors in the Palm Street parking structure or in metered spaces when the Palm Street parking structure is full or when a juror drives an oversized vehicle as per the agreement with the County for limited use.

ACTIONS

3. 2 City staff will work with the Jury Commissioner to inform prospective jurors of the City's parking policies. Staff will monitor the amount of jury parking and inform the Jury Commissioner ifoverflow parking becomes a problem.

Mwoqw EXPANSION OF PARKING

POLICIES

4. 1 Parking should be provided in the commercial core for shoppers, tourists, employees and patrons of government and private offices.

4.2 Building parking structures is the best way of providing more parking facilities while minimizing the use of valuable commercial land. City-owned land earmarked for parking structures may be used as temporary surface parking lots..

4.3 Existing City- owned surface parking lots purchased by the Parking Fund which are not earmarked for parking structure locations may be sold to finance expansion of parking in permanent structures when and after new parking structures have been built to take their place.

4.4 Parking structures and surface lots should be located along the periphery of the commercial core as a means of eliminating traffic congestion and enhancing pedestrian activities.

ACTIONS

4. 5 Develop a program to encourage use of underutilized parking lots, which would benefit the commercial core.

ViiiR ENFORCEMENT

POLICIES

5. 1 Parking laws will be strictly enforced to:

G Discourage overtime parking;
io
6- 17

Page 595 of 714 ends

C3 Discourage habitual parking violations-- people with six or more violations; Encourage meter payments; and
C3 Direct people parking for long periods to use long-term parking spaces.

ACTIONS

5. 2 City enforcement officers will strictly enforce all parking laws, especially overtime violations and the misuse of loading zones.

5. 3 The City in cooperation with the Downtown Association will develop a plan to discourage habitual violators.
4 FINANCING OF COMMERCIAL CORE PARKING

POLICIES

6. 1 The City' s Parking Program will be self-supporting. The principal purpose of Parking Fund revenues will be used to:
a) Maintain and expand parking operations and supply, including effective parking demand reduction programs, and
b) Repay bonds that financed the construction of the parking structures.

Pilot or " test case" parking demand reduction activities may also be funded, provided that they are well defined and monitored for a defined period of time, and a measurement of effectiveness is predetermined.

6. 2 Commercial core merchants, business owners, and property owners should help finance the parking program.

ACTIONS

6. 3 The City will deposit all revenues from parking fines into the Parking Fund.

6.4 The City will:

Review parking meter and citation rates every two years and make adjustments as needed
Continue to charge variable rates for different types of parking. limits. ( Note:_this. action.was. implemented. iri
6- 1V

Page 596 of 714 ends

20,01.)
7 Continue to collect in-lieu fees from development projects in the commercial core. for changc'.;(Note:athis_action was implemented ui.2001.) Consider new fee programs applicable to commercial core merchants, business owners, and property owners.

6.5 The City, upon Council direction, will evaluate the elimination of parking meters in the commercial core and the creation of a comprehensive financing plan to finance the Parking Program.
lummum RESIDENTIAL PARKING POLICIES

7. 1 Parking along streets in residential areas should be used by residents and their guests.

However, no individual household has the exclusive right to use a particular section of curb parking and curb parking is not guaranteed in front of each household.

7. 2 The City may prohibit or limit curb parking in residential areas to ensure safe traffic flow, pedestrian crossing conditions or to install motor vehicle or bicycle lanes consistent with the Circulation Element or the Bicycle Transportation Plan.

7.3 The City will create residential parking districts when needed to manage parking and maintain the quality of life in residential areas.

7.4 All residential parking districts must comply with provisions of Section 10. 36. 170 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code.

ACTIONS

7. 5 Upon receiving a petition from the a 60%, majority of affected residents living within a proposed parking district, the City Council may create a district consistent with provisions of the municipal code. ( For the location of existing Residential Parking Districts, see Appendix A. 23)

PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND PROMOTION

POLICIES

8. 1 The City's Parking Manager is responsible for interpreting and implementing the provisions of this plan.

8.2 As the need arises, the City will evaluate the potential for hiring a private company to 12 6- 19

Page 597 of 714 ends

J
manage its parking structures.

8. 3 The Parking Manager will continue to work with the BWj Downtown Association ( DA) Chamber of Commerce, and County government to cooperatively implement this plan.

8. 4 The Parking Manager will undertake a wide range of actions to make the public aware of the provisions of this plan.

8. 5 Applications for amending the Parking Management Plan shall be filed with the City' s Parking Manager. Applications will receive an extensive review process and will be acted on no more frequently than annually by the City Council.

APPENDIX
A. 1 Map of Downtown Parking and Business Improvement Area Showing Existing Parking A2 Approved Parking Management and demand Reduction Pmgramz.

A.-23 Map ofExisting Residential Parking Districts
A.34 City Council Resolution# 995 2002 Series) revising this plan 13 6- 20

Page 598 of 714 ends

e g o: se
Y 2
S
R m
R .
m
p9GJ
F O
Rwul• w A
a
a mJILJEl __ a U
F GG
slRs
o
mm n.

IIY
I
tttW
Y a [ ED IUAO R.

G
7 142 m
oaam n.

Z
Spi
N
r]
E hf
men.

O
a3 g
i
G G LY
er.

Rl...%LL.. '.:+. _
I .
mon.
m
mmm R.

Cao
OD6 - 000t
00tt 110zt OOfI sort
O
m •
rml
r
a
mh
0 N •
0 I
v
R m
N c O
I > t 2
H
OM
g EEID —_
aOUGN J
G
F
L O
O
W
o v
a a
I
N
fq
zoaaaC e
z
1 wSmfY Nb Nm
J .00n N D
s- 0m
N
W
O
b
V
C W 4•
Q
asps
s
p
Q "'
mUo2 Z3
1 p
6 1

Page 599 of 714 ends

APPENDIX A.2
Approved Parking Management and
Demand Reduction Programs
Description Status
Parkin Demand Reduction Programs
1 Increase the maximum charge for garage parking Approved/Completed 2 Transit Dass subsidies for downtown em to ees A roved/ Com feted 3 Reduce monthly parkingass costs for high-occupancy vehicles A roved/ Com leted 4 Improve bic cle access to the downtown A roved/ On oin 5 Establish an advertising program for downtown parking demand Approved/ Ongoing reduction PDR programs
6 j
Encourage the county to establish a
trip reduction program similar to the Approved/ Ongoing Ci ' s Prozram
Pa Idne Management Pro ms
1 Reduce free parking in garages from 90 minutes to 60 minutes Approved/Completed 2 Increase the in-lieu parking fee charged to new development to better Approved/Completed reflect the cost of downtown parking
3 Increase 2-hour parking in the commercial core and limit long-term Approved/ Completed parking
Respond to citizen proposals to establish residential parking districts in Approved/Ongoing neighborhoods adioining the downtown.
4 Increase long-term parking at the periphe1y of the downtown I Approved/ Ongoing 5 Work with the Downtown Association to establish a program for Approved/Ongoing discoaLaZing habitual violators
15 6_''2

Page 600 of 714 ends

1 i
1 1
I: s
Orr• e.•,. 1 _
ice.'! :r,f .
i
Y.A A.
1 i Page 601 of 714
ATTACHMENT 2

INITIAL, STUDY

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER

1. Project Title: Access and Parking Management Plan( July 2002)

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Tent' Sanville (805- 781- 7178)

4. Project Location: City-wide

5. Project Sponsor' s Name and Address: San Luis Obispo Public Works Department 955 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

6. General Plan Designation: Not Applicable

7. Zoning: Not Applicable

8. Description of the Project: Amend the 1995 Parking Management Plan to reflect program decisions made by the City Council during 2001 & 2002. Modifications to the plan includes a listing of approved Parking Demand Reduction ( PDR) and Parking Management measures included in Appendix A.2 ofthe plan.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: Not Applicable

10. Project Entitlements Requested: Not Applicable

11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None 6-24

Page 602 of 714 ends

4° community development ocpmtment
mcmomnaum
April 11, 2002
TO: Terry Sanville, Principal Transportation Planner
FROM: Michael Draw
Deputy Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: ER 88-02
1995 Parking Management Plan Update
On June 5, 2002, 1 reviewed your project's potential effect on the environment. I found that the project, as applied for, will not have a significant effect on the environment, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact will be prepared.

A Notice of our " Intention to Adopt" the Negative Declaration will be prepared and a public hearing on the environmental document and the project will be scheduled before a decision making body. The decision making body may modify or reverse my decision to prepare a Negative Declaration based on their review of the project and public comment received at the public hearing.

If you have any questions, please contact my office at 781- 7171 as soon as possible.
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401- 3249
805) 781- 7171 FAX:( 805) 781- 7173 6- 25

Page 603 of 714 ends

ATTACHMENT 2
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a " Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Geology/ Soils Public Services
Agricultural Resources Hazards& Hazardous Recreation_
Materials
Air Quality Hydrology/ Water Quality Transportation& Traffic Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service Systems
Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Energy and Mineral Population and Housing
Resources

FISH AND GAME FEES
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish X and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.

The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711. 4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.

STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more.

State agencies ( e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days ( CEQA Guidelines 15073( a)).
6- 26

Page 604 of 714 ends

ATTACHMENT 2
DETERMINATION:

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, -- X-- and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet( s) have been added and agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a " potentially significant" impact( s) or " potentially significant unless mitigated" impact( s) on the environment, but at least one effect ( 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and ( 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects ( 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and ( 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

July 1, 2002
Signature Date
For: John Mandeville,
Printed Name Community Development Dv.
6-27

Page 605 of 714 ends

ATTACHMENT 2
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except " No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A " No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved( e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A" No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project- specific factors as well as general standards ( e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project- specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project- level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question.

3. " Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more" Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. " Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from " Potentially Significant Impact' to a " Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level mitigation measures from Section 17, " Earlier Analysis," may be cross- referenced).

5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 ( c) ( 3) ( D) of the California Administrators Code. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts ( e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document. should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis.

C) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are " Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions for the project.

1. AESTHETICS. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damagescenic resources, including,, but not X limited to, trees, rock outcroppings; open space, and historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
c Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of X the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source ofsubstantial light or glare which would X adversel effect da_of.ni- httime views in the area? . _`__ T Comment: Since no specific physical facilities are identified in the amended Parking Management Plan, it is premature to evaluate the aesthetic impact of potential parking facilities. Impacts will depend on the particular sites selected, the height of the structures and the particular architectural style selected. 6-28

Page 606 of 714 ends

P% i I r%..nlnr. 114 1 c
Issues, Discussion and Suppor nformation Sources Sources Pc ' ly Potentially Less Than No Sigi.... aant Significant Significant Impact
ER#
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated

2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of X Statewide Importance( Farmland), as shown on the maps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a X Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment; which, due X to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? I - t
Comment: Policies and programmed contained within the Parking Management Plan affect fully urbanized areas in the community' s downtown commercial core or other parts of the build environment. Provisions of this plan do not involve agricultural lands or the conversion of land from agriculture to urban use.

3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an X existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X quality plan?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations?
d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X people?
e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria X pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Comment: the changes being made to the Parking Management Plan are the inclusion of TDM measures. These measures are designed to reduce demand for parking by fostering the use of other non- polluting forms of transportation or improving the efficiency of motorized transportation ( i.e. carpools, vanpools, or enhanced transit use). Therefore the PMP amendments should have a positive impact on air quality.

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) . Have asubstantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly or X through habitat modifications, on any species identified as. a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or, X other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fi'sh and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance( e:g. Heritage Trees)?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident X or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native . resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
T
e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation X Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other, approv_ed CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTA6FJ9' ST 2001

Page 607 of 714 ends

ATTACHMENT 2
Issues, Discussion and Suppor. hformation Sources Sources Ptly Potentially Less Than No Sigmucant Significant Significant Impact
ER# Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected X wetlandsas defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act including, but not limited to, marshes, vemal pools, etc through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Comment: Policies and programmed contained within the Parking Management Plan affect fully urbanized areas in the community' s downtown commercial core or other parts of the build environment. Provisions of this plan do not involve important biological resources, wetlands, or riparian areas.

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance ofa X historic resource?( See CEQA Guidelines 15064. 5)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in thesignificance of an X archeological resource?( See CEQA Guidelines 15064. 5)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource X or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of X formal cemeteries?
Comment: Since no specific physical facilities are identified in the amended Parking Management Plan, it is premature and too speculative to evaluate the impact of potential parking facilities on cultural facilities. Impacts will depend on the particular sites selected and its potential for containing significant archaeological or historic architectural resources. These types of evaluation should be done at the time that alternative sites are being selected.

6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X
b) Use non- renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource X that would be of value.to the region and the residents of the State?
Comment: Proposed revisions to the PMP encourage the use of non- vehicular transportation which should have a positive impact on the use of non-renewable energy sources.

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would theproject:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse X effects, including risk ofloss, injury or death involving:

I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated in the X most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area, or based on other substantial evidence ofa known fault?

11. Strong seismic ground shaking? X
IIl. Seismic related ground- failure, including liquefaction? X IV. Landslides ormudflows? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable; or that X would become unstable as a result ofthe project, and potentially result in on or off site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidance, liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as, defried in Table 18= 1- B of the X Uniform Building Code( 1994), creating_ substantial risks to life or property?
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTA614"I ST 2001

Page 608 of 714 ends

ATTACHMENT 2
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Comment: geological impacts will depend on the location of parking facilities and their design. Since the PMP does not specify articular locations, it is premature and too speculative to evaluate this issue.

8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pro' ect:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X though the routine uue, transport or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely X hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous X emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste?
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous X materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, it would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
f) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or within X two miles of apublic airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for the people residing or working in the project area?' g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with, the X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose, injury, X or death, involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are
intermixed with wildlands?
Comments: At the time that any facility is proposed for construction in compliance with PMP policies, the presence of any hazardous materials and their mitigation will be evaluated as part ofthat project' s environmental documents. The presence of hazardous materials is too variable throughout the community and it is too speculative to address potential impacts at this program level.

9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would theproject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level( eg. The production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the X capacity of existing or planned storm- water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X area in a manner which would result insubstantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite?
CRY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY
CHECKLIST 2001 Page 609 of 714
ATTACHMENT 2
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding onsite or offsite?
f) Place housing within a 100- year flood hazard area as mapped on X a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
g) Place within a 100- year flood hazard area structures which X would impede or redirect flood flows?
h Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
Comments: construction of all parking facilities will address both State and Federal standards for storm water runoff. Other site- specific concerns must be addressed at the time that specific parking facility sites are proposed for development.

10. LAND USE AND PLANNING- Would theproject:
a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of X an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? b) Physically divide an established community? X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X community conservationplans?
Comment: including provisions for TDM programs is consistent with the Circulation Element policies that call for reduced dependence on the use of private motor vehicles.

11. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure ofpeople to or generation of" unacceptable" noise X levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element, or general noise levels in excess of standards established in the Noise Ordinance?
b) A substantial temporary, periodic, or permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne X vibration or groundborne noise levels?
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or within X two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Comment: noise impacts will be evaluated at the time that specific parking facility sites are considered for selection or when articular facilities are proposed for construction.

12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly X for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or
indirectly ( for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people X necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Comment: most parking facilities are located in commercial districts and do not displace housing. The policies of the PMP suggest that parking is a " support use" to land uses envisioned by the adopted General Plan. Therefore, so long as the provision of parking is linked to planned growth in the downtown, it is not growth inducing. 6-32
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 Page 610 of 714

1. ATTACHMENT 2
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Lnpac[
ER# Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated

13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision, or need, of new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure?. X
Other public facilities? X
Comment: construction of additional parking facilities will require an increased maintenance effort on the part ofthe City.

14. RECREATION. Would theproject:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or X other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or X expansion ofrecreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Comment: inclusion of TDM measures targeted at downtown employees can free up parking spaces for people accessing the downtown for urban recreation purposes.

15. TRANSPORTATIONlfRAFFIC. Would theproject:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the X existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service X standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and highways?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features( e.g. sharp X curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses( e.g. farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? X f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative X transportation( e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
a) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land X Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,. noise, or a chane in air trafficpatterns?
Comment: inclusion of specific TDM measures within the PMP acts to incrementally reduce impacts on transportation facilities. To the extent that TDM programsare successful, they can reduce private vehicle travel demand.

16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable X Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water X treatment, wasterwater treatment, or storm drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
c) Have sufficient water suppliesavailable to serve the project X from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and expanded water resources needed?
d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider X which_serves or may_serve the,project that it has_adequate.__.._._ 6- 33
psi CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL Page 611 of 714 CHECKLIST 2001 ATTACHMENT 2
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
capacity to serve the project' s projected demand and addition to the provider' s existing commitment?
e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X accommodate the project' s solid waste disposal needs?
f) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations X related to solid waste?
Comment: parking facilities or TDM measures have no or very low impact on waste management and aze not high generators of waste water.

17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the X environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples ofthe major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Comment: inclusion of TDM measures and their funding mechanism within the PMP will tend to reduce impacts associated with sole reliance on private motor vehicles for access to the communi ' s commercial core. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but X cumulatively considerable? (" Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable futureprojects)
Comment: any im acts of the proposed revisions to the plan are positive. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause X substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Comment: to the extent that TDM measures are successful, impacts to human beings ( improved air quality, less noise, less traffic congestion) should be positive.
6- 34
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 Page 612 of 714 C
ATTACHMENT 2

18. EARLIER ANALYSES.

Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EK or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. ' Section 15063 ( c) ( 3) ( D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items:
a)_ Earlier anal s used: Identify earlier anal ses and state,where_the _are available for review. bj Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within. the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlieranal sis.

C) Mitigation measures. For effects that are" Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated, describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address sites ecific conditions of the project.

19. SOURCE REFERENCES

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. Attachments:

REQUHZED MITIGATION AND MONITORING. PROGRAMS

1. Mitigation
Monitoring Program:

2. Mitigation
Monitoring Program:

3. Mitigation
Monitoring Program:
6-35

Page 613 of 714 ends

RED-FILE
10 July 2002 MEETING AGENDA
To: Mike McCluskey, Public Works
Orem #
From: Deborah Holley, Downtown Association
Re: Parking Management Plan Update
At the Downtown Association Board of Directors meeting of 9 July, 2002, the Board approved the recommendation ofthe Parking and Access committee which was as follows:

To approve parking and management plan updates as presented to Parking& Access committee with recommended changes.
fsOUiv CDD DIR
0 G FIN DIR

AO FIRE CHIEF

ORNEY C PW DIR

CLERK' ORIG C POLICE CHF PI HEADS C REC DIR

C LITIL DIR
HR DIR

RECEIVED
JUL . 1 1 " n"
SLO CITY CL;

Page 614 of 714 ends

counci l
jacenea iepoIt

C I T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O
FROM : Kim Murry : Acting Community Development Directo r Prepared By : Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planne r
Brian Leveille, Associate Planne r
Peggy Mandeville, Principal Transportation Planne r
SUBJECT : REVIEW OF AMENDMENTS TO MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 17 :

ZONING REGULATIONS AND REVIEW OF AMENDMENTS TO THE
ACCESS AND PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN .

RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission :

1. Introduce by title only an ordinance to adopt the proposed amendments to Title 1 7 Zoning Regulations) of the Municipal Code .

2. Approve a resolution amending the Access and Parking Management Plan to support downtown residential parking .

DISCUSSIO N
Backgroun d
Consistent with on-going efforts to update and improve various development regulations, th e Community Development Department has prepared a draft update to the City's Zonin g Regulations . Periodic review of City documents is necessary to ensure that regulations are clear , consistent, effectively implement the goals and policies of the General Plan, and remain curren t with respect to relevant state regulations . The last update to the Zoning Regulations wa s completed one year ago in September 2010 . Planning staff is committed to periodically updatin g the Zoning Regulations to reflect current best practices and minimize the number of interpretations necessary for their implementation . Based on direction from the Plannin g Commission and City Council over the past year, and staff's experience working daily with th e document, several corrections, updates, and modifications are recommended ( Attachment 1).

Staff is also recommending more substantive revisions which are discussed below .

Proposed new language in the Zoning Regulations is underlined, and proposed deleted languag e is shown in strikcthrough. Changes to Table 6 (Parking Requirements by Use), are show n italicized and shaded . See Attachment 1, Text amendments in legislative draft format .

Planning Commission Hearings and Recommendation s
Zoning Code and Access and Parking Management Plan amendments recommended for adoptio n include recommendations from the Planning Commission . The Commission held three separat e meetings to review amendments to Downtown Residential Parking ( GPI 83-07) in 2011, on Ma y 25th , July 27 th and August 24th . The Planning Commission also reviewed staff recommende d amendments which include follow up actions from last year' s Council adopted Zoning Cod e updates, and other corrections and updates which are part of staff's periodic updates ( GPI 8-11); Meeting Date
Item mbe

Page 615 of 714 ends

San Luis Obispo City CouncilJanuary 18, 2022

San Luis Obispo City Council
January 18, 2022