Agenda packet — San Luis Obispo City Council, July 2, 2024 (part 3 of 3)

Fee
number Service Name
Fee
Description
Current rate
Including IT
Surcharge if
applicable
Recommended
Rate Effective
by 10/1/24
IT Surcharge
(if applicable) Total
%
change Notes
City of San Luis Obispo
Engineering Fees
Draft Recommendations
4th and subsequent plan review (per submittal)
53 Public Improvement Plans Fixed Fee 1,853.34 $ 3,918.00 $ 119.50 $ 4,037.50 $ 117.8% 54 Building Plans Fixed Fee 441.43 $ 1,280.00 $ 39.04 $ 1,319.04 $ 198.8% 55 Maps / Additional Documents Fixed Fee 507.21 $ 2,336.00 $ 71.25 $ 2,407.25 $ 374.6% 56 Design Exception/Revision Fixed Fee 353.86 $ 887.00 $ 27.05 $ 914.05 $ 158.3% Site Improvements plan review (square feet) 2
57 Site Improvement 0-2499 Fixed Fee 361.02 $ 1,003.00 $ 30.59 $ 1,033.59 $ 186.3% 58 Site Improvement 2500-4999 Fixed Fee 541.52 $ 1,338.00 $ 40.81 $ 1,378.81 $ 154.6% 59 Site Improvement 5000-14999 Fixed Fee 902.53 $ 1,672.00 $ 51.00 $ 1,723.00 $ 90.9% 60 Site Improvement 15000-21999 Fixed Fee 1,444.04 $ 2,007.00 $ 61.21 $ 2,068.21 $ 43.2% 61 Site Improvement 22000-43559 Fixed Fee 1,805.06 $ 2,341.00 $ 71.40 $ 2,412.40 $ 33.6% 62 Site Improvement 43560+ Fixed Fee 2,166.07 $ 2,675.00 $ 81.59 $ 2,756.59 $ 27.3% Single Family Residential plan review (square feet)
63 Single Family Residential 0-2499 Fixed Fee 361.02 $ 669.00 $ 20.40 $ 689.40 $ 91.0% 64 Single Family Residential 2500+ Fixed Fee 1,083.04 $ 1,338.00 $ 40.81 $ 1,378.81 $ 27.3% Stormwater Post Construction Requirements
Non-Single Family Residential (Net Impervious Area per SCP) 65 Non-Single Family Residential (Net Impervious Area per SCP) 0-2499 square feet Fixed Fee 180.51 $ 334.00 $ 10.19 $ 344.19 $ 90.7% 66 Non-Single Family Residential (Net Impervious Area per SCP) 2500-4999 Fixed Fee 361.01 $ 502.00 $ 15.31 $ 517.31 $ 43.3% 67 Non-Single Family Residential (Net Impervious Area per SCP) 5000-14999 Fixed Fee 722.02 $ 669.00 $ 20.40 $ 689.40 $ -4.5% 68 Non-Single Family Residential (Net Impervious Area per SCP) 15000-24999 Fixed Fee 722.02 $ 836.00 $ 25.50 $ 861.50 $ 19.3% 69 Non-Single Family Residential (Net Impervious Area per SCP) 25000+ Fixed Fee 1,083.03 $ 1,003.00 $ 30.59 $ 1,033.59 $ -4.6% 70 Stormwater Control Plan Fixed Fee 334.00 $ 10.19 $ 344.19 $ New 71 Private Stormwater Conveyance System Agreement Fixed Fee 334.00 $ 10.19 $ 344.19 $ New Single Family Residential (Net Impervious Area per SCP) 72 Single Family Residential (Net Impervious Area per SCP) 0-2499 square feet Fixed Fee 180.51 $ 334.00 $ 10.19 $ 344.19 $ 90.7% 73 Single Family Residential (Net Impervious Area per SCP) 2500+ Fixed Fee 722.03 $ 669.00 $ 20.40 $ 689.40 $ -4.5% Drainage Report/Flood Study Review
74 Minor (under an acre) Fixed Fee 361.01 $ 1,672.00 $ 51.00 $ 1,723.00 $ 377.3% 75 Major (over an acre) Fixed Fee 902.54 $ 3,344.00 $ 101.99 $ 3,445.99 $ 281.8%

1. Set by the State of California Department of Transportation and is not subject to CPI increases.

2. This includes substantial development of private parking lots which are processed separate of the structure and include any combination of the following: underground utilities, parking lot lighting, accessible path of travel analysis, grading, drainage and compliance with the City's parking and driveway standards.

Page 294 of 480 ends

Fee
number Service Name Fee Description
Current rate Including
IT Surcharge if
applicable
Recommended Rate
Effective by 10/1/24
IT Surcharge
(if applicable) Total % change Notes

FIRE DEVELOPMENT FIXED FEES
Fire Sprinkler and Suppression Systems -(Issued by Building and Safety) Fire Sprinkler Systems (New Installation) - Plan Review Residential Fire Sprinkler Plan Review
Private Underground Fire Line Installation
1 1-25 Heads Fixed fee 1,191.56 $ 752.00 $ 22.94 $ 774.94 $ -35.0% 2 26-50 Heads Fixed fee 1,649.86 $ 929.00 $ 28.33 $ 957.33 $ -42.0% 3 51-100 Heads Fixed fee 1,833.17 $ 1,195.00 $ 36.45 $ 1,231.45 $ -32.8% 4 101-200 Heads Fixed fee 2,474.79 $ 1,460.00 $ 44.53 $ 1,504.53 $ -39.2% 5 Every 200 Heads above 200 Fixed fee 733.27 $ 443.00 $ 13.51 $ 456.51 $ -37.7% Fire Sprinkler Systems (New Installation) - Inspection
Residential Fire Sprinkler Plan Review
Private Underground Fire Line Installation
6 1-25 Heads Fixed fee Current fee consolidated above 531.00 $ 16.20 $ 547.20 $ 7 26-50 Heads Fixed fee $ 21.59 708.00 $ 729.59 $
8 51-100 Heads Fixed fee $ 21.59 708.00 $ 729.59 $
9 101-200 Heads Fixed fee $ 26.99 885.00 $ 911.99 $
10 Every 200 Heads above 200 Fixed fee $ 10.80 354.00 $ 364.80 $ Fire Alarm System (New Installation) - Plan Review
11 1-50 Devices Fixed fee 1,191.56 $ 841.00 $ 25.65 $ 866.65 $ -27.3% 12 51-100 Devices Fixed fee 2,016.49 $ 1,239.00 $ 37.79 $ 1,276.79 $ -36.7% 13 Every 50 Devices above 100 Fixed fee 733.27 $ 398.00 $ 12.14 $ 410.14 $ -44.1% 14 Sprinkler Monitoring System Fixed fee 458.30 $ 266.00 $ 8.11 $ 274.11 $ -40.2% Fire Alarm System (New Installation) - Inspection
15 1-50 Devices Fixed fee Current fee consolidated above 354.00 $ 10.80 $ 364.80 $ 16 51-100 Devices Fixed fee $ 21.59 708.00 $ 729.59 $
17 Every 50 Devices above 100 Fixed fee $ 10.80 354.00 $ 364.80 $ 18 Sprinkler Monitoring System Fixed fee $ 5.40 177.00 $ 182.40 $ Fire Sprinkler Systems (Tenant Improvement) - Plan Review 19 1-25 Heads Fixed fee 641.61 $ 310.00 $ 9.46 $ 319.46 $ -50.2% 20 26-50 Heads Fixed fee 824.93 $ 487.00 $ 14.85 $ 501.85 $ -39.2% 21 51-100 Heads Fixed fee 1,283.23 $ 708.00 $ 21.59 $ 729.59 $ -43.1% 22 101-200 Heads Fixed fee 1,649.86 $ 929.00 $ 28.33 $ 957.33 $ -42.0% 23 Every 200 Heads above 200 Fixed fee 733.27 $ 443.00 $ 13.51 $ 456.51 $ -37.7% Fire Sprinkler Systems (Tenant Improvement) - Inspection 24 1-25 Heads Fixed fee Current fee consolidated above 266.00 $ 8.11 $ 274.11 $ 25 26-50 Heads Fixed fee $ 10.80 354.00 $ 364.80 $
26 51-100 Heads Fixed fee $ 13.51 443.00 $ 456.51 $
27 101-200 Heads Fixed fee $ 16.20 531.00 $ 547.20 $
28 Every 200 Heads above 200 Fixed fee $ 10.80 354.00 $ 364.80 $ Fire Alarm System (Tenant Improvement) - Plan Review
29 Minor modification (Panel replacement etc) $ 8.11 266.00 $ 274.11 $ New 30 1-50 Devices Fixed fee 1,191.56 $ 841.00 $ 25.65 $ 866.65 $ -27.3% 31 51-100 Devices Fixed fee 2,016.49 $ 1,239.00 $ 37.79 $ 1,276.79 $ -36.7% 32 Every 50 Devices above 100 Fixed fee 824.93 $ 398.00 $ 12.14 $ 410.14 $ -50.3% 33 Sprinkler Monitoring System Fixed fee 458.30 $ 266.00 $ 8.11 $ 274.11 $ -40.2% Fire Alarm System (Tenant Improvement) - Inspection
34 Minor modification $ 2.71 89.00 $ 91.71 $ New
35 1-50 Devices Fixed fee Current fee consolidated above 354.00 $ 10.80 $ 364.80 $ 36 51-100 Devices Fixed fee $ 21.59 708.00 $ 729.59 $
37 Every 50 Devices above 100 Fixed fee $ 10.80 354.00 $ 364.80 $ 38 Sprinkler Monitoring System Fixed fee $ 5.40 177.00 $ 182.40 $ Other Suppression Systems
39 Insert Gas Systems Fixed fee 1,283.23 $ 1,283.00 $ 39.13 $ 1,322.13 $ 3.0% 40 Dry Chemical Systems Fixed fee 733.27 $ 708.00 $ 21.59 $ 729.59 $ -0.5% 41 Wet Chemical/Kitchen Hood Fixed fee 549.95 $ 531.00 $ 16.20 $ 547.20 $ -0.5% 42 Foam Systems Fixed fee 2,291.46 $ 2,257.00 $ 68.84 $ 2,325.84 $ 1.5% 43 Paint Spray Booth Fixed fee 824.93 $ 797.00 $ 24.31 $ 821.31 $ -0.4%

OTHER MISCELLANEOUS FEES
44 Supplemental Fire Plan Review Fixed fee $ 9.46 310.00 $ 319.46 $ New 45 Supplemental Fire Inspection Fixed fee $ 8.11 266.00 $ 274.11 $ New 46 Alternative Method and Material Review Fixed fee 733.27 $ 708.00 $ 21.59 $ 729.59 $ -0.5% 47 Expedited Plan Review Fee Fixed fee $ 12.14 398.00 $ 410.14 $ New 48 Commercial Solar/Energy Storage System (new category) Fixed fee $ 13.51 443.00 $ 456.51 $ New

FIRE NON-DEVELOPMENT FIXED FEES
Hazardous Occupancy Permits
49 Additive Manufacturing Fixed fee $ N/A 221.00 221.00 $ New 50 Aircraft Refueling Vehicles Fixed fee 175.50 $ 310.00 $ N/A 310.00 $ 76.6% 51 Aircraft Repair Hangar Fixed fee 351.00 $ 487.00 $ N/A 487.00 $ 38.7% 52 Automobile Wrecking Yard Fixed fee 438.75 $ 575.00 $ N/A 575.00 $ 31.1% 53 Bonfire or Rubbish Fires Fixed fee 175.50 $ 221.00 $ N/A 221.00 $ 25.9% 54 Burning in Public Place Fixed fee 175.50 $ 221.00 $ N/A 221.00 $ 25.9% 55 Candles or Open-Flames in Assembly Areas Fixed fee 175.50 $ 221.00 $ N/A 221.00 $ 25.9% 56 Combustible Fiber Storage (handle/store over 100 cu ft) Fixed fee 438.75 $ 487.00 $ N/A 487.00 $ 11.0% 57 Compressed Gases (Unless in the CUPA Program) Fixed fee 175.50 $ 310.00 $ N/A 310.00 $ 76.6% 58 Cryogens (Unless in the CUPA Program) Fixed fee 351.00 $ 310.00 $ N/A 310.00 $ -11.7% 59 Dry Cleaning Plant Fixed fee 351.00 $ 310.00 $ N/A 310.00 $ -11.7% 60 Dust Producing Operation Fixed fee 351.00 $ 398.00 $ N/A 398.00 $ 13.4% 61 Energy Storage Systems Fixed fee $ N/A 310.00 310.00 $ New 62 Explosives or Blasting Agents Fixed fee 702.00 $ 575.00 $ N/A 575.00 $ -18.1% 63 Fireworks Fixed fee 702.00 $ 929.00 $ N/A 929.00 $ 32.3% 64 Flammable or Combustible Liquids (Unless in the CUPA Program) Fixed fee 351.00 $ 310.00 $ N/A 310.00 $ -11.7% 65 Fruit Ripening - Ethylene Gas Fogging Fixed fee 351.00 $ 310.00 $ N/A 310.00 $ -11.7% 66 Garages - Repair Fixed fee 351.00 $ 487.00 $ N/A 487.00 $ 38.7% 67 Hazardous Chemicals (Unless in the CUPA Program): Fixed fee 438.75 $ 487.00 $ N/A 487.00 $ 11.0% Draft Recommendations (Revised 6/10/24)
City of San Luis Obispo
Fire Fixed Fees

Page 295 of 480 ends

Fee
number Service Name Fee Description
Current rate Including
IT Surcharge if
applicable
Recommended Rate
Effective by 10/1/24
IT Surcharge
(if applicable) Total % change Notes
Draft Recommendations (Revised 6/10/24)
City of San Luis Obispo
Fire Fixed Fees
68 Junk Yards Fixed fee 438.75 $ 575.00 $ N/A 575.00 $ 31.1% 69 Liquefied Petroleum Gas Fixed fee 263.25 $ 310.00 $ N/A 310.00 $ 17.8% 70 Lithium Battery Storage > 15 Cubic Feet - New Category Fixed fee $ N/A 398.00 398.00 $ New 71 Lumberyard - Storage in excess of 100,000 board feet Fixed fee 438.75 $ 487.00 $ N/A 487.00 $ 11.0% 72 Magnesium Working - Process more than 10 lbs daily Fixed fee 351.00 $ 310.00 $ N/A 310.00 $ -11.7% 73 Mall (covered) Fixed fee 438.75 $ 487.00 $ N/A 487.00 $ 11.0% 74 Motor Fuel Dispensing Fixed fee $ N/A 310.00 310.00 $ New 75 On-Demand Fueling Operations Fixed fee $ N/A 266.00 266.00 $ New 76 Organic Coatings - manufacture over 1 gallon a day Fixed fee 438.75 $ 310.00 $ N/A 310.00 $ -29.3% 77 Ovens - Industrial, Baking and Drying Fixed fee 175.50 $ 310.00 $ N/A 310.00 $ 76.6% 78 Places of Assembly Fixed fee 351.00 $ 398.00 $ N/A 398.00 $ 13.4% 79 Plan Extraction Fixed fee $ N/A 310.00 310.00 $ New
80 Refrigeration Equipment - Mechanical refrigeration (see UFC for most common refrigerants) Fixed fee 526.50 $ 487.00 $ N/A 487.00 $ -7.5% 81 Outdoor Assembly Event > 1000 participants Fixed fee $ N/A 929.00 929.00 $ New 82 Spraying or Dipping Fixed fee 351.00 $ 398.00 $ N/A 398.00 $ 13.4% 83 Tents and Air-supported Structures - excess of 200 sq ft Fixed fee 351.00 $ 398.00 $ N/A 398.00 $ 13.4% 84 Tire Re-capping Fixed fee 351.00 $ 310.00 $ N/A 310.00 $ -11.7% 85 Waste Material Plant Fixed fee 438.75 $ 575.00 $ N/A 575.00 $ 31.1% 86 Welding and Cutting Operations - Any Occupancy Fixed fee 263.25 $ 221.00 $ N/A 221.00 $ -16.0% 87 Additional Permitted Use (per permit) Fixed fee 87.75 $ 133.00 $ N/A 133.00 $ 51.6% MANDATED / REQUIRED INSPECTIONS $ -
88 Public/Private Schools (K-8) Waived by policy $ -
89 Public/Private Schools (High Schools) Waived by policy $ - 90 Commercial Day Care (Group E and I4) Waived by policy $ - 91 Assisted Living (Group R2.1, R4, I3) <26 Residents $ - 92 Assisted Living (Group R2.1, R4, I3) 26 residents or more $ - NON-MANDATED / REQUIRED INSPECTIONS $ -
Commercial Business Inspections (Up to 3 stories) $ -
93 0 – 5,000 sq. ft. Fixed fee $ 133.00 133.00 $
94 5,001 – 40,000 sq. ft. Fixed fee $ 221.00 221.00 $
95 40,001 – 120,000 sq. ft. Fixed fee $ 398.00 398.00 $ 96 120,001 – 150,000 sq. ft. Fixed fee $ 575.00 575.00 $ 97 150,001 – or more sq. ft. Fixed fee $ 752.00 752.00 $ 98 Mid Rise Inspections (4 -6 stories) Fixed fee $ 443.00 443.00 $ 99 Self-Inspection Non-Compliance Fixed fee $ 177.00 177.00 $ 100 New Business Inspection (Baseline) Fixed fee $ 177.00 177.00 $

FIRE FALSE ALARM FEES
Initial Permit and Renewal Registrations - see Police
101 Excessive false alarm fee Per occurrence 681.23 $ 656.00 $ N/A 656.00 $ -3.7% 1

CERTIFIED UNIFIED PARTICIPATING AGENCY FEES
Hazardous Materials Handlers
102 Remote utility (1-time fee) Fixed fee 674.16 $ 620.00 $ N/A 620.00 $ -8.0% 103 1 - 4 Materials handled Fixed fee 388.10 $ 354.00 $ N/A 354.00 $ -8.8% 104 5 - 10 Materials handled Fixed fee 442.76 $ 398.00 $ N/A 398.00 $ -10.1% 105 11+ Materials handled Fixed fee 530.22 $ 575.00 $ N/A 575.00 $ 8.4% Waste Generators
106 1 Waste stream (professional or medical) Fixed fee 260.55 $ 221.00 $ N/A 221.00 $ -15.2% 107 1 - 5 Waste streams (all others) Fixed fee 388.10 $ 354.00 $ N/A 354.00 $ -8.8% 108 6+ Waste streams Fixed fee 522.94 $ 575.00 $ N/A 575.00 $ 10.0% 109 Waste Stream (DeMinimus) Fixed fee 125.72 $ 221.00 $ N/A 221.00 $ 75.8% Tiered Permitting
110 Conditionally Exempt (CE) Fixed fee 823.57 $ 531.00 $ N/A 531.00 $ -35.5% 111 Conditionally Authorized (CA) Fixed fee 1,297.31 $ 1,062.00 $ N/A 1,062.00 $ -18.1% 112 Permit by Rule (PBR) Fixed fee 3,064.71 $ 2,301.00 $ N/A 2,301.00 $ -24.9% Underground Storage Tanks (general model)
113 First tank Fixed fee 2,239.31 $ 1,947.00 $ N/A 1,947.00 $ -13.1% 114 Tank installation Fixed fee 7,308.29 $ 6,018.00 $ N/A 6,018.00 $ -17.7% 115 Tank removal Fixed fee 5,657.50 $ 4,779.00 $ N/A 4,779.00 $ -15.5% 116 Minor Modification Fixed fee 2,120.88 $ 1,947.00 $ N/A 1,947.00 $ -8.2% 117 Major Modification Fixed fee 6,599.50 $ 4,956.00 $ N/A 4,956.00 $ -24.9% Above Ground Storage Tanks
118 One Tank Fixed fee 245.98 $ 443.00 $ N/A 443.00 $ 80.1% 119 Two Tanks Fixed fee 491.96 $ 620.00 $ N/A 620.00 $ 26.0% 120 Three Tanks Fixed fee 588.52 $ 797.00 $ N/A 797.00 $ 35.4% California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP) 121 New Stationary Source Facility Fixed fee 3,228.69 $ 2,832.00 $ N/A 2,832.00 $ -12.3% 122 Existing Annual Facility Inspection Fixed fee 502.89 $ 708.00 $ N/A 708.00 $ 40.8% 123 Site Remediation Oversight Fixed fee 251.45 $ 708.00 $ N/A 708.00 $ 181.6% 124 Soil Remediation Fixed fee 251.45 $ 708.00 $ N/A 708.00 $ 181.6% 125 Temporary Closure Permit Fixed fee 2,100.84 $ 1,770.00 $ N/A 1,770.00 $ -15.7% Closures
126 Temporary Closure Fixed fee 2,239.31 $ 1,770.00 $ N/A 1,770.00 $ -21.0% 127 Closure in Place Fixed fee 2,829.66 $ 2,124.00 $ N/A 2,124.00 $ -24.9% Late Fee
128 Annual permit fees received 31-60 days after original invoice day 25% of permit amount 25% of permit amount N/A - $ 129 Annual permit fees received 61 + days after original invoice day Addl 25% of permit amount Addl 25% of permit amount N/A - $

FIRE EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL STAND-BY FEES
130 Fire Ladder Truck Standby (4 person) Per hour one (1) hour minimum 506.73 $ 885.04 $ N/A 885.04 $ 74.7% 131 Fire Engine/Truck Standby (3 person) Per hour one (1) hour minimum 506.73 $ 663.78 $ N/A 663.78 $ 31.0% 132 Squad or Light Rescue Equipment Standby (2 person) Per hour one (1) hour minimum 315.64 $ 442.52 $ N/A 442.52 $ 40.2% 133 Fire Investigation/Fire Prevention Standby Per hour one (1) hour minimum 177.00 $ N/A 177.00 $ New 134 Fire Suppression Standby Per hour one (1) hour minimum 221.26 $ N/A 221.26 $ New 135 Administrative/Clerical Standby Per hour one (1) hour minimum 167.39 $ N/A 167.39 $ New 136 Additional Site Inspection Fee (one hour min.) Per hour one (1) hour minimum 209.54 $ 177.00 $ N/A 177.00 $ -15.5% 137 Third & Subsequent Fire Inspection Fee Per inspection 209.54 $ 227.00 $ N/A 227.00 $ 8.3%

Page 296 of 480 ends

Fee
number Service Name Fee Description
Current rate Including
IT Surcharge if
applicable
Recommended Rate
Effective by 10/1/24
IT Surcharge
(if applicable) Total % change Notes
Draft Recommendations (Revised 6/10/24)
City of San Luis Obispo
Fire Fixed Fees
Multi-Dwelling Fire and Life Safety Inspection Fee Schedule 2, 3 Administrative Fee Fixed fee 4
138 Processing per facility Fixed fee 104.76 $ 89.00 $ N/A 89.00 $ -15.0% 139 Each Additional Owner Fixed fee 12.43 $ 44.00 $ N/A 44.00 $ 254.0% 140 Re-inspection Fee Fixed fee $ N/A 221.00 221.00 $ New 141 Re-inspection Fee, 2nd reinspection and all subsequent reinspections Base fee + increment 271.00 $ N/A New Apartment Houses
Fees are waived for units that are built, owned and managed by the San Luis Obispo Housing Authority, other government agencies or not-for-profit housing organizations 142 Up to 10 units Fixed fee 419.07 $ 354.00 $ N/A 354.00 $ -15.5% 143 11 - 20 Units Fixed fee 628.61 $ 531.00 $ N/A 531.00 $ -15.5% 144 21 - 50 Units Fixed fee 838.15 $ 708.00 $ N/A 708.00 $ -15.5% 145 51 - 100 Units Fixed fee 1,047.69 $ 885.00 $ N/A 885.00 $ -15.5% 146 101 - 200 Units Fixed fee 1,676.30 $ 1,593.00 $ N/A 1,593.00 $ -5.0% 147 Every additional 100 Units over 200 Fixed fee 419.07 $ 531.00 $ N/A 531.00 $ 26.7% Hotels, Motels, Lodging Houses, Bed & Breakfast Facilities, Youth Hostel Facilities, Senior Facilities, Sororities, Fraternities and Other Congregate Residences Hotel, Motel, Bed & Breakfast
148 1 - 20 Units Fixed fee 419.07 $ 354.00 $ N/A 354.00 $ -15.5% 149 21 - 50 Units Fixed fee 628.61 $ 531.00 $ N/A 531.00 $ -15.5% 150 51 - 100 Units Fixed fee 1,047.69 $ 885.00 $ N/A 885.00 $ -15.5% 151 101 - 200 Units Fixed fee 1,676.30 $ 1,328.00 $ N/A 1,328.00 $ -20.8% 152 Sorority and Fraternity Fixed fee 838.15 $ 708.00 $ N/A 708.00 $ -15.5% Condominiums
153 Up to 10 Units Fixed fee 419.07 $ 354.00 $ N/A 354.00 $ -15.5% 154 11 - 20 Units Fixed fee 628.61 $ 531.00 $ N/A 531.00 $ -15.5% 155 21 - 50 Units Fixed fee 838.15 $ 708.00 $ N/A 708.00 $ -15.5% 156 51 - 500 Units Fixed fee 1,257.22 $ 1,062.00 $ N/A 1,062.00 $ -15.5%

OTHER FIRE FEES
157 Hydrant Flow Test (First Hydrant) Fixed fee 209.54 $ 177.00 $ N/A 177.00 $ -15.5% 158 Hydrant Flow Test (Each Additional Hydrant) Fixed fee 104.76 $ 89.00 $ N/A 89.00 $ -15.0% 159 Reinspection Fee (construction) Fixed fee 209.54 $ 221.00 $ N/A 221.00 $ 5.5% 160 Board of Appeals Fixed fee 209.54 $ 365.00 $ N/A 365.00 $ 74.2% 161 Emergency Call-Out (Non-Scheduled) Per hour four hour (4) minimum 816.80 $ 884.00 $ N/A 884.00 $ 8.2% 162 After Hours Call-Out (Scheduled) Per hour one (1) hour minimum 204.20 $ 221.00 $ N/A 221.00 $ 8.2%

1. Excessive false alarms are defined as: two or more false alarms in any thirty-day period or three false alarms in any three-hundred-sixty day period

2. Fees are waived for units that are built, owned and managed by the San Luis Obispo Housing Authority, other government agencies or not-for-profit housing organizations

3. These fees are applicable to all multi-dwelling units in the City based on the definitions set forth in the 2007 California Building Code

4. Administrative fee applies to both Apartment Houses and Hotels, Motels, etc. Total processing fee calculated will be divided equally amongst all owners

Page 297 of 480 ends

Fee number Construction Type
Current total
rate per
square foot
Plan Review
fee per square
foot
Inspection
fee per square
foot
IT Surcharge
(if applicable) Total
%
change Notes
1 New Accessory Building $ 0.32 0.24 $ 0.32 $ 0.02 $ 0.66 $ 174.8% 2 New Commercial $ 0.11 0.51 $ 0.17 $ 0.01 $ 0.29 $ -43.4% 3 Alt/Addition-Commercial $ 0.14 1.16 $ 0.18 $ 0.01 $ 0.33 $ -71.6% 4 Alt/Addition-Mixed Use $ 0.19 0.91 $ 0.25 $ 0.01 $ 0.45 $ -50.2% 5 New Mixed Use $ 0.16 0.33 $ 0.26 $ 0.01 $ 0.43 $ 31.2% 6 Alt/Addition ADU $ 0.92 2.03 $ 0.92 $ 0.06 $ 1.90 $ -6.6% 7 Alt/Addition- Single Family $ 0.51 1.24 $ 0.51 $ 0.03 $ 1.05 $ -15.2% 8 Alt/Addition-Multi Family $ 0.19 2.52 $ 0.25 $ 0.01 $ 0.45 $ -82.0% 9 New Multi Family $ 0.12 0.38 $ 0.08 $ 0.01 $ 0.21 $ -45.8% 10 New Single Family $ 0.42 0.12 $ 0.28 $ 0.02 $ 0.72 $ 501.1% Draft Recommendations
City of San Luis Obispo
Fire Fees - Construction Plan Review and Inspection

Page 298 of 480 ends

Fee
number Service Name
Fee
Description Current rate
Recommended Rate
Effective by 10/1/24
(Resident)
Recommended
Rate Effective by
10/1/24 (NonResident) % change Notes
Youth Services
Sun-N-Fun
1 Registration Fee Fixed fee 72.50 $ 90.00 $ 90.00 $ 24.1% 2 School Year - hourly option Per hour 5.80 $ 6.00 $ 6.00 $ 3.4% Teacher Work Day
3 Teacher Work Day Per day 64.00 $ 68.00 $ $ 78.00 6.3% Spring Break Camp
4 Weekly Option Per week 200.00 $ 200.00 $ $ 230.00 0.0% Summer Camp
5 Registration Fee Fixed fee 6.25 $ 6.25 $ $ 7.20 0.0%
6 Full week Care Option Per week 190.00 $ 200.00 $ $ 230.00 5.3% 7 Summer School Package Varies 1
8 Field Trip Sign Ups Varies 2
9 Late Registration Fee $ 11.00 10.00 $ $ 12.75 10.0%
Youth Sports
10 Sport Camp Weekly 150.00 $ 157.00 $ $ 181.00 4.7%
11 Sport Clinic Per clinic 76.00 $ 80.00 $ $ 92.00 5.3% Aquatics 3
Lap Swim
12 Adult per use Fixed fee 4.25 $ 4.75 $ 4.75 $ 11.8%
13 Adult Monthly Fixed fee 63.75 $ 71.25 $ 71.25 $ 11.8% 14 Youth/Senior per use Fixed fee 3.75 $ 4.25 $ 4.25 $ 13.3% 15 Youth/Senior monthly Fixed fee 56.25 $ 63.75 $ 63.75 $ 13.3% Recreational Swim
16 Adult per use Fixed fee 4.75 $ 5.25 $ 5.25 $ 10.5%
17 Youth/Senior per use Fixed fee 4.25 $ 4.75 $ 4.75 $ 11.8% Swim Script
18 Adult per use Fixed fee 38.25 $ 42.75 $ 42.75 $ 11.8% 19 Youth/Senior per use Fixed fee 33.75 $ 38.25 $ 38.25 $ 13.3% Recreational Swim Script
20 Adult per use Fixed fee 42.75 $ 47.25 $ 47.25 $ 10.5% 21 Youth/Senior per use Fixed fee 38.25 $ 42.75 $ 42.75 $ 11.8% Lessons
22 Lessons Fixed fee 118.00 $ 120.00 $ $ 138.00 1.7%
23 Private Lessons Fixed fee 204.00 $ 210.00 $ $ 241.50 2.9% Special Classes
24 Lifeguard Fixed fee 257.00 $ 260.00 $ $ 299.00 1.2%
25 Warm Water Exercise Fixed fee 55.75 $ 60.00 $ 60.00 $ 7.6% 26 Facility Use Fixed fee $66/day + $23/Lifeguard $75/day + $24/Lifeguard $87/day + $28/Lifeguard 13.6% 27 Junior Lifeguard Program Fixed fee 249.00 $ 250.00 $ $ 290.00 0.4% Recreational Sports
Adult Softball
28 Teams (15 per team) Fixed fee 664.00 $ 710.00 $ 710.00 $ 6.9% Instructional Classes 4
29 Adult/Senior Varies by class $8.30 - $166.00 $8.30 - $166.00 + 15% 30 Youth Varies by class $4.15 - $440.00 $4.15 - $440.00 + 15% Special Events
Parks & Recreation Events
31 Parks and Recreation Sponsored Events Varies by event $0 - $71.00 $0 - $75.00 $0 - $75.00 Special Application Fees
32 Special Event Application - Park Use Fixed fee 122.00 $ 140.00 $ 140.00 $ 14.8% 33 Special Event Application - Encroachment Fixed fee 195.00 $ 225.00 $ 225.00 $ 15.4% 34 Banner Permit Application/Installation Fixed fee 252.00 $ 325.00 $ 325.00 $ 29.0% Film Application Fee
35 Still Photography Fixed fee $ 140.00 123.00 $ 140.00 $ 13.8% 36 Commercial Fixed fee 156.00 $ 180.00 $ 180.00 $ 15.4% 37 Non-Profit Fixed fee 49.00 $ 60.00 $ 60.00 $ 22.4%
38 Destination Marketing Waived by policy - $ - $ - $
Permit Fee
39 Permit Processing Fee Fixed fee 18.25 $ 25.00 $ 25.00 $ 37.0% 40 Tournament/Long-Term Rental Allocation Fee Fixed fee 114.00 $ 125.00 $ 125.00 $ 9.6% 41 Full Park Use Fixed fee 575.00 $ 800.00 $ 800.00 $ 39.1% 42 Half Park Use Fixed fee 287.00 $ 400.00 $ 400.00 $ 39.4% Mission Plaza
43 Full Plaza Fixed fee 698.00 $ 800.00 $ 800.00 $ 14.6% 44 Full Plaza (Non-Profit/Community Event) Fixed fee 585.00 $ 640.00 $ 640.00 $ 9.4% 45 Security Deposit Fixed fee 604.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 65.6% Draft Recommendations
City of San Luis Obispo
Parks & Recreation

Page 299 of 480 ends

Fee
number Service Name
Fee
Description Current rate
Recommended Rate
Effective by 10/1/24
(Resident)
Recommended
Rate Effective by
10/1/24 (NonResident) % change Notes
Draft Recommendations
City of San Luis Obispo
Parks & Recreation
Indoor Facilities
Ludwick Community Center
46 Assembly Room (Non-Profit) Per day 35.00 $ 45.00 $ 45.00 $ 28.6% 47 Assembly Room (For-Profit) Per day 73.50 $ 85.00 $ 85.00 $ 15.6% 48 Assembly Room (Municipality) Per day 35.00 $ 35.00 $ New 49 Gymnasium (Non-Profit) Per day 44.50 $ 60.00 $ 60.00 $ 34.8% 50 Gymnasium (For-Profit) Per day 78.50 $ 95.00 $ 95.00 $ 21.0% 51 Kitchen (Non-Profit) Per day 15.25 $ 18.00 $ 18.00 $ 18.0% 52 Kitchen (For-Profit) Per day 20.75 $ 22.00 $ 22.00 $ 6.0% 53 Floor Covers Per day 93.00 $ 110.00 $ 110.00 $ 18.3% 54 Full Facility Use (14 Hours) Per day 1, $ 1,900.00 826.00 $ 1,900.00 $ 4.1% Senior Center
55 Main Room (Non-Profit) Per day 35.00 $ 45.00 $ 45.00 $ 28.6% 56 Main Room (For-Profit) Per day 73.50 $ 85.00 $ 85.00 $ 15.6% 57 Conference Room (Non-Profit) Per day 18.50 $ 20.00 $ 20.00 $ 8.1% 58 Conference Room (For-Profit) Per day 24.25 $ 35.00 $ 35.00 $ 44.3% Meadow Park Building
59 Non-Profit Per day 18.50 $ 20.00 $ 20.00 $ 8.1%
60 For-Profit Per day 24.25 $ 35.00 $ 35.00 $ 44.3%
61 Community Room (Non-Profit) Per day 35.00 $ 45.00 $ 45.00 $ 28.6% 62 Community Room (For-Profit) Per day 73.50 $ 85.00 $ 85.00 $ 15.6% 63 Community Room (Municipality) Per day 35.00 $ 35.00 $ New 64 Conference Room (Non-Profit) Per day 18.50 $ 20.00 $ 20.00 $ 8.1% 65 Conference Room (For-Profit) Per day 24.25 $ 35.00 $ 35.00 $ 44.3% 66 Conference Room (Municipality) Per day 15.00 $ 15.00 $ New Outdoor Facilities
67 Outdoor Seating Areas Fixed fee 82.75 $ 95.00 $ 95.00 $ 14.8% Jack House Gardens
Wedding and Reception
68 Full Day WEEKEND (Resident) Per day 3,529.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 13.3% 69 Full Day WEEKEND (non-resident) Per day 3,999.00 $ $ 4,600.00 15.0% 70 Full Day WEEKDAY (Resident) Per day 3,293.00 $ 3,800.00 $ 15.4% 71 Full Day WEEKDAY (non-resident) Per day 3,529.00 $ $ 4,375.00 24.0% Party by Attendance (4 hour)
72 Under 50 Attendees Per hour 120.75 $ 150.00 $ 150.00 $ 24.2% 73 Under 50 Attendees (Non-Profit) Per hour 54.00 $ 75.00 $ 75.00 $ 38.9% 74 50-100 Attendees Per hour 241.75 $ 250.00 $ 250.00 $ 3.4% 75 50-100 Attendees (Non-Profit) Per hour 108.25 $ 125.00 $ 125.00 $ 15.5% 76 100+ Attendees Per hour 362.75 $ 380.00 $ 380.00 $ 4.8% 77 100+ Attendees (Non-Profit) Per hour 163.25 $ 190.00 $ 190.00 $ 16.4% 78 Security Deposit Fixed fee 604.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 65.6% Softball Fields (3 total of these)
79 Hourly Field Use Per hour 29.50 $ 30.00 $ 30.00 $ 1.7% 80 Youth Recreational Fee (Non-Profit) Per hour 12.00 $ 12.00 $ New 81 Local School District Field Use Per hour 14.75 $ 15.00 $ 15.00 $ 1.7% 82 Light Fee Per hour 26.75 $ 28.00 $ 28.00 $ 4.7%
Multi-Use Courts
83 Hourly Use Per hour 6.50 $ 12.00 $ 12.00 $ 84.6%
84 Light Fee Per hour 13.00 $ 15.00 $ 15.00 $ 15.4%
Pickleball (Single) Court
85 Hourly Use Per hour - $ 4.50 $ 4.50 $
86 Light Fee Per hour 13.00 $ 15.00 $ 15.00 $ 15.4%
Tennis & Volleyball Courts
87 Full Use Facility (Hour) Per hour 10.50 $ 12.00 $ 12.00 $ 14.3% 88 Local School District Field Use Per hour 5.25 $ 7.00 $ 7.00 $ 33.3% Damon-Garcia (full use = 4 lower fields, 1 upper field) 89 Full Use Facility (Day) Per day $ 1,000.00 547.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 82.8% 90 Full Use Facility (Hour) Per hour 88.00 $ 120.00 $ 120.00 $ 36.4% 91 Full Use Light Fee (Hour) Per hour 53.00 $ 84.00 $ 84.00 $ 58.5% 92 Field Preparation Fee Fixed fee 29.50 $ 30.00 $ 30.00 $ 1.7% 93 Concession Stand Rental Fixed fee 147.50 $ 175.00 $ 175.00 $ 18.6% 94 Lower Fields Facility Use (Day) Per day $ 800.00 363.50 $ 800.00 $ 120.1% 95 Lower Fields Facility Use (Hour) Per hour 59.00 $ 110.00 $ 110.00 $ 86.4% 96 Lower Fields Light Fee Per hour 26.75 $ 56.00 $ 56.00 $ 109.3% 97 Single Field Facility Use (Day) Per day $ 220.00 185.75 $ 220.00 $ 18.4% 98 Single Field Facility Use (Hour) Per hour 29.50 $ 30.00 $ 30.00 $ 1.7% 99 Single Field Light Fee Per hour 26.75 $ 28.00 $ 28.00 $ 4.7% 100 Youth Recreational Fee (Non-Profit) Per hour 12.00 $ 12.00 $ New 101 Local School District Field Use Per hour 14.75 $ 15.00 $ 15.00 $ 1.7% 102 Overflow Parking Fee - weekday Per day 150.00 $ 150.00 $ New 103 Overflow Parking Fee - weekend Per day 300.00 $ 300.00 $ New

Page 300 of 480 ends

Fee
number Service Name
Fee
Description Current rate
Recommended Rate
Effective by 10/1/24
(Resident)
Recommended
Rate Effective by
10/1/24 (NonResident) % change Notes
Draft Recommendations
City of San Luis Obispo
Parks & Recreation
Baseball Stadium
104 Hourly Field Use Per hour 29.50 $ 30.00 $ 30.00 $ 1.7% 105 Local School District Field Use Per hour 14.75 $ 15.00 $ 15.00 $ 1.7% 106 Lights Per hour 26.75 $ 28.00 $ 28.00 $ 4.7%
107 Press box Rental Fixed fee 19.50 $ 25.00 $ 25.00 $ 28.2% 108 Field Preparation Fee Fixed fee 50.25 $ 60.00 $ 60.00 $ 19.4% 109 Concession Stand Rental (daily) Per day 147.50 $ 155.00 $ 155.00 $ 5.1% 110 Concession Stand Rental (hourly) Per hour 28.00 $ 30.00 $ 30.00 $ 7.1% Other
111 Bounce House Fixed fee 39.50 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 26.6% 112 Portable BBQ Fixed fee 39.50 $ 41.00 $ 41.00 $ 3.8% Community Gardens
113 Community Gardens (base) Per year 35.00 $ 36.00 $ 36.00 $ 2.9% 114 Community Gardens (per square foot) Per sq ft 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0.0% Ranger Service
Junior Ranger Camp
115 Junior Ranger Camp Fixed fee 167.00 $ 190.00 $ $ 220.00 13.8% Laguna Lake Golf Course 5
116 Cart Rental Per person 10.75 $ 12.00 $ 12.00 $ 11.6% 117 Pull Carts Per cart 5.25 $ 5.25 $ 5.25 $ 0.0%
118 Club Rentals (Regular) Fixed fee 6.25 $ 10.00 $ 10.00 $ 60.0% 119 Club Rentals (Snr/Yth/Stu/Mil) Fixed fee 4.25 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 17.6% 120 Alternative Programming Uses Fixed fee 11.00 $ 12.00 $ 12.00 $ 9.1% 121 Spectator Fee Fixed fee 5.25 $ 6.00 $ 6.00 $ 14.3%
Tournament Use
122 Shotgun Fee Fixed fee 279.00 $ 300.00 $ 300.00 $ 7.5% 123 Daily Use for 39 or Under Fixed fee 13.00 $ 15.00 $ 15.00 $ 15.4% 124 Daily Use for 40 or Over Fixed fee 11.00 $ 12.00 $ 12.00 $ 9.1% Rounds
125 Monday-Thursday (Regular) Fixed fee 15.50 $ 16.00 $ 16.00 $ 3.2% 126 Monday-Thursday (Snr/Yth/Stu/Mil) Fixed fee 12.00 $ 12.00 $ 12.00 $ 0.0% 127 Friday-Sunday (Regular) Fixed fee 16.50 $ 17.00 $ 17.00 $ 3.0% 128 Friday-Sunday (Snr/Yth/Stu/Mil) Fixed fee 13.00 $ 13.00 $ 13.00 $ 0.0% 129 Replay Fixed fee 8.75 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 $ 2.9%
130 Off Peak (M-Th 12-3 PM) (Regular) Fixed fee 12.00 $ 13.00 $ 13.00 $ 8.3% 131 Off Peak (M-Th 12-3 PM) (Snr/Yth/Stu/Mil) Fixed fee 12.00 $ 12.00 $ 12.00 $ 0.0% 132 Twilight (after 3 PM) Fixed fee 11.00 $ 12.00 $ 12.00 $ 9.1% 133 Family Rate (4 people) Fixed fee 30.00 $ 34.00 $ 34.00 $ 13.3% 134 Super Twilight Fixed fee 7.75 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 $ 16.1% 135 10-Play Cards (Regular) Fixed fee 134.00 $ 140.00 $ 140.00 $ 4.5% 136 10-Play Cards (Snr/Yth/Stu/Mil) Fixed fee 103.00 $ 105.00 $ 105.00 $ 1.9% Footnotes:

1. Fluctutes per school district schedule.

2. Fee varies by field trip.

3. Aquatics fees to increase following summer session, effective 9/30/2024. Rate remains the same as previous Fiscal Year prior to this date.

4. Fees vary depending on class and frequency.

5. Golf course fees to increse following summer session, effective 9/30/2024. Rate remains the same as prevous Fiscal Year prior to this date.

Page 301 of 480 ends

Fee
number Service Name
Fee
Description Current rate
Recommended Rate
Effective by 10/1/24 % change Notes
1 Administrative Investigations Determined by Finance Director Determined by Finance Director 2 Clearance Letters $ 25.00 25.00 $ 0.0% 2
3 Civil SDT $ 15.00 15.00 $ 0.0% 3
4 Criminal SDT $ - - $ 4
5 Civil Subpoena $ 275.00 275.00 $ 0.0% 5
Concealed Weapons Permit 6, 7
6 New Permit: Investigative costs and permit processing Fixed fee 100.00 $ 269.00 $ 169.0% 7 New Permit: Livescan Fee each 93.00 $ 93.00 $ 0.0%
8 New Permit: Social Media Check each 33.00 $ 33.00 $ 0.0% 9 Renewal - Concealed Weapons Permit: No new firearms Fixed fee 25.00 $ 131.00 $ 424.0% 10 Renewal - Concealed Weapons Permit: Adding new or replacing firearms Fixed fee 25.00 $ 187.00 $ 648.0%
11 Amendment - Concealed Weapons Permit: Adding new firearm Fixed fee 10.00 $ 162.00 $ 1520.0% 12 Amendment - Concealed Weapons Permit: Change in Address Fixed fee 10.00 $ 72.00 $ 620.0% 13 DUI Cost recovery Determined by Finance Director Determined by Finance Director False Alarms and Alarm Permits
14 Permit Fixed fee 48.06 $ 32.00 $ -33.4%
15 Renewal Fixed fee 48.06 $ 32.00 $ -33.4%
1st and 2nd False Alarm Response $ -
16 3rd False Alarm Response (cost recovery flat fee) each 104.47 $ 175.00 $ 67.5% 17 4th False Alarm Response (flat fee + penalty $50) each 174.53 $ 225.00 $ 28.9% 18 5th False Alarm Response (flat fee + penalty $175) each 287.92 $ 350.00 $ 21.6% 19 6th or more (flat fee + penalty $325) each 517.23 $ 500.00 $ -3.3% 20 Impound Vehicle Release (30-day impound) Fixed fee 179.84 $ 198.00 $ 10.1% 21 Local Record Information $ 25.00 25.00 $ 0.0% 8
22 Massage Facility Permit Fixed fee 374.65 $ 365.00 $ -2.6% 23 Massage Technician Initial Permit Fixed fee 259.33 $ 195.00 $ -24.8% 24 Massage Technician Permit Renewal Fixed fee 227.94 $ 195.00 $ -14.5% 25 Nuisance abatement Determined by Finance Director Determined by Finance Director Planning Support
26 Administrative Use Permit (bars/nightclubs) 345.71 $ 340.00 $ -1.7% Property Damage-Only Collisions Investigations
27 Per party per non-injury traffic collision investigation report Fixed fee 143.81 $ 113.00 $ -21.4% 28 Record sealing Determined by Finance Director Determined by Finance Director 29 Second Response Cost Recovery Determined by Finance Director Determined by Finance Director Taxi Permit
30 Permit fee Fixed fee 277.00 $ 195.00 $ -29.6%
31 Permit Renewal fee Fixed fee 283.13 $ 195.00 $ -31.1% 32 Pedicab Fee Fixed fee 134.08 $ 195.00 $ 45.4%
33 Pedicab Renewal Fee Fixed fee 68.08 $ 195.00 $ 186.4% 34 Vehicle Tow Release Fee Fixed fee 99.82 $ 122.00 $ 22.2% Miscellaneous Permits
35 Electronic Game Center Permit Fixed fee 524.06 $ 404.00 $ -22.9% 36 Public Dance Permit Fixed fee 125.36 $ 124.00 $ -1.1% 37 Tobacco License Fee - per location Fixed fee 883.37 $ 862.00 $ -2.4% 38 Mobile Food Vendor License Fixed fee 196.40 $ 188.00 $ -4.3%

1. Fee set by Municipal Code

2. Fee set by Penal Code 13322

3. Fee set by California Evidence Code 1563

4. Access through discovery

5. Fee set by statute GC 68097.2

6. Set by Penal Code 26190

7. Concealed Weapons Permit Fees reflect recommended cost recovery level of 50%

8. Fee limited by Penal Code 13322
Draft Recommendations
City of San Luis Obispo
Police Department

Page 302 of 480 ends

Non-Single Family Residential
1 Non-Single Family Residential: 0-2499 Fixed fee 297.97 $ 297.00 $ 9.06 $ 306.06 $ 2.7% 2 Non-Single Family Residential: 2500-4999 Fixed fee 297.97 $ 297.00 $ 9.06 $ 306.06 $ 2.7% 3 Non-Single Family Residential: 5000-14999 Fixed fee 297.97 $ 297.00 $ 9.06 $ 306.06 $ 2.7% 4 Non-Single Family Residential: 15000-21999 Fixed fee 473.14 $ 446.00 $ 13.60 $ 459.60 $ -2.9% 5 Non-Single Family Residential: 22000-43559 Fixed fee 648.31 $ 446.00 $ 13.60 $ 459.60 $ -29.1% 6 Non-Single Family Residential: 43560+ Fixed fee 823.48 $ 446.00 $ 13.60 $ 459.60 $ -44.2% Single Family Residential
7 Single Family Residential: 0-2500 Fixed fee 297.97 $ 297.00 $ 9.06 $ 306.06 $ 2.7% 8 Single Family Residential: 2501+ Fixed fee 297.97 $ 297.00 $ 9.06 $ 306.06 $ 2.7% 9 Review of Mitigation Measures and Conditions of Approval Fixed fee 288.88 $ 346.00 $ 10.55 $ 356.55 $ 23.4% Abandoned Shopping Carts
10 Failure to Submit Abandoned Shopping Cart Prevention & Retrieval Plan Per Month 100.00 $ 100.00 $ N/A 100.00 $ 0.0% Failure to Reclaim Abandoned Shopping Carts
11 After 3rd occurrence in a 6-month period Per occurrence 50.00 $ 50.00 $ N/A 50.00 $ 0.0% 1 12 Retrieval/impoundment costs Actual cost Actual cost Actual cost N/A Actual cost Parking in-Lieu Fees 2
New Construction:
13 Standard (Fee Per Space) Per space 30,794.37 $ 30,794.37 $ N/A 30,794.37 $ 0.0% 14 Community Partners (50% Reduction) Per space 15,394.96 $ 15,394.96 $ N/A 15,394.96 $ 0.0% Additions to Existing Buildings:
15 Standard (Fee Per Space) Per space 30,794.37 $ 30,794.37 $ N/A 30,794.37 $ 0.0% 16 Community Partners (50% Reduction) Per space 15,394.96 $ 15,394.96 $ N/A 15,394.96 $ 0.0% Change in Occupancy Requiring Additional Parking: 2
17 Standard (Fee Per Space) Per space 7,698.22 $ 7,698.22 $ N/A 7,698.22 $ 0.0% 18 Community Partners (50% Reduction) Per space 3,850.60 $ 3,850.60 $ N/A 3,850.60 $ 0.0% Tree Related Fees
19 Tree/Shrub Hazardous Abatement Actual cost Actual cost N/A Actual cost 20 Commemorative Tree Planting Fixed Fee 357.50 $ 661.00 $ N/A 661.00 $ 84.9% City of San Luis Obispo
Public Works

1. Pursuant to Business and Professions Code Section 22435.7(f), any owner that fails to retrieve the owner’s shopping cart or shopping carts within three business days from the date of being given notice of the cart’s or carts’ discovery and location, or impoundment, by the city, is guilty of a violation of this chapter and may be punished with an administrative fine of fifty dollars for each occurrence in excess of three during the six-month period starting January 1st and ending on June 30th or the six-month period starting July 1st and ending December 31st of each calendar year.

2. Per vehicle space required by zoning regulations and not otherwise provided. The number of spaces required by the change shall be the difference between the number required by the new use and the number required by the previous occupancy.

Draft Recommendations

Page 303 of 480 ends

Fee
number Service Name Fee Description Current rate
Recommended
Rate Effective by
10/1/24 % change Notes
Appeals to Advisory Bodies Following Administrative (non-Planning) Decisions 1 Administrative Review Board Fixed Fee 350.12 $ 652.00 $ 86.2% 2 Hearing Officer Review or 25% of fine, whichever is less 106.00 $ New 3 All Other Appeals Fixed Fee 350.12 $ 532.00 $ 51.9%
Business Related Fees
4 Business License Application Fixed Fee 67.78 $ 95.00 $ 40.2% 5 Business License Zoning Fee Fixed Fee 129.79 $ 128.00 $ -1.4% 1 6 Annual Business License Renewal Processing Fee Fixed Fee 56.94 $ 42.00 $ -26.2% 1 7 Annual Business Minimum Tax or 0.5%, whichever is greater 25.00 $ 25.00 $ 0.0% 8 Annual Downtown Assessment -for locations within Downtown or 0.5%, whichever is greater 150.00 $ 150.00 $ 0.0% 9 SB1186 State Fee - Disability Access Set by the State 4.00 $ 4.00 $ 0.0% 2 Creek & Flood Protection
Stormwater Connection Fee Fixed Fee
10 Single Property Fixed Fee 26.00 $ 26.00 $ 0.0%
11 Larger Developments Fixed Fee 68.00 $ 68.00 $ 0.0%
Late Fees
12 Minimum or 1.5%, whichever is greater 15.00 $ 15.00 $ 0.0% Reproduction/Photo Copies
13 Standard or legal Per page 0.47 $ 0.47 $ 0.0% 3
14 11" x 17" Per page 0.82 $ 0.82 $ 0.0%
15 Photographs Each 6.73 $ 6.73 $ 0.0%
16 All other reproduction services will be charged at actual cost incurred Actual cost Actual cost Returned Check Fees
17 Initial returned check Fixed Fee 25.00 $ 25.00 $ 0.0% 18 Each subsequent returned check Fixed Fee 35.00 $ 35.00 $ 0.0%

1. Businesses located within the City of San Luis Obispo

2. Added to new licenses and renewals. Fee is fixed and set by the State of California

3. Two sided copies should be charged as two pages.

Draft Recommendations
City of San Luis Obispo
General Government

Page 304 of 480 ends

Fee
number Service Name
Current rate
Including IT
Surcharge if
applicable
Recommended
Rate Effective by
10/1/24
IT Surcharge
(if applicable) Total % change Notes
Meter Services
1 Water Meter Cost (.75") 211.79 $ 199.00 $ 6.07 $ 205.07 $ -3.2% 2 Water Meter Cost (1") 231.05 $ 234.00 $ 7.14 $ 241.14 $ 4.4% 3 Water Meter Cost (1.5") 605.43 $ 550.00 $ 16.78 $ 566.78 $ -6.4% 4 Water Meter Cost (2") 764.81 $ 739.00 $ 22.54 $ 761.54 $ -0.4% 5 Water Meter: Cellular Data transmitter cost (All Sizes) - $ 128.00 $ 3.90 $ 131.90 $ New 6 Water Meter: Cellular Data transmitter installation(All Sizes) - $ 84.00 $ 2.56 $ 86.56 $ New 7 Install Water Meter (3/4" - 1") 164.13 $ 169.00 $ 5.15 $ 174.15 $ 6.1% 8 Install Water Meter (1.5" - 2") 328.26 $ 338.00 $ 10.31 $ 348.31 $ 6.1% 9 Install Water Meter (larger than 2") Time & Materials 10 Remove Water Meter (5/8" - 1") 164.13 $ 169.00 $ 5.15 $ 174.15 $ 6.1% 11 Remove Water Meter (1.5" - 2") 328.26 $ 338.00 $ 10.31 $ 348.31 $ 6.1% 12 Remove Water Meter (larger than 2") Time & Materials 13 Adapter Cost (1" Service/.58"x.75" Meter) 32.09 $ 72.00 $ 2.20 $ 74.20 $ 131.2% 14 Adapter Cost (1" Service/.75" Meter) 19.04 $ 72.00 $ 2.20 $ 74.20 $ 289.7% 15 Adapter Cost (1.5" Service/1" Meter) 186.12 $ 315.00 $ 9.61 $ 324.61 $ 74.4% 16 Adapter Cost (2" Service/1" Meter) 143.33 $ 328.00 $ 10.00 $ 338.00 $ 135.8% 17 Adapter Cost (2" Service/1.5" Meter) 273.83 $ 427.00 $ 13.02 $ 440.02 $ 60.7% 18 Adapter Cost (2" /1" + 1"/.75" Combo Meter) 215.00 $ 400.00 $ 12.20 $ 412.20 $ 91.7% 19 Retirement of Service (2" or smaller) Time & Materials 20 Retirement of Service (larger than 2") Time & Materials 21 Account Set-up 43.00 $ 42.00 $ N/A 42.00 $ -2.3%
22 Account Set-up After Hours/Weekends $ 507.00 372.07 $ N/A 507.00 $ 36.3% 23 Disconnect Service for Non-Payment (SB-998) 50.00 $ 57.00 $ N/A 57.00 $ 14.0% 1 24 Sewer Lateral Installation 656.53 $ 675.00 $ 20.59 $ 695.59 $ 5.9% 25 Sewer Lateral Abandonment 656.53 $ 675.00 $ 20.59 $ 695.59 $ 5.9% Per Plan Review Submittal $ -
26 Plan check review water service 656.53 $ 675.00 $ 20.59 $ 695.59 $ 5.9% 27 Plan check review irrigation water 656.53 $ 675.00 $ 20.59 $ 695.59 $ 5.9% 28 Plan check review sewer service 656.53 $ 675.00 $ 20.59 $ 695.59 $ 5.9% 29 Recycled water cross connection test 656.53 $ 844.00 $ 25.74 $ 869.74 $ 32.5% 30 Construction & Demolition Recycling 82.07 $ 84.00 $ 2.56 $ 86.56 $ 5.5% Industrial Users
31 Class I Industrial User Annual Permit Fee (ex: Automotive Repair) 394.93 $ 405.00 $ N/A 405.00 $ 2.5% 32 Class II Industrial User Annual Permit Fee (Ex: Restaurant, Bakery) 212.66 $ 304.00 $ N/A 304.00 $ 43.0% 33 Significant Industrial User (ex: Chemical Manufacturing, Electro-plating) 2,058.80 $ 2,026.00 $ N/A 2,026.00 $ -1.6% 34 Industrial User Re-Inspection 95.81 $ 253.00 $ N/A 253.00 $ 164.1% Recycled Water - Construction Water Permit
35 Full Year; 0-2 Vehicles $ 103.70 3,400.00 $ 3,503.70 $ New 36 Full Year; 3 Vehicles $ 148.96 4,884.00 $ 5,032.96 $ New 37 Full Year; 4 Vehicles $ 193.07 6,330.00 $ 6,523.07 $ New 38 Full Year; 5 Vehicles $ 237.17 7,776.00 $ 8,013.17 $ New 39 Full Year; 6 Vehicles $ 281.30 9,223.00 $ 9,504.30 $ New 40 Half-Year; 2 Vehicles $ 56.33 1,847.00 $ 1,903.33 $ New 41 Half-Year; 3 Vehicles $ 100.44 3,293.00 $ 3,393.44 $ New 42 Half-Year; 4 Vehicles $ 144.57 4,740.00 $ 4,884.57 $ New 43 Half-Year; 5 Vehicles $ 188.67 6,186.00 $ 6,374.67 $ New 44 Half-Year; 6 Vehicles $ 232.78 7,632.00 $ 7,864.78 $ New 45 Quarterly; 2 Vehicles $ 32.09 1,052.00 $ 1,084.09 $ New 46 Quarterly; 3 Vehicles $ 76.19 2,498.00 $ 2,574.19 $ New 47 Quarterly; 4 Vehicles $ 120.29 3,944.00 $ 4,064.29 $ New 48 Quarterly; 5 Vehicles $ 164.40 5,390.00 $ 5,554.40 $ New 49 Quarterly; 6 Vehicles $ 208.50 6,836.00 $ 7,044.50 $ New Miscellaneous Utilities Fees
50 Non-compliance Water Restoration Fee 169.00 $ 5.15 $ 174.15 $ New 51 Temporary Wastewater Discharge Application 253.00 $ 7.72 $ 260.72 $ New 52 Sewer Lateral CCTV Review $ 2.56 84.00 $ 86.56 $ New 53 Sewer WYE Installation $ 16.17 530.00 $ 546.17 $ New

1. Fixed Fee set by SB-998 not subject to CPI increase
Draft Recommendations
City of San Luis Obispo
Utilities

Page 305 of 480 ends

Page 306 of 480 ends

COMPREHENSIVE CITYWIDE

USER FEE STUDY

CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
Final Report
May 17, 2024
© 2024 MGT Consulting Group
3600 American River Drive, Suite 150
Sacramento, CA 95864
916.276.8807
mgtconsulting.com

Page 307 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California  May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study Revised Draft Report P a g e | 1 City of San Luis Obispo, California

C O M P R E H E N S I V E C I T Y W I D E U SER F E E S T U D Y R E V I S E D D R A F T R E P O R T MA Y 7 , 2 0 2 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................3 STUDY SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES ...............................................................................................................3 CHAPTER 2. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS..................................................................................................................... 4 USER FEE FINANCIAL OVERVIEW..............................................................................................................4 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................................5 LEGAL, ECONOMIC & POLICY CONSIDERATIONS......................................................................................8 CHAPTER 3. ANALYSIS HIGHLIGHTS ..................................................................................................................... 11 BUILDING & SAFETY................................................................................................................................11 ENGINEERING.........................................................................................................................................15 FIRE ....................................................................................................................................................17 GENERAL GOVERNMENT........................................................................................................................19 PARKS AND RECREATION .......................................................................................................................20 PLANNING ..............................................................................................................................................21 POLICE ....................................................................................................................................................22 PUBLIC WORKS .......................................................................................................................................24 UTILITIES.................................................................................................................................................25 CHAPTER 4. PEER COMPARISON SURVEY ........................................................................................................... 27 CHAPTER 5. RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................................................ 27 APPENDIX A - USER FEE RESULTS ........................................................................................................................... 29

Page 308 of 480 ends

TABLE OF CONTENTS, continued
City of San Luis Obispo, California  May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Draft Report P a g e | 2
BUILDING................................................................................................................................................30 ENGINEERING.........................................................................................................................................39 FIRE ....................................................................................................................................................48 GENERAL GOVERNMENT........................................................................................................................60 PARKS AND RECREATION .......................................................................................................................63 PLANNING ..............................................................................................................................................68 POLICE ..................................................................................................................................................733 PUBLIC WORKS .......................................................................................................................................78 UTILITIES.................................................................................................................................................80 APPENDIX B – PEER COMPARISON SURVEY RESULTS .................................................................................... 84

Page 309 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California  May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 3
CHAPTER 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
MGT Consulting Group (MGT) is pleased to present the City of San Luis Obispo with this summary of findings for the recently completed comprehensive citywide user fee study.

The City contracted with MGT to perform a citywide user fee study using fiscal year 2023-2024 budgeted figures, staffing and operational information. The current fees listed in this study represent the fees being charged at the beginning of this study. The last user fee study was completed in 2017. In the interim, fees were adjusted by annual changes in the Consumer Price Index. A comprehensive analysis is conducted every five years to determine if any fees need to be adjusted beyond the annual inflator.

This report is the culmination of an extensive study conducted by MGT in collaboration with the City’s management and staff. MGT would like to take this opportunity to gratefully acknowledge all management and staff who participated in this project for their efforts and coordination. Their responsiveness and continued interest in the outcome of this study contributed greatly to its success.

Study Scope and Objectives
The study included a review of fee for service activities within the following areas:
• Building
• Engineering
• Fire
• General Government
• Parks and Recreation
• Planning
• Police
• Public Works
• Utilities
The goal for this study was to present a well-documented and defensible user fee study that would identify rates that would be used to recover billable costs for services and to develop user fees that comply with Proposition 26, Proposition 218, and other applicable statutory requirements.

Page 310 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California  May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 4
It should be noted that many of the facility rentals can be based on market rate and therefore fall outside of the restrictions set by Proposition 26 and 218.

The study was performed under the general direction of the Business Services and Administrative Manager. The primary goals of the study were to:
• Define what it costs the City to provide the various fee-related services. • Determine whether there are any services where a fee should be collected. • Re-align fee amounts with the adopted cost recovery policies.

The information summarized in this report addresses each of these issues and provides the City with the tools necessary to make informed decisions about any proposed fee adjustments.

CHAPTER 2. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
User Fee Financial Overview
The study's primary objective was to provide the City's decision-makers with the basic data needed to make informed pricing decisions. This report details the full cost of each service for which a fee is charged and presents the staff’s recommendations which are in alignment with the City’s cost recovery policies. The fee analysis adheres to Proposition 26 which is based on the "estimated reasonable cost of providing a service".

The exhibit below shows the annualized costs and revenues for the City’s user fees that were part of this analysis. The analysis was based on the average volumes from fiscal year 2022/2023 and the fiscal year 2023/2024 fee schedule. It is difficult to predict future revenues due to the fluctuation in the volumes and economic conditions. MGT has based the annual cost off of the individual full cost for each service analyzed and then multiplied that cost by the average volumes. The results are shown below in Exhibit 1:

Page 311 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California  May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 5
Exhibit 1
• Column A, User Fee Costs – This column represents what it is actually costing the City to provide the annual user fee services based on the average volumes listed above. In total, this study evaluated $21,861,879 of costs to provide user and regulatory related services. It is this amount that is the focus of this study and represents the total potential for user fee-related revenues for the city. • Column B, FY 2023/2024 Estimated Revenues – This column represents the City’s published fees for fiscal year 2023/2024 multiplied by the volume numbers from fiscal year 2022/2023 and estimated volumes for any new fees. Based on this information, the City receives feerelated cost recovery in the amount of $11,249,625 and is experiencing an overall 51% cost recovery level. The details of individual fees may be found in and in Appendix A of this report.
• Column C, Current Subsidy – This column shows the difference between what it is actually costing the city to provide services versus what is being recovered in revenue for these same services. Current fee levels recover 51% of full cost, leaving 49% or $10,612,254. This difference is being subsidized by other funding sources such as tax revenues which are intended to support services provided to the general User Fee Categories (A) Full Cost
User Fee Services
(E) Increased
Revenue
Building $ 4,097,808 $ 3,952,334 96% $ 145,474 4% $ 4,097,808 100% $ 145,474 Engineering $ 2,169,022 $ 1,372,852 63% $ 796,170 37% $ 2,115,061 98% $ 742,209 Fire $ 1,301,320 $ 962,996 74% $ 338,324 26% $ 975,990 75% $ 12,994 General Government $ 486,453 $ 533,154 110% $ (46,701) -10% $ 447,953 92% $ (85,201) Parks and Recreation $ 9,841,859 $ 1,906,407 19% $ 7,935,452 81% $ 3,423,282 35% $ 1,516,875 Planning $ 2,074,235 $ 1,026,898 50% $ 1,047,337 50% $ 1,978,767 95% $ 951,869 Police $ 338,367 $ 358,404 106% $ (20,037) -6% $ 273,725 81% $ (84,680) Public Works $ 67,138 $ 64,954 97% $ 2,184 3% $ 67,138 100% $ 2,184 Utilities $ 1,485,677 $ 1,071,626 72% $ 414,051 28% $ 1,375,310 93% $ 315,652 Totals: $ 21,861,879 $ 11,249,625 51% $ 10,612,254 49% $ 14,755,034 67% $ 3,517,376 Note: Annual cost includes all cross support costs from other departments. (B) FY2023/2024 Estimated
Revenue (C) Current Subsidy (D) Cost Recovery Policy
Current Recommended

Page 312 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California  May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 6
public. This subsidy represents an opportunity for an updated and more focused cost recovery effort by the city for fee-related services.

It should be noted that much of the subsidy is due to the Parks and Recreation recovery levels. • Column D, Recommended Recovery – This column shows the proposed cost recovery that is based on the City’s cost recovery policy. If adopted as recommended in this study, user and regulatory fee revenue would increase to $14,755,034. This would result in an overall cost recovery level of 67%.
• Column E, Increased Revenue – $3,517,376 in potential new revenue could be generated through aligning fees with the cost of providing services and existing policies around cost recovery.

Methodology
A user fee study is comprised of two basic elements:
 Hourly rates of staff providing the service.
 Time spent providing the service.

The product of the hourly rate calculation multiplied by the time spent yields the cost of providing the service.

HOURLY RATES
The hourly rate methodology used in this study builds indirect costs into hourly salary and benefit rates to arrive at fully burdened hourly rates.

The fully burdened hourly rates calculated are a mechanism used to calculate the total cost of providing services. Total cost is generally recognized as the sum of the direct cost together with a proportionate share of allowable indirect costs. The proper identification of all costs (including labor, operating expense, department administration, and citywide support) as “direct” or “indirect” is crucial to the determination of the total cost of providing services.

Direct costs are typically defined as those that are specifically tied to a particular function or activity, including the labor of persons working directly on the specific service for which the fee is charged, and possibly materials or supplies for people to work on the service. Indirect costs are those that support more than one program area and are not easily identifiable to specific activities. Examples of indirect costs are: 1) departmental administrative and support staff, 2) training and education time, 3) public counter and telephone time, 4) some service and supply costs, and 5) citywide overhead costs from outside of the department as identified in the City’s cost allocation plan.

MGT’s hourly rate calculation methodology includes the following:

Page 313 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California  May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 7
Personnel Services Analysis – each staff classification within the department or division is analyzed in the study. The first burden factor is comprised of compensated absences such as vacation/holidays/sick leave days taken in a year’s time. Staff classifications are then categorized as either direct (operational) or indirect (administrative or supervisory) labor. In some cases, a classification will have both direct and indirect duties.

The total indirect portion of staff cost is incorporated into hourly overhead rates.

Indirect Cost Rate – a ratio of indirect cost to direct labor (salaries plus benefits) is established. There are three elements of indirect cost incorporated, including:
 Indirect Labor – includes total compensation, administrative and supervisory staff costs.  Other Operating Expenses – most services and supplies are included as a second layer of indirect cost and are prorated across all fees and services. There are some service and supply expenses classified as “allowable direct.” Some examples of these are professional services expenses, or sports supplies. These allowable direct expenses would be directly associated with specific fees or programs, as opposed to being allocated across all activities through the indirect overhead.  External Indirect Allocations – this represents the prorated portion of citywide overhead (from the City’s cost allocation plan) which is attributable to the service for which the fee is charged.

Fully Burdened Hourly Rates – The fully burdened hourly rate was calculated by taking the total operating expenditures (the numerator) and dividing that by the number of direct employees. This creates the average cost per employee. MGT then looked at each direct employee, which has a base number of hours of 2,080 per year, and reduced the hours by the average holiday, sick and vacation hours. The result is a base of 1,800 direct hours available per employee. Next, MGT worked with each department/division to determine the average amount of training, meetings and administrative or supervisory hours spent per each employee. The reduction of these hours leaves the remaining employees’ direct hours available to provide services. The average direct hours are then divided into the average cost per employee which creates the average hourly rate per department/division.

TIME SPENT
Once fully burdened hourly rates were developed for departments/divisions, staff and the consultant worked to identify the time spent directly on each of the user fee activities. Each staff person involved in the user fee services identified time spent to complete each task associated with all user fee services. To inform this analysis, staff and the consultant based this exercise on time spent on delivering various services in FY 2022- 23 (the most recently completed fiscal year).

Page 314 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California  May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 8

FEE CALCULATIONS AND REVENUE PROJECTIONS
Based on the time spent and fully burdened hourly rates, MGT was able to prepare both a per‐unit cost and total annual cost (per‐unit cost multiplied by annual volume equals total annual cost). As stated above, costs were calculated by multiplying per‐unit time estimates by the fully burdened hourly labor rate; additional operating expenses directly associated with certain services were also added in. Finally, if other departments or divisions provided support to certain user fee activities, this time was accounted for and added into the analysis as a crossover support activity. Full costs are then compared to current fees/revenues collected, and subsidies (or over‐recoveries) are identified.

User fee summaries may be seen in Appendix A of this report.

Legal, Economic & Policy Considerations
Calculating the true cost of providing city services is a critical step in the process of establishing user fees and corresponding cost recovery levels.

The City has a very well thought out cost recovery policy for user fees that incorporates many of the items below. The City’s cost recovery policy can be found on the City’s website https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/34666/638333225626500000 .

The following legal, economic and policy issues help to illustrate these considerations:
 State Law ‐ In California, user fees are limited to the "estimated reasonable cost of providing a service" by Government Code section 66014(a) and other supplementary legislation. California voters approved Proposition 26 in November of 2010, which defined “taxes” as “any levy, charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by a local government” subject to seven exceptions. Most of the exceptions require that the city charge a fee which does not exceed the reasonable cost to the city to provide the service for which the fee is charged. Thus, if the fee exceeds the reasonable cost of service, it may be considered a “tax” which must be approved by the voters. MGT has calculated each fee to recover no more than the reasonable cost of each service so that none of the fee adjustments recommended herein will be considered taxes under Proposition 26. An implementation guide for Proposition 26 and 218 can be found on the League of California Cities website at this link: https://www.calcities.org/resource/propositions-26-and-218-implementation-guide. Additionally, it should be noted that some fees may be limited by state law and may not change, regardless of any cost analysis performed.  Economic barriers ‐ It may be a desired policy to establish fees at a level that permits lower income groups to use services that they might not otherwise be able to afford.
 Community benefit ‐ The Council may wish to subsidize some user fees in order to reflect policy considerations other than pure cost recovery. For example, some agencies may choose to use general purpose revenues for community wide services such as recreational fees for youth programs or senior programs. These fees may be set lower than full cost recovery as they are a benefit to the community.

Page 315 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California  May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 9
 Private benefit ‐ If a user fee service primarily benefits the fee payer, the City may set the fee according to the City’s cost recovery policy and set the fee at a 60-100% cost recovery level. Development related fees generally fall into this category; however, exceptions are sometimes made for services such as appeal fees or fees charged for certain types of residential projects.  Service driver - In conjunction with the third point above, the issue of who is the service recipient versus the service driver should also be considered. For example, it could be argued that the applicant is not the beneficiary of the City’s development review efforts: the community is the primary beneficiary. However, the applicant is the driver of development review costs, and as such, cost recovery from the applicant is appropriate.
 Managing demand ‐ The level of cost recovery and related pricing of services can significantly affect the demand and subsequent level of services provided. At full cost recovery, this has the specific advantage of ensuring that the City is providing services for which there is genuinely a market that is not overly-stimulated by artificially low prices.  Competition - Certain services, such as park usage or facility rentals, may be provided by neighboring communities or the private sector, and therefore demand for these services can be highly dependent on what else may be available at lower prices. Furthermore, if the City's fees are too low, demand enjoyed by private-sector competitors could be adversely affected.  Incentives ‐ Fees can be set low to encourage participation in a service, such as a youth sports program or the issuance of a water heater permit.

A sample of the decision-making process considerations when setting cost recovery levels can be found below Exhibit 2:

Page 316 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California  May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 10
Exhibit 2

Page 317 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California  May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 11
CHAPTER 3. Analysis Highlights
Below is a brief discussion of the findings for each department/division’s analysis. Please see the user fee summary sheets in Appendix A of this report for the details on each fee calculation and cost analysis.

Fees are charged in a variety of ways including:
 Flat (or fixed) fees – the fee is always the same, regardless of size or complexity of the service provided in each instance.  Per square foot – the fee is calculated based on the size of the project under review.  Hourly (or time‐and‐materials) – City staff track time and materials expenses, and fees are calculated to recover actual costs.  Actual Costs – this fee is charged to recover consultant costs as billed to the city, or time and materials of staff.  Percentage of permit – the fee is calculated as a percentage of the original permit fee.  Percentage of Engineer’s Cost Estimate – fees are calculated as percentage of engineer’s estimate of construction value.

Building & Safety
The Building & Safety division oversees the construction or renovation of buildings. Before a building is constructed or altered, a building permit must be obtained. The division reviews plans to ensure all construction codes are satisfied. Once the permit is issued, certified building inspectors will conduct inspections for building code compliance and to make sure that the work is consistent with plans approved by the City.

Building permits and plan checks benefit individuals and the development community and are therefore eligible for cost recovery. In general, because permits primarily benefit the fee payer, these fees are typically set at or close to 100% cost recovery. However, there may be some fees that are historically set at less than 100% cost recovery by the City Council to encourage certain types of projects/permits.

Within the Building and Safety division, current fees recover 96% ($3,952,334) of the total costs of providing these services, which are calculated to be $4,097,808. The difference between the current cost recovery and the total identified cost is $145,474 or about 4%.

MGT isrecommending some fee reductions on certain permits and some fee increases in order to keep the cost aligned with the time and expenses required to provide the services and to keep within State cost recovery limits.

In addition to performing an analysis of the costs, MGT worked with the department to modify the fee structure allowing it to reflect the current permitting process and to be a more user-friendly fee schedule. It must be noted that a major restructuring is proposed for building construction permits. In doing this, the division was able to reduce the complexity of fees significantly.

Page 318 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California  May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 12
Building & Safety division has two main types of permits:
• Fixed priced permits, such as a heat pump fee which has a current fixed fee price of $64.40. – These types of permits tend to have a price that does not vary with the size of the project, because all applications tend to need a similar level of effort. • Variable permits, such as building construction permits, have fees that are dependent on the square footage/type of construction. The assumption is that as projects increases in size, so does the effort required to process the permit.

The building analysis followed the following approach:
• MGT developed a fully burdened hourly rate and applied it to the average time spent performing services that were listed as fixed price permits. Subtracting the cost of activities associated with fixed price permits from the total cost of the division reflectsthe cost of activities associated with variable price (construction) permits. Dividing this figure by the square footage of projects permitted results in a cost per square foot for variable price (construction) permits.

1. Hourly rate x hours spent on activities associated with fixed price permits = cost of fixed price permits

2. Total cost of division minus non-fee related activities and cost of fixed price permits = cost of activities associated with variable price permits

3. Cost of activities associated with variable price permits divided by total square footage of projects permitted = cost per square foot for variable price permits
• Construction permits were then analyzed by the building division to identify how much effort is dedicated to plan review and inspection of construction permits. “Plan review” covers all activities related to the approval of the building plans. “Inspection” covers all activities to confirm that construction is according to approved plans and to close out the permit when work is completed. Using the identified effort and the previously determined variable price cost per square foot, a cost per square foot for plan review and a cost per square foot for inspections is determined.

1. Effort for plan review activities x cost per square foot for variable price permits = cost per square foot for plan review

2. Effort for inspection activities x cost per square foot for variable price permits = cost per square foot for inspection Below are some of the changes being proposed (details can be found on the executive summary listed in Appendix A at the end of this report):

Page 319 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California  May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 13

CONSTRUCTION PERMIT CATEGORIES
Construction permits were consolidated into 12 categories, differentiating between new construction and alterations or additions and 26 total fees with a price per square foot for plan review and a price per square foot for inspections This restructuring resulted in a major reduction in the number of fees from 840 to 26, which greatly simplified this section of the building fee schedule and provides a more user-friendly fee schedule.

In addition, establishing a minimum and/or maximum square footage for each category ensures that the fees for very small or very large projects are not disproportional to the work effort required.

Staff selected the following construction categories:
• Alteration/Addition – Accessory Dwelling Unit
• Alteration/Addition – Commercial
• Alteration/Addition – Mixed Use or Multi Family
• Alteration/Addition – Single Family
• New Accessory Building
• New Accessory Dwelling Unit
• New Commercial Building
• New Commercial Shell
• New Mixed-Use
• New Multi Family (R2)
• New Multi Family (R3)
• New Single Family

BUILDING FIXED PRICE PERMITS (MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, MISCELLANEOUS) This section of the fee schedule also contains recommended structural changes. Most of these changes are related to one of the following:
updating fee name, adding new fees, removing fees.

Recommended Fee Name Updates – Staff recommended updating fee names for 25 categories. These recommendations are intended to help users and staff have a better understanding of the service being provided. In some instances, the fee name update intends to set minimums and maximus.

Some examples shown below (blue font represent the changes made to fee name):
• After Hours Call Out (Building) (2 hour minimum plus per additional hour) - BLDG o In this example, this fee name update makes sure the user pays at least a 2 hour minimum for work being done after hours, as this is the minimum amount of expense required for staff to respond to an after-hours call.

Page 320 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California  May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 14
• Balcony/Porch/Deck - BLDG (up to 500 sq ft)
o In this example, the fee name update limits the square footage covered by the current fee.

Recommended New Fees:
• Appeal of Building Official Decision - BLDG Minor*
• Appeal of Building Official Decision - BLDG Moderate* • Awning/Canopy - BLDG - Each Additional (Up to 10)
• Balcony/Porch/Deck - BLDG Each Additional 500 sq ft
• Doors/Windows- Box Structural - Each Additional
• Doors/Windows- Box Non-Structural - Each Additional
• Access Board of Appeals - BLDG – Minor*
• Access Board of Appeals - BLDG Moderate*
• New/Altered Circuits - Per Circuit - BLDG
• New/Altered Circuits - Per Duplex Circuit - BLDG
• Patio - Enclosed - BLDG - Each Additional 500 sq ft
• Patio Cover - Open - BLDG - Each Additional 500 sq ft • Roof Structure Replacement - BLDG - Each Additional 250 sq ft • Skylight - Each Additional
• Window Retrofits (non-structural) -BLDG - Each Additional • Paper Plan Disposal Fee + Disposal Actual Cost
• Phased approval - Hourly
• Alternative Means and Methods (AMMR)(found under fire fees) • Expired permit/application extension fee
• Permit Reissuance - Hourly
• Annual Stormwater Review
• Duplicate Single Family Plan (35% of plan review)
• Duplicate Multi Family Plan (35% of plan review)
*Minor projects are permits for Alt/Addition of a Single-Family or ADU (including duplexes), a demolition permit, or any item permitted under the “Additional Building Fees” schedule.

Moderate projects are all other permits that are processed under the alt/addition work class, New Single-Family permits (including duplexes), and New ADU permits.

Major projects are all other new projects.

Page 321 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California  May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 15
Recommended Fees for Removal:
• Deferred Submittal (Building) – Removed entirely
• Driveway – Removed entirely
• Electrical Volume & Current Fee Analysis – BLDG – Removed entirely • Fence or Non-Engineered Wall - BLDG - each Additional ln. ft. – Consolidated with “Fence or Non-Engineered Wall – BLDG – Base” fee • Guest Quarters Permit – Removed entirely
• Inspection Fee – Removed entirely
• Manufactured Homes – Removed entirely
• Mechanical Volume & Current Fee Analysis – BLDG – Removed entirely • Minor Lease Space Improvements – BLDG – Removed entirely • Misc Electrical Items NOS – BLDG - Removed entirely
• Misc Mechanical Items NOS – BLDG - Removed entirely
• Misc Plumbing Items NOS – BLDG - Removed entirely
• New/Altered Circuits - 15 or 20 amp – BLDG – Consolidated with “New/Altered Circuits – Per Circuit – BLDG” fee • New/Altered Circuits - 200+ amps – BLDG - Consolidated with “New/Altered Circuits – Per Circuit – BLDG” fee • New/Altered Circuits - 25 to 40 amp – BLDG - Consolidated with “New/Altered Circuits – Per Circuit – BLDG” fee • New/Altered Circuits - 50 to 175 amp – BLDG - Consolidated with “New/Altered Circuits – Per Circuit – BLDG” fee • Other Electrical Inspections – BLDG – Removed entirely • Other Mechanical Inspections – BLDG - Removed entirely • Other Plumbing & Gas Inspections – BLDG – Removed entirely • Plumbing Volume & Current Fee Analysis – BLDG – Removed entirely • School Tenant Permit – Removed entirely
• Secondary Dwelling Units – Removed entirely
• Stand Alone Electrical Plan Check – BLDG – Removed entirely • Stand Alone Mechanical Plan Check – BLDG - Removed entirely • Stand Alone Plumbing Plan Check – BLDG - Removed entirely • Water Heater - BLDG - additional – Consolidated with “Water Heater – BLDG” fee Engineering

Page 322 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California  May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 16
The Engineering Division of the Community Development Department oversees the review of private development projects and subdivisions for compliance with applicable design standards, project conditions of approval, environmental mitigation measures, and code compliance regulations. These services benefit the development community as well as individuals and are therefore eligible for cost recovery. In general compliance with the City’s cost recovery policy, these projects primarily benefit the fee payer, and these fees are set at or close to 100% of the cost of recovery.

Within the Engineering Division, current fees recover 63% of the cost of providing the service or $1,372,852, with current total costs at $2,169,022, which is a difference of $796,170 or about 37%. Some of the Engineering servicesinclude cross support from other departments. This cross-support represents the time that other departments/divisions may spend performing tasks in support of services provided by the Engineering division, and the costs of this cross-support are included in the total costs identified above.

The fee analysis shows a mix of fees recovering less than 100% cost recovery and some that are at or above 100% cost recovery. Those showing an over-recovery are proposed to be reduced in compliance with Proposition 26 which states you may not charge more than 100% cost recovery. • Thirty (30) fees are proposed to have the fee name changed to better reflect the service being provided. • The fee for sewer laterals currently distinguishes between whether the lateral is installed via open trench or by way of boring. The fee titled sewer lateral plus per linear foot (trench) became unnecessary after renaming the sewer lateral (bore) fee to remove the bore or trench designation, thus the (trench) designation is duplicative and is proposed to be removed. The fiber infrastructure protection fee, and the fee for unpermitted encroachments have not been utilized and are proposed to be removed. • Four (4) new fees are proposed to be added:
 Stormwater Control Plan
 Private Stormwater Conveyance System Agreement
 Other Minor Encroachments Not Listed
 Temporary Encroachment Agreement
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLANS – REVIEW AND INSPECTION
The current fee structure for the Public Improvement Plan Check and the Construction Inspection are a base fee plus increments based on estimated construction costs (valuation). This fee structure was created during the last fee study in 2017. The Engineering division suggested a redesign to simplify the way the fee is calculated. The public improvement plan check is proposed to consist of a base fee of 15% of estimated construction costs for the first $100,000 of valuation plus 1% thereafter. This change reduced the number of fee line items from ten (10) to two (2). The Construction Inspection fee is proposed to consist of a base of 8.4% of estimated construction costs for the first $500,000 plus 3.3% thereafter. Restructuring this fee reduced the number of fee line items from eleven (11) to two (2).

Proposed new fee structure:

Page 323 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California  May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 17
• Improvement Plan Check: 15% of estimated construction cost for first $100,000 plus 1.0% thereafter • Construction Inspection: 8.4% of estimated construction cost for first $500,000 plus 3.3% thereafter Due to the complexity and variety in scope of these types of projects, revenue may be recognized during one year but some of the labor may cross between fiscal years. In addition, these fees are intended to cover cross support from multiple other departments, including Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Utilities, which is included in Engineering’s revenue. It is difficult to predict what the revenue will be for these two fees from year to year. Over the next year or two, MGT recommends tracking labor associated with these fees and testing it against the new fee structure in order to validate that the City’s costs are being recovered in compliance with City policy.

Fire
Within the Hazardous Prevention division, current fees recover 99% ($962,996) of current total costs at $975,990 which is a difference of $12,994 or about 1%. The division also has additional cost of approximately $325,000 that are not related to fees. That cost was excluded from the analysis.

The division is recommending 100% cost recovery on all services. In keeping with State law, the target cost recovery percentage must not exceed 100%. We are proposing some fee reductions for flat fee categories in order to keep within State cost recovery limits. There are also some flat fee categories recommended to increase to keep the cost aligned with the level of effort to provide the services.

In addition to performing an analysis of the costs, MGT worked with the department to modify the fee structure, allowing it to reflect the current process and to be a more user-friendly fee schedule.

The Hazardous Prevention division of the Fire Department currently charges fees for building construction related permits (variable permits) for plan checks and inspections separate from Building division fees. For building construction, the department currently has a similar structure to the building division, charging a base fee plus increment fee. Currently there are 128 fees in this schedule. At the beginning of the study, fire staff recommended following the same methodology/structure as building fees.

The division also provides services for which fees are not collected, such as arson investigations, community education, and weed abatement. Fee recoverable activities represent approximately 75% of the services provided.

The methodology used to calculate Fire Prevention’s building construction permits(plan review and inspections) was the same as the methodology used for Building. The total cost of the division minus the cost of activities associated with fixed price permits and non-fee related services leaves a residual cost for activities associated with variable price permits (construction permits).

1. Hourly rate x hours spent on activities associated with fixed price permits = cost of fixed price permits

Page 324 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California  May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 18

2. Total cost of the division minus non-fee related activities and cost of fixed price permits = cost of activities associated with variable price permits

3. Cost of activities associated with variable price permits divided by total square footage of projects permitted = cost per square foot for variable price permits
Construction permits were then analyzed by the Hazardous Prevention division to identify how much effort is dedicated to plan review and inspection of construction permits. “Plan review” covers all activities related to the approval of the building plans. “Inspection” covers all activities to confirm that construction is according to approved plans and to close out the permit when work is completed. Using the total annual square footage for each construction category, it is possible to calculate a cost per square foot for plan reviews and inspections. Fire will continue to charge separate fees from Building but will now charge as a cost per square foot for the construction categories selected.

In addition to building construction related permits, the Hazard Prevention division also oversees other flat fee types related to fire sprinkler/alarm systems (development related) and other miscellaneous fire fees (non-development related).

DEVELOPMENT RELATED FIRE FIXED PRICE PERMIT
This section of the fee schedule had a significant structural change. Currently, fees for fire sprinklers and fire alarm systems are charged as a single flat fee that intends to recover the cost for plan review and inspection activities. Fire staff is recommending charging each activity as its own separate fee to remove any ambiguity related to the activities performed. The proposed structure provides a separate fee for plan review and inspection activities. In addition, 5 new fee categories were added. They are:
• Supplemental Fire Plan Review
• Supplemental Fire Inspection
• Alternative Method and Material Review
• Expedited Plan Review Fee
• Commercial Solar/Energy Storage System

NON-DEVELOPMENT RELATED FIRE FIXED PRICE PERMITS
The services provided in this section are related to fixed price permits and are intended to cover hazardous occupancy permits, mandated inspections, fire false alarm fees, CUPA fees, and Life Safety Inspections. This section had minimal changes to its structure. Eight (8) new fees were added and three (3) fees are recommended for removal. Beyond the structure, results found this section currently recovers slightly more than total cost on most fees. This will result in small fee reductions to ensure compliance with California user fee regulations.

Page 325 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California  May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 19
In addition, the study calculated the cost of providing non-mandated inspections for commercial businesses, as was done in the prior study. It is MGT’s understanding that although the costs associated with these activities was identified, fees were not established for these activities by Council policy.

Recommended New Fees:
• Lithium Battery Storage > 15 Cubic Feet - New Category • Outdoor Assembly Event > 1000 participants
• Annual permit fees received 31-60 days after original invoice day • Annual permit fees received 61+ days after original invoice day • Administrative/Clerical standby (per hour)
• Lift Assistance Fee - New Category
• Extraordinary Response/High Use Fee - New Category
• Defensible Space/Home Hardening Inspection - New Category General Government
The General Government fee schedule contains a variety of fees from the City Clerk’s Office, Finance Department, and the City Attorneys’ Office.

Annual volumes for fees such as photocopies and returned check fees are difficult to track, therefore the detail schedule in Appendix A does not show annual revenue. Other services such as business license applications and renewals and appeals to advisory bodies, volume was provided, and the current recovery is 110% or $533,154 with actual costs at $486,453 which is a difference of -$46,701 or about 10% over recovery.

The city no longer offers microfiche copies, audio recordings and electronic documents and therefore it is recommended that these fees be removed from the city’s fee schedule. A new fee was added for reproduction of microfiche, audio or electronic copies to be charged at actual cost since the city would need to send out for these services.

The Appeals to Advisory Bodies fees are recovering less than 100% of costs, however this is likely due to setting this fee below full cost recovery as a policy. As a best practice, Appeal fees are typically set lower than full cost recovery, so the process is affordable to all consumers.

The Business License renewal fee of $55 is recovering more than 100% of costs. The full cost is $42, and the current fee is $55. This fee would need to be reduced to meet 100% full cost recovery which would result in a loss of approximately $117,388 in revenue. The reduction in cost to provide the business license renewal is primarily driven by process efficiencies the City has implemented and increased participation of businesses renewing using the online platform.

Page 326 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California  May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 20
Two (2) fee categories are recommended for removal that were not utilized, and one was transferred to another fee schedule. • Community Service Worker Registration Fee
• Business License & Tax Certificate Replacement Fee
• Home Occupancy Business
o Renewal or New Application - Costs incorporated into Planning fee schedule.

Parks and Recreation
The Parks and Recreation Department provides quality parks and facilities (such as the SLO Swim Center, Damon-Garcia Sports Complex, and Laguna Lake Golf Course) where recreation programs, special events, activities for youth and seniors, and cultural and educational opportunities occur in an effort to encourage wellness and develop community through leisure, cultural, and social pursuits. The Department also protects and preserves the City’s natural resources and open spaces and manages the Public Art Program and the Citywide Volunteer Program.

MGT used a different method for analyzing Park and Recreation fees. Rather than analyzing cost per unit or by class, services were analyzed by category. The annual revenue was reviewed for services provided in each category versus the annual cost for these same services to provide an overall cost recovery in that category. Additionally, the non-fee categories were also included in the review process. These are services that are provided by Parks and Recreation where no fee is charged, such as City sponsored community events (for example Boo Bash and Spring Fling Egg Hunt) and environmental education programs.

Currently, the comprehensive cost analysis shows that Parks and Recreation fees recover 19% ($1,906,407) of the cost for all fee related services with an 81% ($7,935,453) subsidy. This percentage includes the cost allocated by the central service departments through the cost allocation plan, as well as any Parks Maintenance and Swim Center maintenance costs. If these central service costs were removed, the cost recovery would increase to approximately 35%.

Individual program recoveries range from 3% to over 100%. Parks and Recreation fees are not strictly limited to 100% full cost recovery, rather they are often driven by the need and demand for services as well as benefits to the community. The City has a well-established cost recovery policy recommending recovery ranges for different activities and services. However, in many cases, the ability to increase fees is limited by market rate, particularly in the case of indoor and outdoor facility rentals, which can affect the Department’s ability to meet the current cost recovery policy targets as listed below:

City Cost Recovery Policy:
• High Range Cost Recovery Activities – (60% to 100%)
o Adult athletics

Page 327 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California  May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 21
o Banner permit applications
o Childcare services (before and after school care during the school year) o Facility rentals (indoor and outdoor; excludes use of facilities for internal City uses) • Mid-Range Cost Recovery Activities – (30% to 60%)
o Golf
o Summer and Spring Break Camps (Child-care camps and sports camps) o Classes (Contract classes)
o Major commercial film permit applications
• Low-Range Cost Recovery Activities – (0 to 30%)
o Aquatics
o Community gardens
o Junior Ranger camp
o Minor commercial film permit applications
o Skate park
o Parks and Recreation sponsored events (i.e., Boo Bash and Spring Fling Egg Hunt) o Youth sports (leagues and clinics)
o Teen services
o Senior services
In order to better support cost recovery targets, staff are recommending that particular fees be charged based on the participant’s residency status of San Luis Obispo. Not all of the services would receive this fee, it is proposed only for camps, impacted classes and facility rentals at the Jack House and Swim Center. In addition to establishing a non-resident fee, some of the fees would need to be increased to recover policy levels. Staff also reviewed the demand for these feesto determine if an increase in the fee would be likely to impact accessfor community members in relation to participation. In addition, staff are recommending the addition of two new fees to their fee schedule: Damion Garcia Overflow Parking Use fee and a Single Court rental fee for tennis and Volleyball courts. If policy recovery levels are implemented, the overall cost recovery would increase to $3,423,282 or 35% which result in additional revenue of $1,516,875.

Planning
The Planning division assists the community with land use and development. Staff evaluates all applications to ensure compliance with City’s zoning codes and land use policies.

Page 328 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California  May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 22
Within Planning, current fees recover 50% or $1,026,898 with actual costs at $2,074,235, which is a difference of $1,047,337. A combination of fee increases and decreases are recommended to align fees with the City’s policy of 100% cost recovery. The Planning fees include cross support from other departments totaling $845,350 leaving $1,228,885 related directly to Planning itself. This cross support represents the time that other departments/divisionsmay spend performing tasksforservices provided by the Planning division. By incorporating cross support costs into the fee, the full cost of providing the services is calculated and the City can set fees accordingly.

Some planning fees are recommended to have a significant increase which could be due to one or several factors. First, employee time is more expensive in 2023 than it was during the last 2017 study. Additional state laws continue to make the planning review process more complex and time consuming. Finally, some fees from the previous study could have been intentionally set below 100% cost recovery levels due to policy considerations at that time.

The Planning division is proposing the removal of three fees that are no longer necessary and merging several fees for simplicity and consistency.

Below is a list of fees recommended for addition to the Planning schedule:

Recommended New or transferred Fees:
• Business License Change of Location Only (moved from General Government) • Historic Property Listing/Delisting
• CHC Development Review
• CHC Staff Referral Review
• SB 9 Lot Split
• Pre-Application with site visit + ARC Review
• Cannabis Transfer of Ownership Transfer Fee – All Types • Tree Removal Permit (moved from Public Works)
• Tree Committee Recommendation (moved from Public Works) Police
The Police Department maintains the safety of the City by working in partnership with the community to protect life and property, prevent and reduce crime, and improve the quality of life in the City’s neighborhoods while preserving the rights of all through a commitment to Service, Pride, and Integrity. Its primary purpose is to protect the City. The department also provides a series of other services, including permit issuance and records management. The current fees recover 106% or $358,404 (fees and penalties) with actual costs at $338,367 which is a difference of -

Page 329 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California  May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 23
$20,037 or an over recovery of about six percent (6%). However, when penalties of $108,750 are taken out of the equation, the cost recovery is approximately 74%.

Many of the fees for services offered through the Police department are set by statute and cannot be changed. There are two primary reasons for the current recovery calculations:

1. The department contracts with a third party to administer the alarm permit program. In addition, an internal staff member collaborates with the contractor to facilitate data transfers and provide support to local businesses with questions or appeals. Since the last fee study was conducted, this responsibility transferred from a sworn position to a civilian position, which results in a decreased hourly rate. The police department’s average hourly rate for a sworn position was calculated at $226.66 compared to a civilian (non-sworn) position at $127.06. This is about a 44% decrease. The fee for new alarm permits and renewals should be reduced to reflect the full cost of providing services considering the change of responsibility. It is estimated that this change may reduce the revenue for these two fees by approximately $38,472.
o Current fee for alarm permit or renewal is $46
o Updated full cost is $32

2. As part of the City’s burglary alarm compliance program, the department charges for successive false alarm responses based on a tiered schedule. The first and second false alarm police responses do not incur a fee and subsequent false alarm responses for one address in a 12-month period incur increasingly higher penalties based on the fee schedule. After consulting with the City Attorney’s office, the methodology is sound, however the fee cannot exceed $500 per instance. The department is permitted to recover costs for responding to false alarms and may also impose a progressive penalty, tiered to successive incidents. Department staff are recommending the continuance of the tiered structure to preserve limited resources, which aligns with City Attorney recommendations. The impact to annual revenue if progressive penalties are continued is estimated to be approximately $2,200 or less; however, eliminating the penalty component of subsequent false alarms entirely would be a reduction of approximately $108,000 in revenue.

In December 2023, Senate Bill 2 (SB2) was introduced and went into effect on January 1, 2024 (for Phase 1). SB2 amended various laws related to Concealed Weapons permits (CCW); specifically related to costs, updates were made to how licensing authorities can charge fees. Fees for permits and renewals were previously set and limited by statute; the language has been revised to allow for a licensing agency to charge an amount that is “reasonable” for processing the application. The department conducted a time analysis, and the data reflected a significant increase in the costs.

The Police Chief is recommending 50% cost recovery for CCWs based on the following: achieving 100% cost recovery at this time could substantially increase the department’s fees in comparison to other agencies, the fee should be accessible for the public, as significantly higher fees may exclude access to people seeking to exercise their Constitutional rights related to CCW permits. Due to this change in law being recent, other agencies (such as the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Office) have not had the opportunity to conduct a time study, nor are they positioned to address fee changes at the time of this report. The new fee results are listed under Exhibit 3 on the next page.

Page 330 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California  May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 24
CCW Fees
Current Fee
(previously
limited by
Statute)
Full Cost Analysis
(100% Cost
Recovery)
Department
Recommendation
50% Cost
Recovery
New Permit - Investigative costs and permit processing $100 $537 $269 New Permit - Livescan Fee (pass through fee) $93 $93 $93 New Permit Social Media Check (new requirement/pass through fee) n/a $33 $33 Renewal - Concealed Weapons Permit: No new firearms $25 $261 $131 Renewal - Concealed Weapons Permit: Adding new or replacing firearms $25 $374 $187 Amendment - Concealed Weapons Permit: Adding new firearm $10 $324 $162 Amendment - Concealed Weapons Permit: Change in Address $10 $143 $72 Exhibit 3
There are currently 45 active permits; during the last year there were 17 new permits, 14 renewals and 10 amendments. Based on volume data and the recommendation regarding 50% cost recovery, these fees would generate approximately $7,902 in annual revenue.

Lastly, the department is recommending less than 100% cost recovery for the property damage-only collision investigations. Currently the fee is $139 with the full cost analysis at $227, an increase of 163%. The department is recommending the fee be set at 50% cost recovery, or $113.

Setting the fee at 50% cost recovery is recommended to ensure that the City is unlikely to collect more than 100% cost recovery in the event that the fee is paid by multiple parties involved in a collision.

Public Works
The City of San Luis Obispo’s Public Works Department provides two primary services: one is providing safe mobility options for residents and visitors so that all may enjoy the cultural, recreational, economic, educational, and quality of life amenities in San Luis Obispo. The other is to build and maintain the City’s assets and infrastructure to enhance community safety, health, and wellness.

Page 331 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California  May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 25
The Public Works department has very few fees on the fee schedule but does provide considerable cross support to other departments such as Planning and Engineering. For the fees that are under the Public Works fee schedule the current cost recovery is 97% or $64,954 with actual costs of $67,138 a difference of $2,184 or 3%.

With the exception of Parking fees that are outside the scope of this study, the department has only a few primary fees: Final Inspection Approval/Department Signoff for Site Disturbance, Abandoned Shopping Carts, Tree /Shrub Hazardous Abatement and Commemorative Tree Planting.

Final Inspection Approval/Department Signoff of for Site Disturbance: Engineering has separate fees for the services performed however, Public Works provides the final signoff. The structure of the fees is in alignment with Engineering.

The City recently implemented the Abandoned Shopping Cart fee structure and the costs have not changed in the interim; therefore, the City excluded evaluation of these fees from this study. The fees are listed in Appendix A for transparency.

There are two tree fees on the Public Works fee schedule:
• Tree/Shrub Hazardous Abatement - recommended to charge actual cost. • Commemorative Tree Planting – recommended that the fee increase to 100% cost recovery at $661.

UTILITIES
The Utilities Department provides essential services that support the community’s health, well-being, and quality of life. Through its efforts, water for the community is safely transported, treated, distributed, used, collected, recovered, and beneficially reused. These efforts are accomplished by the department’s water and wastewater divisions. Additionally, the department manages the City’s solid waste program and administers the City’s stormwater compliance program. Long range planning for water resources and infrastructure needs, environmental stewardship, and business management are required to provide these vital services and are critical functions of the Utilities Department. In total, there are fourteen programs that constitute the Utilities Department.

As enterprise funds, the Water and Sewer Funds primarily finance operations with charges for service under the requirements of Proposition 218.

The water and sewer rates must be sufficient to cover all expenses, operations, capital improvements, maintenance, and debt obligations. The water and sewer rates were not part of the utilities user fee study. The fees included in the analysis were miscellaneous fees (account creation, service fees, late charges), meter sales,and meter installation and removal.

The primary goals of the department were to determine the total cost of fees based on time and materials, and to identify services provided that

Page 332 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California  May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 26
do not currently have associated fees. Within the Utilities department, current fees recover 72% ($1,071,626) with actual costs at $1,485,677 which is a difference of $414,051 or about28%.

Staff recommends continuing less than 100% cost recovery for Industrial User Fees in compliance with prior City Council direction (Resolution 6981).

Nineteen (19) new fees were listed forservicesthe department is currently providing to standardize plan review processes and begin to recover certain costs. Fifteen (15) of the new fees are tied to Recycled Water Construction Permits, which are currently administered as a single rate at $1,260 annually and have not been updated since 2009 (Resolution 10076). Staff recommends separating this fee by duration of construction and number of vehicles, to better reflect the volume of water consumed and the cost to administer these permits, which varies considerably based on these factors. Staff believe that this approach will make recycled water sales for construction uses more equitable.

Recommended New Fees
• Water meter cellular data transmitter cost (All Sizes) – material only • Water meter cellular data transmitter installation (All Sizes) • Recycled Water Construction Permit Fee (Full Year 0-2 Vehicles) • Recycled Water Construction Permit Fee (Full Year 3 Vehicles) • Recycled Water Construction Permit Fee (Full Year 4 Vehicles) • Recycled Water Construction Permit Fee (Full Year 5 Vehicles) • Recycled Water Construction Permit Fee (Full Year 6+ Vehicles) • Recycled Water Construction Permit Fee (Half Year 0-2 Vehicles) • Recycled Water Construction Permit Fee (Half Year 3 Vehicles) • Recycled Water Construction Permit Fee (Half Year 4 Vehicles) • Recycled Water Construction Permit Fee (Half Year 5 Vehicles) • Recycled Water Construction Permit Fee (Half Year 6+ Vehicles) • Recycled Water Construction Permit Fee (Quarterly 0-2 Vehicles) • Recycled Water Construction Permit Fee (Quarterly 3 Vehicles) • Recycled Water Construction Permit Fee (Quarterly 4 Vehicles) • Recycled Water Construction Permit Fee (Quarterly 5 Vehicles) • Recycled Water Construction Permit Fee (Quarterly 6+ Vehicles) • Muni Code non-compliance water restoration fee
• Temporary wastewater discharge application
• Sewer lateral CCTV review

Page 333 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California  May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 27
• Sewer WYE installation
Comparison surveys were conducted for account set-up, disconnect/reconnect, and plan check review water service.

CHAPTER 4. Peer Comparison Survey
The purpose of a peer comparison survey is to provide the City with a sense of the local market pricing for services, and to use that information to gauge the impact of recommendations for fee adjustments. MGT worked with the City of San Luis Obispo’s staff to identify the list of fees that would be part of the peer comparison survey. The following peer jurisdictions were included as part of the comparison survey for San Luis Obispo County, City of Santa Barbara, City of Ventura, and the City of Monterey. The fee amounts were determined by the jurisdictions published fee schedules at the time of the survey.

It is good to keep in mind that comparison surveys do not always provide an “apples to apples” comparison of the fee. When comparing fees there are several key factors to keep in mind:
• When was the last time that agency updated their fees? • We do not know if the agency has set their fees below full cost recovery. • Salaries and benefits can vary from agency to agency and can impact the cost of services. • Often fee structures can differ, and a comparison is only an estimate of the fee that may be charged.

In general, a comparison survey paints only part of the picture and can only provide a high-level comparison. Results of the survey can be seen in Appendix B of this report.

CHAPTER 5. Recommendations

Page 334 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California  May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 28
MGT recommends the following:
• Staff are looking for guidance from Leadership and the City Council on recommendations. • MGT recommends that the city continue to evaluate their user fees every three to five years or sooner if there are significant changes to the organization or process.
• MGT recommends that for the period between analysis, that the City continue to increase fees based on a CPI factor in order to maintain cost recovery as salaries and benefits and services and supply costs increase.

Page 335 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California  May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 29
Appendix A - User Fee Results
The following pages provide the individual fee study results.

Page 336 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California  May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 30

BUILDING

Page 337 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 31

Page 338 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study Revised Draft Report P a g e | 32

Page 339 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study Revised Draft Report P a g e | 33

Page 340 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 34

Page 341 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 35

Page 342 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 36

Page 343 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 37

Page 344 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 38

Page 345 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California  May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Draft Report P a g e | 39

ENGINEERING

Page 346 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study Revised Draft Report P a g e | 40

Page 347 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study Revised Draft Report P a g e | 41

Page 348 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study Revised Draft Report P a g e | 42

Page 349 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study Revised Draft Report P a g e | 43

Page 350 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study Revised Draft Report P a g e | 44

Page 351 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study Revised Draft Report P a g e | 45

Page 352 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study Revised Draft Report P a g e | 46

Page 353 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 47
Ord Service Name Fee Description Annual
Volume Current Fee Full Cost Current Recovery % Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual
Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level
Annual
Revenue2
Increased
Revenue
Recommended
Subsidy
95 Single Family Residential (Net Impervious
Area per SCP) 2500+ Fixed Fee - $ 675 $ 669 101% $ - $ - $ - 100% $ 669 $ - $ - $ - 96 Drainage Report/Flood Study Review
97 Minor Fixed Fee 144 $ 338 $ 1,672 20% $ 240,792 $ 48,600 $ 192,192 100% $ 1,672 $ 240,792 $ 192,192 $ - 98 Major Fixed Fee 25 $ 844 $ 3,344 25% $ 83,608 $ 21,094 $ 62,514 100% $ 3,344 $ 83,608 $ 62,514 $ - 151 Fiber Infrastructure Protection Fee Remove - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - --Recommend to remove-- Total User Fees $2,169,022 $1,372,852 $796,170 $2,115,061 $742,209 $53,961 % of Full Cost 63% 37% 98% 54% 2%
Footnotes
*MGT did not receive volume and revenue for all of the fees therefore the user percent recovery level may be in accurate. 1 ORD 1- Improvement Plan Check 2 ORD 2 - Construction Inspection Fee 3 Unpermitted Encroachments 4 Plus per linear foot (trench) 5 Fiber Infrastructure Protection Fee 6 Fee Name Revisions Current Recommendations
Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual

Page 354 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California  May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Draft Report P a g e | 48
FIRE

Page 355 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California  May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 49
Agency: City of San Luis Obispo
Department: Fire - Hazardous Prevention
Fiscal Year: FY2024
Ord Construction Type Sample Square
Footage Project Plan Review Inspection Total Plan Review 2 Inspection2 Total2 Plan
Review
Inspection3 Total3 Dollar Amount
Change +/-
Percentage
Change +/-
1 Building Construction Permits
2 New Accessory Building 22,011 sq ft $ 0.15 $ 0.09 $ 0.24 $ 0.32 $ 0.32 $ 0.64 $0.16 $0.16 $ 0.32 $ 0.08 33% 3 New Commercial 13,097 sq ft $ 0.31 $ 0.20 $ 0.51 $ 0.11 $ 0.17 $ 0.28 $0.06 $0.09 $ 0.14 $ (0.37) -73% 4 Alt/Addition-Commercial 1,226 sq ft $ 0.70 $ 0.46 $ 1.16 $ 0.14 $ 0.18 $ 0.32 $0.07 $0.09 $ 0.16 $ (1.00) -86% 5 Alt/Addition-Mixed Use 4,037 sq ft $ 0.55 $ 0.36 $ 0.91 $ 0.19 $ 0.25 $ 0.44 $0.19 $0.25 $ 0.44 $ (0.47) -52%% 6 New Mixed Use 26,575 sq ft $ 0.20 $ 0.13 $ 0.33 $ 0.16 $ 0.26 $ 0.42 $0.08 $0.13 $ 0.21 $ (0.12) -36% 7 Alt/Addition ADU 904 sq ft $ 1.23 $ 0.80 $ 2.03 $ 0.92 $ 0.92 $ 1.84 $0.46 $0.46 $ 0.92 $ (1.11) -55% 8 Alt/Addition- Single Family No current fee data $ 0.51 $ 0.51 $ 1.02 $0.51 $0.51 $ 1.02 9 Alt/Addition-Multi Family 392 sq ft $ 1.53 $ 0.99 $ 2.52 $ 0.19 $ 0.25 $ 0.44 $0.19 $0.25 $ 0.44 $ (2.33) -92% 10 New Multi Family 21,516 sq ft $ 0.23 $ 0.15 $ 0.38 $ 0.12 $ 0.08 $ 0.20 $0.06 $0.04 $ 0.10 $ (0.28) -74% 11 New Single Family 5773 sq ft $ 0.07 $ 0.05 $ 0.12 $ 0.42 $ 0.28 $ 0.70 $0.21 $0.14 $ 0.35 $ 0.23 192% Current Full Cost
Price Per Square Foot Recommendations

Page 356 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 50

Page 357 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 51

Page 358 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 52

Page 359 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 53

Page 360 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 54

Page 361 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 55

Page 362 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 56

Page 363 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 57

Page 364 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 58

Page 365 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 59

Page 366 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California  May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 60

GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Page 367 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 61

Page 368 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 62

Page 369 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California  May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 63

PARKS AND RECREATION

Page 370 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 64

Page 371 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 65

Page 372 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 66

Page 373 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 67

Page 374 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California  May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 68

PLANNING

Page 375 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study Revised Draft Report P a g e | 69

Page 376 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 70

Page 377 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 71

Page 378 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 72

Page 379 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 73

Page 380 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California  May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 74
POLICE

Page 381 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 75

Page 382 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 76

Page 383 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 77

Page 384 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California  May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 78

PUBLIC WORKS

Page 385 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 79

Page 386 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California  May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 80

UTILITIES

Page 387 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 81

Page 388 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 82

Page 389 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 83

Page 390 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California  May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 84
Appendix B – Peer Comparison Survey Results
The following pages provide the results of the peer comparison survey.

Page 391 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 85

Page 392 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 86

Page 393 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 87
City of San Luis Obispo - Peer Comparison Study
City of San Luis Obispo Current Fee Proposed Fee San Luis Obispo County Santa Barbara City Ventura City Monterey City POLICE
1st False Alarm no charge no charge $ 325.00 $ - $ - $ - 2nd False Alarm no charge no charge $ 325.00 $ - $ - $ 50.00 3rd False Alarm $ 100.64 $ 175.00 $ 325.00 $ 246.00 $ - $ 100.00 4th False Alarm $ 168.14 $ 225.00 $ 325.00 $ 380.00 $ 180.00 $ 250.00 5th False Alarm $ 277.38 $ 350.00 $ 325.00 $ 380.00 $ 180.00 $ 500.00 6th False Alarm $ 498.29 $ 500.00 $ 325.00 $ 380.00 $ 180.00 $ 500.00 7th False Alarm $ 759.71 $ 500.00 $ 325.00 $ 380.00 $ 180.00 $ 500.00

PLANNING
Minor Use Permit (Admin) $ 3,663.00 $ 3,740.00 $ 3,562.00 $ 1,960.00 $ 4,866.00 $ 2,278.50 Subdivision Services 5+ Lots (Tentative Tract Map) $ 13,263.32 $ 32,635.00 $ 10,947.00 $ 26,920.00 $ 19,221.00 $ 6,000.00

CANNABIS
Total One Time Application Fees $ 26,698.87 $ 25,002.00 $13,455 deposit + processing cost
$5,180 - $10,450 $ 9,642.00 Varies
Retail $ 44,309.53 $ 19,597.00 $12,496 deposit +
processing cost
$ 5,727.00 $ 9,642.00 Varies
Peer Agencies

Page 394 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 88

Page 395 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 89
City of San Luis Obispo - Peer Comparison Study
City of San Luis Obispo Current Fee Proposed Fee San Luis Obispo County Santa Barbara City Ventura City Monterey City

UTILITIES
Account Set-up $ 42.30 $ 48.00 n/a $ 59.00 $ 108.00 n/a Water Meter Cost (1") [Meter Installation 1] - peers may combine the two $ 216.00 $325-$395 $ 77.97 $ 31.09 $ 20.75 Plan check review water service $614 $ 774.00 $ 325.00 $ 113.00 $350-$1290 $ 363.00 Retirement of Service (2" or smaller) $956 change to
deposit
n/a $ 108.00
Retirement of Service (larger than 2") $956 change to
deposit
n/a $ 108.00
Disconnect/Reconnect for Non-Payment $50 $ 57.00 n/a $ 59.00 n/a n/a

ENGINEERING
Improvement Plan Check
Base plus
incremental
15% of Estimate
Construction
Costs for first
$100,000 plus

1.0% thereafter
$1.80 - $2.97 $1,937-15,743 $1,123.50-$3.302.25 $111/hr Construction Inspection
Base plus
incremental

8.4% of Estimate
Construction
Costs for first
$500,000 plus

3.3% thereafter
$ 0.84 $16,137-$23,822Bill hourly w/ $1,248 Deposit $100.89-$13,637.65 Annual Encroachment Permit for Utility Companies
Changed to Temporary Encroachment Agreement
$10,545 $ 20,902.00 Varies $2,796-$4,200 (initial
deposit) Varies $ 277.00
Stormwater Post-Construction Requirements $168.75-
$1,012.50 $334-$1,003 Varies $ 2,847.00 $913-$1,826 $ 2,458.00 Peer Agencies

Page 396 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 90
City of San Luis Obispo - Peer Comparison Study
City of San Luis Obispo Current Fee Proposed Fee San Luis Obispo County Santa Barbara City Ventura City Monterey City FIRE
Fire Sprinkler System (New installation) 1-25 heads Plan Review
$1,114 $ 752.00 $ 433.00 $ 413.00 $ 1,208.00 $428 + Contractor Cost Fire Alarm System (New installation) 1-50 devices Plan
Review
$1,114 $ 841.00 $ 435.00 $ 656.00 $ 790.00 $ 858.00
Hazardous Occupancy Permits - Garages - Repair $338 $ 487.00 $ 255.00 $ 374.00 $ 279.00 $ 428.00 Hazardous Occupancy Permits - Places of Assembly $338 $ 398.00 $ 451.00 $ 374.00 $ 372.00 $ 428.00 Hazardous Occupancy Permits - Welding and Cutting
Operations
$254 $ 221.00 $ 255.00 $ 374.00 $ 279.00 $ 428.00
CUPA - Hazardous Materials Handlers - 1-4 Materials
Handled
$374 $ 354.00 $ 451.00 $ 433.00 $ 558.00 $ 235.00
CUPA - Waste Generators - 1-5 waste streams $374 $ 354.00 $ 451.00 $ 433.00 $ 558.00 $ 584.00 CUPA - Underground Storage Tanks - 1st Tank $2,157 $ 1,947.00 $ 1,588.00 $ 1,165.00 $ 1,859.00 $ 1,345.00 Fire and Life Safety Inspection, Apartments, 0-10 units $404 $ 354.00 $ 637.00 $ 265.00 $ 484.00 Not available

PARKS AND RECREATION
Ludwick Community Center
Gymnasium (Non-Profit) 3060 sqft $45.15 $ 60.00 N/A
Resident rate: $46/hr
Non-resident rate: $51/hr
Currently not doing rentals,
no pricing
Resident rate:

During operating hours -
$33.30/hour
Not operating hours -
$273.60 (first 2 hours)
Gymnasium (For-Profit) $79.54 $ 95.00 N/A
Resident rate: $58/hr
Non-resident rate: $64/hr
Currently not doing rentals,
no pricing
Non-resident rate:

During operating hours -
$37.00/hour
Not operating hours -
$304.00 (first 2 hours)
Peer Agencies

Page 397 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 91
City of San Luis Obispo - Peer Comparison Study
City of San Luis Obispo Current Fee Proposed Fee San Luis Obispo County Santa Barbara City Ventura City Monterey City

PARKS AND RECREATION
Assembly Room (Non-Profit) 1457 sqft $35.44 $ 45.00 N/A 40/hr Currently not doing rentals,
no pricing
Facility Rental –
Community Centers Private
Party Use - Per Hour Fee w/
2 Hour Minimum
Resident rate: $111.69
Assembly Room (For-Profit) $74.55 $ 85.00 N/A
Resident rate: $50/hr
Non-resident rate: $60/hr
Currently not doing rentals,
no pricing
Facility Rental –
Community Centers Private
Party Use - Per Hour Fee w/
2 Hour Minimum
Non-resident rate: $146.00
Senior Center
Main Room (Non-Profit) 6128 sqft $35.44 $ 45.00 N/A N/A Currently not doing rentals,
no pricing N/A
Main Room (For-Profit) $74.55 $ 85.00 N/A N/A
Currently not doing rentals,
no pricing N/A
Conference Room (Non-Profit) 500 sq ft $19.16 $ 20.00 N/A N/A Currently not doing rentals,
no pricing N/A
Conference Room (For-Profit) $24.68 $ 35.00 N/A N/A
Currently not doing rentals,
no pricing N/A
Meadow Park Building 3400 sqft
Non-Profit $19.16 $ 20.00 N/A N/A
Currently not doing rentals,
no pricing
Meeting Room Use -
Nonprofit (During
Community Center
Operating Hours) -
$27.00/hr
Meeting Room Use -
Nonprofit (During
Community Center
Non-Operating Hours) -
Peer Agencies

Page 398 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 7, 2024
Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study  Revised Daft Report P a g e | 92
City of San Luis Obispo - Peer Comparison Study
City of San Luis Obispo Current Fee Proposed Fee San Luis Obispo County Santa Barbara City Ventura City Monterey City

PARKS AND RECREATION
For-Profit $24.68 $ 35.00 N/A N/A
Currently not doing rentals,
no pricing N/A
City/County Library
Community Room (Non-Profit) 1683 sqft $35.44 $ 45.00 N/A $150.00 for initial 3 hours,
305 each additional hour $10-$25
$10/hr max $50/day if user
does not have
valid library card
Community Room (For-Profit) $74.55 $ 85.00 N/A
$300.00 for initial 3 hours,
$100.00 each additional
hour $10-$25 N/A
Community Room (Municipality) $22.00 $ 35.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A Conference Room (Non-Profit) 503 sqft $19.16 $ 20.00 N/A $100.00 for initial 3 hours,
$35 each additional hour $10-$25
$5/hr max $25/day if user
does not have a
library card
Conference Room (For-Profit) $24.68 $ 35.00 N/A
$200.00 for initial 3 hours,
$70 each additional hour $10-$25 N/A
Conference Room (Municipality) $7.25 $ 15.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A Community Gardens - 148 plots (19,649.25 total sqft)
$34/year + .03
per square ft
$36/year + .03
per square ft N/A 134 plots
219 plots
Residents: $30-$85/6-
months
Non-residents: $33-
$93.50/6-months N/A
Peer Agencies

Page 399 of 480 ends

Page 400 of 480 ends

Childcare Fee Study
Agency
School Year
Registration
Fee per Child
After School
Costs
Summer Camp
Costs
Summer
Camp
Hours
per Day
Teacher
Workday
Spring Break /
Winter / Fall
Camps
Subsidies
Available
City of SLO
23-24- CURRENT (licensed) $72.50 $5.80/hour $196/week 10 hours $64/day $200/week Scholarships available
and CAPSLO accepted
City of SLO
24-25-RECOMMENDED
(licensed) $90 $6/hour
Resident: $200/week
10 hours $68/day
Resident: $200/week
Scholarships available
and CAPSLO accepted
Non-resident:
$230/week
Non-resident:
$230/week
City of Morro Bay (licensed) $50
Monthly Package
(Equates to $4.30/hour)
$190/week
$50 registration fee 11 hours N/A $175/week
Scholarships available
and CAPSLO accepted
Boys and Girls Club of South
County None Grant based $175/week 11 hours
Just on
holidays Grant based
Scholarships available
and CAPSLO accepted
SLO County YMCA
Los Ranchos Elementary School None
Weekly Registration -
$106/week
(Equates to $6-$7/hour) $235/week 10 hours $50/day $50/day Scholarships available Champions (Kinder Care)
A Private Company Operating at
Atascadero schools (licensed and
accredited) $50
Flat Fee - $123/week
(Equates to $7-$8/hour) $260/week 11 hours $47/day $54/day Discounts for multichild, military, and
school employees
Attachment D

Page 401 of 480 ends

Facility Fee Comparison
Facility Type
City of Santa
Maria1
City of
Pismo
Beach2
City of
Arroyo
Grande3
City of
Atascadero4
City of
Paso
Robles5 City of Morro Bay
Cuesta
College6
Gymnasium
(Non-Profit) hourly N/A $49 N/A $61 N/A $94 $80
Gymnasium
(For-Profit) hourly
$61 (res)
$76.50 (non-res) $79 N/A $70 N/A $141 $150
Assembly Room
(Non-Profit) hourly N/A $35 N/A $35 $18 $42 N/A
Assembly Room
(For-Profit) hourly
$70.25 (res)
$87.75 (non res) $58 N/A $50 $36 $55 N/A
Conference Room
(Non-Profit) hourly N/A $18 $14 $29 $12 $16 $50-$175
Conference Room
(For-Profit) hourly
$64 (res)
$80 (non-res) $38 $50 $43 $24 $27 $75-$265
BBQ Rental
$158.50 (res)
$198 (non-res)
$16/hr(res)
$27/hr(non-res) $60-$106/day $68/day $36/hr
$251/day (res/non-profit)
$313/day (non-res/profit)
$30/hr (non-profit)
$45/hr (market)
Field Rental
$12 (res)
$15 (non-res) N/A $25/hr $31/hr
$4/hr (youth)
$19/hr (adult) $26/hr
$50/hr (non-profit)
$100/hr (market)
Lights $17/field N/A $26/hr $25/hr N/A $21 N/A
Baseball Field
$12 (res)
$15 (non-res) $10/4 hrs $25/hr $31/hr
$4/hr (youth)
$19/hr (adult) $26/hr
$85/hr (non-profit)
$125/hr (market)
Daily Lap Swim - Adult
$3 (res)
$4 (non-res) N/A N/A N/A $3/day $5/day $7/day
Daily Lap Swim - Youth
$1.50 (res)
$2.50 (non-res) N/A N/A N/A $3/day $5/day $7/day
Swim Lessons
$40 (res)
$50 (non-res) N/A N/A N/A $69 $90-$120 $48

1. City of Santa Maria fee structure is organized by resident and non-resident fees and does not include non-profit fees.

2. City of Pismo Beach does not have a pool or fields for rent and therefore does not incur fees for light usage.

3. City of Arroyo Grande does not have a pool or gymnasium and does not offer rental of their assembly room.

4. City of Atascadero does not have a pool.

5. City of Paso Robles does not have a gymnasium and does not charge a fee for light usage on fields. They offer daily lap swim for those over 14 years old.

6. Cuesta College does not have an assembly room or lights for their fields. They offer daily lap swim for those over 7 years old.

Page 402 of 480 ends

Fee
number Service Name Fee Description
Phased Rate effective
10/1/24 including IT
surcharge if applicable
Phased Rate effective
7/1/25 including IT
surcharge if applicable
Planning Fees
1 Affordable Housing/MOUs Fixed Fee $ 2,217.11 $ 3,343.97 2 Agreements/Bonds/Guarantees Fixed Fee $ 1,464.84 $ 1,839.44 3 Development Agreement Fixed Fee $ 39,420.73 $ 59,620.61 4 Reimbursement Agreement Fixed Fee $ 30,007.12 $ 40,793.37 6 Annexation, Deposit Deposit $ 42,581.64 $ 56,934.09
7 General Plan Amendment - Map (includes rezoning), Deposit Deposit $ 30,992.07 $ 40,562.54 8 General Plan Amendment - Text Fixed Fee $ 28,269.63 $ 35,757.32 9 Tier 1: e.g. Appeals to the City Council - Applicant Fixed Fee 5,301.69 $ $ 8,610.86 10 Tier 1 Appeal - Non Applicant Fixed Fee 2,154.61 $ $ 3,511.94 11 Tier 2: e.g. Minor/Incidental Arch Review, Administrative Use Permit, Variance, Subdivisions <5 lots - Applicant Fixed Fee $ 3,263.18 $ 5,419.40 12 Tier 2 Appeal - Non Applicant Fixed Fee 1,287.96 $ $ 2,133.14 13 Tier 3: e.g. Fence Height Exception, Administrative Approval Application - Applicant Fixed Fee $ 856.49 $ 1,325.22
14 Tier 3 Appeal - Non Applicant Fixed Fee 856.49 $ 1,325.22 $ 15 Tier 4: e.g. Home Occupation permit, Non-Profit Special Event - Applicant Fixed Fee $ 430.46 $ 694.56
16 Tier 4 Appeal - Non Applicant Fixed Fee 430.46 $ 694.56 $ 23 Business License Zoning Clearance Fixed Fee $ 202.98 $ 276.17 24 Business License Change of Location Only Fixed Fee $ 202.98 $ 276.17 32 Development Projects - Minor Fixed Fee $ 6,974.34 $ 8,645.90 33 Development Projects - Moderate Fixed Fee $ 20,167.60 $ 24,938.10 34 Development Projects - Major Fixed Fee $ 31,235.91 $ 41,894.98 37 Director's Action - General Fixed Fee $ 2,018.73 $ 2,961.66 38 Sidewalk Café User and Parklet Application Fee Fixed Fee $ 2,350.40 $ 3,729.38 47 Rezoning Deposit $ 28,649.96 $ 37,098.00
48 Map Amendment Deposit $ 22,423.78 $ 29,718.59
49 Text Amendment Deposit $ 16,687.72 $ 22,631.84
51 Specific Plan Amendment Deposit $ 27,011.70 $ 33,489.19 53 Condominium Conversion Fixed Fee $ 24,141.47 $ 29,197.16 59 Tree Committee Recommendation Fixed Fee $ 233.25 $ 330.50 60 Tree Removal Permit Fixed Fee $ 256.44 $ 330.50
61 Affordable Housing Incentive Request Fixed Fee $ 2,066.17 $ 2,579.34 Building and Safety Fees $ - $ -
4 A/C Residential - BLDG Fixed Fee 134.84 $ 178.28 $
6 Air Handler - BLDG Fixed Fee 123.58 $ 178.28 $
16 Building Sewer - BLDG Fixed Fee 146.77 $ 178.28 $
20 Cell Tower/Antenna - BLDG - add on - Each Addtl (Up to 20) Fixed Fee 192.93 $ $ 265.87 21 Chiller - BLDG Fixed Fee 146.77 $ 178.28 $
33 Drain Vent Repair/Replace - BLDG Fixed Fee 124.61 $ 178.28 $ 34 Dry Rot / Termite Repair - BLDG Fixed Fee 388.49 $ 489.49 $ 35 Duct Work Only - BLDG Fixed Fee 123.58 $ 178.28 $
38 Electric Car Charging System -BLDG Fixed Fee 319.59 $ 489.49 $ 39 Electric Service Upgrade (up to 200 amp) -BLDG Fixed Fee 241.79 $ 333.88 $ 40 Evaporative Cooler - BLDG Fixed Fee 123.58 $ 178.28 $ 41 Exhaust Hood - Type I - BLDG Fixed Fee 414.26 $ 689.40 $ 42 Exhaust Hood - Type II - BLDG Fixed Fee 134.84 $ 178.28 $ 43 Exhaust Hood & Duct - Residential - BLDG Fixed Fee 123.58 $ 178.28 $ 47 Fireplace Insert Upgrade -BLDG Fixed Fee 510.60 $ 622.42 $ 50 Fixtures, Plumbing - BLDG Fixed Fee 123.58 $ 178.28 $ 55 Furnace/Heater Replacement Only -BLDG Fixed Fee 319.59 $ 489.49 $ 56 Furnaces - BLDG Fixed Fee 134.84 $ 178.28 $
57 Gas System Repair/Replace/Extend - BLDG Fixed Fee 121.96 $ 178.28 $ 58 Generator Installation - BLDG Fixed Fee 364.20 $ 622.42 $ 59 Graywater Systems - BLDG Fixed Fee 403.29 $ 622.42 $ 60 Graywater/Rainwater Harvesting System -BLDG Fixed Fee 134.84 $ 178.28 $ 61 Grease Trap - BLDG Fixed Fee 123.58 $ 178.28 $
62 Heat Pump - BLDG Fixed Fee 123.58 $ 178.28 $
63 Heater - BLDG Fixed Fee 123.58 $ 178.28 $
64 Heater - Wall - BLDG Fixed Fee 134.84 $ 178.28 $
66 Insulation/Energy Upgrade -BLDG Fixed Fee 314.80 $ 489.49 $ 67 Make-Up Air System - BLDG Fixed Fee 122.56 $ 178.28 $ 68 Minor Code Corrections - BLDG Fixed Fee 384.23 $ 489.49 $ 69 Minor Repairs - up to 2 inspections - BLDG Fixed Fee 495.05 $ 622.42 $ 84 Photovoltaic Systems (residential roof mount) Fixed Fee 409.14 $ 622.42 $ *The size of this document has been reduced for enhanced web-viewing. To view the full-sized document, which presents larger font sizes, please visit the City's Laserfiche repository at:
https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=195281 Attachment E

Page 403 of 480 ends

Attachment E
Fee
number Service Name Fee Description
Phased Rate effective
10/1/24 including IT
surcharge if applicable
Phased Rate effective
7/1/25 including IT
surcharge if applicable
85 Photovoltaic Unit Installation - Residential Fixed Fee 175.76 $ 266.90 $ 87 Preliminary Project Consult/Code Analysis - BLDG (per hour) Fixed Fee 405.19 $ 534.83 $ 88 Refrigeration Compressor/Condenser - BLDG Fixed Fee 258.07 $ 400.86 $ 89 Re-Roof Residential - BLDG Fixed Fee 377.15 $ 466.82 $ 90 Re-roof with Added Ventilation -BLDG Fixed Fee 272.63 $ 400.86 $ 91 Residential Photovoltaic System Fixed Fee 414.54 $ 622.42 $ 96 Seismic Strengthening of URM Bldg Fixed Fee 184.55 $ 312.24 $ 107 Solar/ PV System - Multifamily - BLDG Fixed Fee 1,218.29 $ 1,469.49 $ 118 T-Bar Ceiling - BLDG - Per Project Fixed Fee 1,059.60 $ 1,291.22 $ 120 Temporary Service - BLDG Fixed Fee 123.58 $ 178.28 $ 124 Vent Fan (Single Duct) - BLDG Fixed Fee 123.58 $ 178.28 $ 125 Walk-in Box/Refrigerator Coil - BLDG Fixed Fee 134.84 $ 178.28 $ 126 Water Heater Replacement Only -BLDG Fixed Fee 229.80 $ 312.24 $ 127 Water Pipe Repair/Replace - BLDG Fixed Fee 123.58 $ 178.28 $ 128 Window Retrofits (non-structural) -BLDG - Base Fee Fixed Fee 320.99 $ 400.86 $ 1 Alt/Addition - ADU
per square foot (400 sq ft minimum) Per square foot $ 8.94 $ 11.13 Engineering Fees
3 Lot Line Adjustment Map or Agreement Fixed Fee 4,622.45 $ 5,686.30 $ 4 Certificates of Compliance Fixed Fee 1,134.23 $ 1,378.81 $ 26 Annual Encroachment Permit for Utility Companies Fixed Fee 16,409.56 $ 21,539.51 $ 28 Non-Single Family Residential 2500-4999 Fixed Fee 262.34 $ 344.19 $ 29 Non-Single Family Residential 5000-14999 Fixed Fee 305.62 $ 430.75 $ 35 Minor - Verification only Fixed Fee 262.14 $ 344.19 $ 36 Major - New/Substantial Remodel Analysis/Documentation Fixed Fee 1,049.60 $ 1,378.81 $ 45 Moderate Traffic Control Plan Review (multiple locations, one phas Fixed Fee 628.37 $ 885.20 $ 46 Major Traffic Control Plan Review (one or more locations and multi Fixed Fee 1,526.98 $ 2,397.97 $ 47 Minor - first day (one location, one phase) Fixed Fee 232.66 $ 377.16 $ 48 Minor each additional day Fixed Fee 158.98 $ 229.80 $ 49 Moderate - first day (multiple locations, one phase) Fixed Fee 350.92 $ 525.56 $ 50 Moderate each additional day Fixed Fee 197.10 $ 306.06 $ 51 Major - first day (one or more locations and multiple phases) Fixed Fee 833.75 $ 1,314.92 $ 52 Major each additional day Fixed Fee 235.23 $ 382.32 $ 53 Public Improvement Plans Fixed Fee 2,945.42 $ 4,037.50 $ 54 Building Plans Fixed Fee 880.24 $ 1,319.04 $
55 Maps / Additional Documents Fixed Fee 1,457.23 $ 2,407.25 $ 56 Design Exception/Revision Fixed Fee 633.96 $ 914.05 $ 57 Site Improvement 0-2499 Fixed Fee 697.31 $ 1,033.59 $ 58 Site Improvement 2500-4999 Fixed Fee 960.16 $ 1,378.81 $ 59 Site Improvement 5000-14999 Fixed Fee 1,312.76 $ 1,723.00 $ 63 Single Family Residential 0-2499 Fixed Fee 525.21 $ 689.40 $ 65 Non-Single Family Residential (Net Impervious Area per SCP) 0-24 Fixed Fee 262.35 $ 344.19 $ 72 Single Family Residential (Net Impervious Area per SCP) 0-2499 sqFixed Fee 262.35 $ 344.19 $ 74 Minor (under an acre) Fixed Fee 1,042.00 $ 1,723.00 $ 75 Major (over an acre) Fixed Fee 2,174.27 $ 3,445.99 $ Fire Fees
50 Aircraft Refueling Vehicles Fixed fee 242.75 $ 310.00 $ 57 Compressed Gases (Unless in the CUPA Program) Fixed fee 242.75 $ 310.00 $ 77 Ovens - Industrial, Baking and Drying Fixed fee 242.75 $ 310.00 $ 118 One Tank Fixed fee 344.49 $ 443.00 $
123 Site Remediation Oversight Fixed fee 479.73 $ 708.00 $ 124 Soil Remediation Fixed fee 479.73 $ 708.00 $
130 Fire Ladder Truck Standby (4 person) Per hour one (1) hour min$ 885.04 695.89 $ 139 Each Additional Owner Fixed fee 28.22 $ 44.00 $
1 New Accessory Building Per square foot 0.45 $ 0.66 $
10 New Single Family Per square foot 0.42 $ 0.72 $

Page 404 of 480 ends

Attachment E
Fee
number Service Name Fee Description
Phased Rate effective
10/1/24 including IT
surcharge if applicable
Phased Rate effective
7/1/25 including IT
surcharge if applicable
Parks and Recreation Fees
45 Security Deposit Fixed fee 800.00 $ 1,000.00 $
78 Security Deposit Fixed fee 800.00 $ $ 1,000.00
Multi-Use Courts
83 Hourly Use Per hour 9.25 $ $ 12.00
Damon-Garcia (full use = 4 lower fields, 1 upper field) 89 Full Use Facility (Day) Per day 773.50 $ $ 1,000.00
91 Full Use Light Fee (Hour) Per hour 68.50 $ 84.00 $
94 Lower Fields Facility Use (Day) Per day 581.75 $ 800.00 $ 95 Lower Fields Facility Use (Hour) Per hour 84.50 $ 110.00 $ 96 Lower Fields Light Fee Per hour 41.38 $ 56.00 $
Police Fees
6 New Permit: Investigative costs and permit processing Fixed fee 184.50 $ 269.00 $ 9 Renewal - Concealed Weapons Permit: No new firearms Fixed fee 78.00 $ 131.00 $ 10 Renewal - Concealed Weapons Permit: Adding new or replacing firearms Fixed fee 106.00 $ $ 187.00
11 Amendment - Concealed Weapons Permit: Adding new firearm Fixed fee 86.00 $ 162.00 $ 12 Amendment - Concealed Weapons Permit: Change in Address Fixed fee 41.00 $ 72.00 $ 16 3rd False Alarm Response (cost recovery flat fee) each 139.74 $ 175.00 $ 33 Pedicab Renewal Fee Fixed fee 131.54 $ 195.00 $
Public Works Fees
20 Commemorative Tree Planting Fixed Fee 509.25 $ 661.00 $ General Government Fees
1 Administrative Review Board Fixed Fee 501.06 $ 652.00 $ 3 All Other Appeals Fixed Fee 441.06 $ 532.00 $
Utilities Fees
13 Adapter Cost (1" Service/.58"x.75" Meter) Materials Only 53.14 $ 74.20 $ 14 Adapter Cost (1" Service/.75" Meter) Materials Only 46.62 $ 74.20 $ 16 Adapter Cost (2" Service/1" Meter) Materials Only 240.67 $ 338.00 $ 17 Adapter Cost (2" Service/1.5" Meter) Materials Only 356.93 $ 440.02 $ 18 Adapter Cost (2" /1" + 1"/.75" Combo Meter) Materials Only 313.60 $ 412.20 $ 34 Industrial User Re-Inspection Fixed Fee 174.41 $ 253.00 $

Page 405 of 480 ends

Page 406 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum
City of San Luis Obispo
Council Agenda Correspondence
DATE: July 2, 2024
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Timmi Tway, Community Development Director
Prepared by: Michael Loew, Chief Building Official
VIA: Whitney McDonald, Interim City Manager
SUBJECT: ITEM 7B – DETERMINE EXISTENCE OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE AT 205 CASA STREET AND 1067 MURRAY AVENUE
This Staff Agenda Correspondence provides an update on the actions taken by the property owner and status of the property at 205 Casa and 1067 Murray since the writing of the staff report.

The property owner, Mr. Diller Ryan, reached out to the Chief Building Official, Michael Loew, to inquire about the state of his property on June 26, 2024. Mr. Ryan scheduled a time for the following day to access the unit and discuss the public hearing process. Mr. Ryan met with Mr. Loew on site on the morning of June 27, 2024, to discuss the immediate needs; however, Mr. Ryan was not able to provide identification at the time and did not have keys to the structure. As a result, Mr. Loew scheduled another meeting the following day to remove the locks on the building. Access to the structure was granted to Mr. Ryan on June 28, 2024, when he verified his identity with his driver’s license. Mr.

Ryan arrived at the property that day with a crew of tree trimmers, who began clearing the overgrown vegetation. He also began removing the accumulated junk and debris, and only a few items remain today.

June 28, 2024, was the first time Mr. Ryan accessed the unit since it was boarded up in December of 2023. City staff was not permitted to access the structure to perform an inspection. During the onsite meeting on June 28, 2024, Mr. Ryan communicated his concerns regarding the security of the structure and asked to have the city locks reinstalled at the end of the day. Mr. Loew returned to the property at the end of the day to reinstall the strong-back locks to assist Mr. Ryan in assuring the building remained secured from unauthorized entrants.

Additional junk and debris began to accumulate over the weekend and Mr. Ryan has begun clearing those items. He met with Mr. Loew again on July 1, 2024, to discuss the costs of what is being recommended to the City Council during the public hearing. He communicated his interest in resolving the immediate code violations himself and providing the necessary security for the site. Mr. Loew provided Mr. Ryan with a paper copy of the Council Agenda Report that included all the attachments for the item.

Page 407 of 480 ends

Item 7b. Public Nuisance at 205 Casa Street and 1067 Murray Avenue Page 2 While Mr. Ryan’s recent efforts are important to note, staff recommends that the City Council proceed with the adoption of the Resolution presented in item 7b in order to continue to ensure the property is fully abated. City staff will continue to work with Mr.

Ryan as he continues to abate the property and will only take action if the Council finds a nuisance does exist, and progress towards abatement isn’t made by the deadline set during the public hearing.

The following pictures were taken on July 1, 2024, after Mr. Ryan’s initial efforts to address the violations on the property:

Page 408 of 480 ends

Item 7b. Public Nuisance at 205 Casa Street and 1067 Murray Avenue Page 3

Page 409 of 480 ends

Page 410 of 480 ends

Item 7b
Department: Community Development
Cost Center: 4006
For Agenda of: 7/2/2024
Placement: Public Hearing
Estimated Time: 20 Minutes
FROM: Timmi Tway, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Michael Loew, Deputy Director/Chief Building Official; John Mezzapesa, Deputy Building Official
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING TO DETERMIINE EXISTENCE OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE AT 205 CASA STREET AND 1067 MURRAY AVENUE AND

ORDER ABATEMENT THEREOF

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Draft Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, declaring that the property at 205 Casa Street and 1067 Murray Avenue constitutes a public nuisance, and ordering abatement of same.”

POLICY CONTEXT
The Code Enforcement Division is charged with promoting health and safety within the City of San Luis Obispo though various enforcement methodologies. In general, the procedures are designed to gain compliance at the lowest enforcement level possible; however, enforcement may escalate when necessary. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (SLOMC) Section 8.24 “Nuisance Abatement” sets forth a process to address public nuisances identified within the city to protect public peace, health, safety and general welfare. SLOMC 8.24 clearly designates scenarios in which a public nuisance exists and outlines the steps required for declaring a nuisance and abatement by the city.

The Community Development Director is granted authority to take action to address health and safety violations in the City, including abatement of nuisance conditions (SLOMC 1.24.050). This authority is often delegated to the Deputy Director/Chief Building Official to carry out such relevant duties. SLOMC 1.24 authorizes the City to issue Administrative Citations for code violations and outlines the policies and procedures regarding escalating code enforcement action.

REPORT-IN-BRIEF
Code Enforcement staff has documented the property at 205 Casa Street and 1067 Murray to be vacant, in a state of disrepair, and largely unmaintained since January 2022.

The lack of maintenance and control from the property owner has led to over 80 calls for service to the Police Department since 2018, as well as recent Code Enforcement actions

Page 411 of 480 ends

Item 7b
related to the state of the property. Since January 2022 the City of San Luis Obispo’s Code Enforcement Division has monitored the decline of the property maintenance and the structures on site while maintaining continued communication with the property owner. While minimal efforts to clean up portions of the property were completed by the property owner, the overall substandard conditions have been allowed to continue for over thirty months. The lack of compliance and condition of the property resulted in the issuance of fines totaling $48,4001 and rendering it necessary for the issuance of an order for the structure to be vacated and secured.

In November of 2023, the Chief Building Official (CBO) determined the conditions of the property presented an unmitigated, imminent danger to the life and health of entrants to the structure and surrounding neighbors. As a result of the imminent danger associated with this structure, the CBO authorized, through contracted services, the installation of temporary safeguards including disconnection of electrical services and physical boarding of all entry points in compliance with the Boarding Standards found in Appendix A of the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) to prevent harm caused by further entry upon the dangerous and unsecured property.

While the structure is currently secured, it is recommended that the property be declared a public nuisance as defined in SLOMC 8.24.020 due to the overgrown vegetation, the accumulation of junk debris from dumping, and the substandard and structural deficiencies on the exterior and interior of the property.

The lack of compliance with cited codes and maintenance of the property has led staff to request that Council review the history and facts of the case in order to determine if a public nuisance exists at this location. The declaration of a public nuisance will allow a final timeframe in which the property owner may address the violations on site and will ultimately give staff the authority to remediate any remaining violations at the end of the given timeframe.

DISCUSSION
Background
SLOMC section 8.24.020 describes the scenarios that constitute a public nuisance which, at the discretion of the city, may be abated in accordance with the nuisance abatement process. These scenarios are as follows:

A. Any structure, as defined in the Building Code, which exists, or which is maintained or used upon any premises in violation of any requirement or prohibition of any law, ordinance or permit, including, without limitation, requirements or prohibitions related to location, construction, condition, maintenance, use, or time period limitation.

1 If this sum remains unpaid, the City’s options are: refer these unpaid fines to a collections agency; file a civil lawsuit and record the judgment as a lien against the property; or, should the City pursue a receivership, ask the Court to disburse this sum from the proceeds of a receivership sale.

Page 412 of 480 ends

Item 7b
B. Any premises upon which there exists any condition, thing or use in violation of any requirement or prohibition of any law, ordinance or permit related to the condition, maintenance or use of the premises.

C. Any unlawful encroachment which obstructs or interferes with the free passage or use by the public of any public sidewalk, street, alley or right-of-way.

D. The occurrence of more than two loud or unruly assemblages in any sixty-day period that threatens the public peace, health, safety or general welfare and requires a police response to control the threat to the public peace, health, safety, or general welfare. The determination of a public nuisance under this subsection shall expire eighteen months after the date of the resolution ordering abatement as set forth in Section 8.24.110 of this chapter.

E. As applied to this chapter, the determination of a “response” will be when the police department responds to a location, observes a violation of applicable state or municipal violations, and the tenant is issued a disturbance advisement card, a citation, or is arrested for the applicable violation.

F. Anything constituting a public nuisance as specifically defined or declared by any other law or ordinance.

Process for Abatement of a Public Nuisance
The process for abatement of a public nuisance involves three City Council actions. The first step is the adoption of a resolution by Council declaring that a nuisance may exist at a given parcel (SLOMC 8.24.040.) In this case, the City Council adopted this initial Resolution at the May 21, 2024, City Council meeting. Notification of the public hearing was posted on the premises on and mailed to the owner on June 6, 2024, in compliance with SLOMC sections 8.24.050-8.24.060 (owner does not live within City limits; SLOMC

8.24.060(B).) Proof of posting and service are included as Attachment O.

The second Council action occurs during the public hearing, for which this report is being prepared. During this hearing, City staff are to present evidence to the Council regarding the existence of a public nuisance. Staff also presents the cost associated with potential abatement of the declared nuisance. The property owner and any other witnesses or interested parties will also have the opportunity to present any statements or evidence to Council during the public hearing. (SLOMC 8.24.080.) If Council finds that a nuisance exists and there is sufficient cause to require abatement of the nuisance, the property owner will be given 30 days, or such other time limit as Council may specify, to remediate the identified violations. (SLOMC 8.24.090.) If the property owner fails to remediate the violations by the time specified in the Resolution declaring the property a public nuisance, the City is authorized to abate the nuisance conditions. (see SLOMC 8.24.100-8.24.120.) Additionally, a certification of the outstanding nuisance will be recorded against the property with the Office of the County Clerk Recorder (SLOMC 8.24.110.) The third Council action will need to occur only if staff remediates the violations. In this case, all costs associated with an abatement performed by the City will be accounted for and brought back to Council for confirmation. (SLOMC 8.24.130-140.)

Page 413 of 480 ends

Item 7b
The property owner shall be personally liable to the City for the abatement costs confirmed by the resolution of Council and, if left unpaid, the abatement costs shall constitute a special assessment against the property, and upon recordation in the office of the County Recorder of a notice of lien, shall constitute a lien on the property for the amount of such assessment. (SLOMC 8.24.150.)
Basis of Staff’s Recommendation
The following information is provided so Council may consider, based on staff’s recommendation, whether to declare that a nuisance exists at 205 Casa Street/1067 Murray Avenue, pursuant to SLOMC 8.24.040.

Site description
The site is a rectangular lot located at the southwest corner of the Casa Street and Murray Avenue intersection, Parcel # 001-031-016 consisting of a duplex with addresses 205 Casa Street & 1067 Murray Avenue. It is 102 feet deep and 60 feet wide, comprising of approximately 6,120 square feet. Presently the lot is zoned Office (O) and is developed with a single-story residence facing Murray Avenue and two-story residence with attached two car garage facing Casa Street. County assessor records show the owner to be D.

Ryan who has come to be known as Diller Ryan. The GIS division prepared the following map that outlines the parcel for reference:

Page 414 of 480 ends

Item 7b
Enforcement Timeline and Action
Code Enforcement Staff first received an investigation request regarding the subject property in January of 2022. The reporting party raised concerns regarding an accumulation of trash and debris as well as transient activity on the property. Initial inspection of the property found a vacant and abandoned property with a moderate accumulation of debris visible from the public right of way. Damage to the exterior doors, stairway, handrails, windows, and siding was also observed from the public right of way.

It appeared that some doorways were inadequately boarded as they had been broken open giving way to allow unauthorized entry into the structure (Attachment B). No action was taken at this time due to staffing changes within the Code Enforcement Division.

A follow up inspection occurred in March of 2022 when the case was reassigned to a Code Enforcement Officer. The Officer found the property in the same conditions as previously inspected (Attachment C). Code Enforcement staff issued a Notice of Violation citing violations of the International Property Maintenance Code for maintenance of vacant structures and premises, accumulation of rubbish, and damage to exterior walls, doors and stairway elements (Attachment D).

A follow up inspection in June of 2022 found the conditions of the property had declined including evidence that the structures was being utilized by unauthorized entrants and compromised exterior entry points such as broken and opened windows and doors (Attachment E). During the month of June, multiple inspections of the property confirmed continuing violations resulting in three citations totaling $6,400 in fines (Attachment F).

On June 23, 2022, the property owner was notified via a letter that daily citations would begin to accrue.

On June 27, 2022, the property owner, Diller Ryan, made contact via phone with code enforcement staff for the first time. Mr. Ryan stated that he was having trouble preventing transients from entering the property and structures. He advised that he work toward vegetation and trash removal as well as boarding of the structure.

During the months of July 2022 though November 2022, the property owner worked on clearing vegetation and removing accumulated debris. He remained in contact with the assigned code enforcement officer and ultimately corrected the violations related to overgrown vegetation and accumulation of debris and trash (Attachment G). Violations related to damaged siding, doors, windows and stairway had yet to be addressed.

Staff did not observe any signs of further abatement or maintenance of the property after November 2022 during the re-inspection of the property in March of 2023. The reinspection showed indications of continued unauthorized entrants utilizing the premises and further deteriorating conditions. The garage doors had been compromised, windows were broken, door hardware was missing, and new accumulation of debris was observed.

Mold and missing drywall were visible from the public right of way on the interior ceiling area of the second story at 205 Casa Street. The vegetation was once again overgrown (Attachment H).

Page 415 of 480 ends

Item 7b
Between March and August of 2023, Code Enforcement staff documented the continued decline of property conditions (Attachment I), which resulted in the issuance of administrative citations assessing daily fines totaling $42,000 (Attachment J). Prior to citation issuance, staff made contact with the property owner, who expressed frustrations with trespassing individuals. He advised that he would address the overgrown vegetation.

The property owner was verbally advised of the potential abatement of this property if conditions were not addressed.

Growing concerns regarding the circumstances at the property sparked staff to formally request an interior inspection of the structures on October 17, 2023, to evaluate the interior conditions of the structure (Attachment K); however, no response was received regarding this request. Staff attempted to contact Mr. Ryan through multiple channels that include telephone calls and mailings to his P.O. Box
In October of 2023, San Luis Obispo Police performed a parolee check at 1067 Murray Avenue (which was listed by the parolee as their current address). Police Staff reported that numerous individuals were observed within the residence. These individuals were utilizing buckets and plastic jugs for human waste elimination and causing an accumulation of debris on the interior of the structure, which made egress paths difficult to navigate. As a result of the reported interior conditions and the continued exterior conditions, the structure was posted as unsafe to occupy. The second story unit at 205 Casa Street was also posted as unsafe to occupy due to multiple broken windows, an unsafe entry stairway and unsecured front door.

Following posting of the property, a Notice was issued to the property owner on October 26, 2023, ordering the vacation and boarding of the entire structure, which includes the 205 Casa unit, and 1067 Murray unit (Attachment L). An inspection was also completed on this date to document the condition of the property (Attachment M). No progress toward compliance was observed, nor did staff receive contact from the property owner after issuance of this notice.

By November 30, 2023, the Chief Building Official (CBO) and Code Enforcement Officer observed conditions that were determined to be imminent dangers, such as structurally unsound stairs, missing door hardware, collapsed ceilings and electrical hazards. The Chief Building Official concluded that these hazards were all related to the unsecured nature of the structures. The conditions presented an unmitigated, imminent danger to the life and health of entrants to the structure and surrounding neighbors. On December 4, 2023, staff attempted to contact the property owner via phone and a voicemail was left advising that the structures were to be declared dangerous buildings by order of the Chief Building Official and that the structures were to be boarded by the City. As a result of the imminent danger associated with this structure, on December 5, 2023, the CBO authorized, through contracted services, the installation of temporary safeguards including disconnection of electrical services and physical boarding of all entry points in compliance with the Boarding Standards found in Appendix A of the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC). The Chief Building Official determined this action was necessary to prevent harm caused by further entry upon the dangerous property.

Page 416 of 480 ends

Item 7b
Since boarding of the structures on site in December of 2023, multiple, periodic inspections have verified the continuation of the previously identified unresolved code violations (Attachment N). The emergency action taken to board up the structure has been successful in keeping out unauthorized entrants, and in preventing further declination of the structure. However, the exterior areas of the property remain open to the public and furniture continues to be dumped on site. The overall deteriorated state of the property and continued property maintenance violations meet the criteria for the existence of a public nuisance as described in SLOMC 8.24.020(A)-(B).

Staff has continued to reach out to the property owner and has several phone conversations regarding the state of the property since the property has been secured.

Staff provided the property owner a courtesy notification prior to the May 21, 2024, City Council meeting that included authorization to hold the July 2, 2024, public hearing. Mr.

Ryan reached out to staff and communicated that he saw an article about his property in the news and communicated that he was motivated to take action. Since May 21, 2024, staff has observed improvements on the property. Some junk and debris have been removed, and the overgrown weeds have been mowed. However, the property is still in need of further remediation due to overgrown vegetation that extends into the public right of way from hedges and trees, and there is still junk and debris visible from the public right of way. As recently as June 6, 2024, Mr. Ryan has refused to meet with staff and take responsibility for the security of the property. The structure remains secured and inaccessible.

Staff’s recommendation is to address the continued activities at this location by declaring a public nuisance exists. If the City Council finds that a public nuisance exists, the property owner will be given 30 days, or such other time limit as Council may specify, to remediate the identified violations. If no remediation occurs by the stated deadline, the City Clerk will file with the County Recorder a certificate that the property is a public nuisance, and that the owner has been notified thereof. City staff will coordinate remediation, including removal of all debris and overgrown vegetation and installation of fencing to prevent future trespassing.

While the damaged and deteriorated structural elements and other substandard conditions of the residences should be considered when determining the existence of a public nuisance, remediation of these items are not being recommended as part of the abatement via this nuisance declaration because the costs, which would need to be fronted by the City, are significant and likely could only be recovered through a lien on the property and, if unpaid, foreclosure proceedings. Also, the City is not resourced, either directly or through retained contractors, for remediation of a residential structure. City staff has concurrently begun preparations for the application to the courts for the appointment of a receiver to address the structural deficiencies and substandard condition of the residences. These proposed concurrent processes – nuisance abatement and receivership – are both intended to compel voluntary compliance by the property owner in addressing, respectively, the dangerous exterior and structural conditions of the property, but will allow the City to commence remediation efforts should the property owner continue to decline to take such action themselves.

Page 417 of 480 ends

Item 7b
Estimates of cost for abatement are shown in the Fiscal Impact portion of this report. City staff will keep an accounting of actual abatement costs, which will be submitted to Council for confirmation and assessment against the property at a future Council meeting. (SLOMC 8.24.140-8.24.150.)
Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
Council adopted Resolution 11494 on May 21, 2024, finding that the subject property may constitute a public nuisance, and ordering this public hearing concerning same and abatement thereof.

Public Engagement
The property owner has been notified, by written notice sent via email, first-class mail and certified mail to the property owner’s last known address, and by telephone of the Public Hearing and staff’s recommendation to Council to declare that a public nuisance exists at this property.

Additionally, a legal ad was placed in the local periodical notifying citizens of the public hearing. A certified copy of the resolution and Notice of Public Hearing was posted on the premises and mailed to the property owner as required by Section 8.24.050-8.24.060 of the Municipal Code.

CONCURRENCE
The City Attorney’s Office, Police Department, Fire Department, and Public Works Department concur with staff’s recommendation.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The recommended action to declare this property a public nuisance and order abatement is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15321 (enforcement actions by regulatory agencies.) The recommended action to install a perimeter fence and the recommended nuisance abatement measures are exempt from CEQA under Section 15301 (existing facilities) and Section 15601 (no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.)

FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: No Budget Year: 2024-25
Funding Identified: Yes
Estimated costs to abate the landscaping on the property were received from a local landscaping company and total $2,200. Estimates included the following services:
 Weed abatement for the entire lot.
 Trash removal for the entire lot (rates may change depending on potential increase of trash accumulation).
 Safety pruning of all trees including lifting and pushing back out of city right of way.  Trimming of all bushes and shrubs/ pushing back out of city right of way.

Page 418 of 480 ends

Item 7b
Estimates associated with installation of perimeter fencing to prevent further access to the property totaled $1,227.50 for six months.

Total estimated costs for full abatement are $3,427.50 and will be paid directly from the Building and Safety Division’s Other Contract Services budget. However, all abatement costs will be recorded as a lien upon the subject property. These costs, or portions thereof, will only be incurred if the property owner fails to remediate any nuisances established by the Council by the compliance date established by the Council.

Fiscal Analysis:

Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund $140,000 $136,572.50 $0
State
Federal
Fees
Other:

Total $140,000 $136,572.50 $0
While it is not captured in the fiscal analysis above, it should be noted that this property has had 50 code enforcement activities noted since January 2022, and 60 police calls in that same time. This property has continued to have a large impact on the City’s operational resources.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Council could decline to declare that a public nuisance exists at the Property.

This action is not recommended by staff because there remain several long-standing and unresolved code violations at the property, and the abandoned, vacant structure has caused and is expected to continue causing negative impacts to the surrounding area. The property owner has shown little to no evidence that he is willing and able to address the continued issues. If a public nuisance is not declared, then staff will continue to pursue enforcement through the administrative citation process, which has been unsuccessful thus far.

2. Council could declare a public nuisance exists at the Property and extend the timeline for compliance beyond 30 days. This action is not recommended due to the opportunities afforded to the property owner since March of 2022. Since this recommendation includes securing the property, extending the compliance date will provide more opportunities for further accumulation of junk and debris. The Council should not consider a timeline less than staff’s recommendation because any aggrieved party can take action to object to this proceeding within 30 days (SLOMC

8.24.100).

Page 419 of 480 ends

Item 7b

ATTACHMENTS
A - Draft Resolution declaring a public nuisance exists and abatement thereof at 205 Casa/1067 Murray
B - Inspection Photos – January 10, 2022
C - Inspection Photos – March 15, 2022
D - Notice of Violation – April 12, 2022
E - Inspection Photos – June 3, 2022
F - Administrative Citations (June 3, 2022, June 6, 2022, June 16, 2022) G -Inspection Photos – November 15, 2022
H - Inspection Photos – March 15, 2022
I - Inspection Photos – May through August 2022
J - Administrative Citations, Daily Fines (July 13, 2023, August 10, 2023) K - Site Inspection Request – October 17, 2023
L - Notice of Violation – October 26, 2023
M - Inspection Photos – October 26, 2023
N - Inspection Photos – February and May 2023
O - Proof of posting and service of Notice of Public Hearing

Page 420 of 480 ends

R _____
RESOLUTION NO. _______ (2024 SERIES)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS

OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING THAT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 205 CASA STREET AND 1067 MURRAY AVENUE CONSTITUTES A

PUBLIC NUISANCE, AND ORDERING THE ABATEMENT OF SAME
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California and determined a public nuisance exists upon certain premises situated in said City known and designated as 205 Casa Street and 1067 Murray Avenue, and more particularly described as Lot 8, Isabel Tract, and shown as Assessor's Parcel No. 001-031-016 in the County of San Luis Obispo (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the nuisance consists of the following such that a serious and ongoing health and life-safety hazard is presented: unsecured vacant structures and land, accumulation of trash and debris, overgrown vegetation, and substandard, dangerous structural elements; and
WHEREAS, methods of abatement of the property would include; removal of any items, trash or debris constituting a fire and/or health hazard, removal of any overgrown vegetation, rehabilitation, repair, or demolition of the premises, or other appropriate action; and
WHEREAS, if the property owner does not voluntarily and timely comply, abatement would be completed by the City and all costs would be borne by the property owner and would constitute a lien upon such premises until full payment is received.

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

SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council adopts the following findings in support of a declaration that a public nuisance exists at 205 Casa Street/1067 Murray Avenue:

1. City Code Enforcement staff have observed code violations at the Property since January 2022, and, based on those observations, believe it to have been abandoned since that date or earlier.

2. A Notice of Violation was issued to Property Owner Diller Ryan (Property Owner) in March 2022 for violations of the International Property Maintenance Code for maintenance of vacant structures and premises, accumulation of rubbish, and damage to exterior walls, doors and stairway elements.

3. The Property conditions continued to decline and in June 2022, staff observed compromised exterior entry points including broken and opened windows and doors and other evidence that the property was being used or occupied by trespassing individuals.

Page 421 of 480 ends

Resolution No. _____ (2024 Series) Page 2
R _____

4. Despite property owner clearing vegetation and debris from the Property between July and November 2022, violations related to damaged siding, doors, windows and stairway remained (and remain) unaddressed.

5. During an inspection of the Property in November 2022, staff observed indication of continued unauthorized use or occupation of the Property and other deteriorating conditions including that the garage doors had been compromised, windows were broken, door hardware was missing, and debris had reaccumulated.

6. Between March and August 2023, Code Enforcement staff issued additional administrative citations and assessed fines totaling $42,000. Although Property Owner made contact with staff at this point and expressed frustration over trespassing individuals, he at no point remedied the outstanding code violations.

7. On October 17, 2023, out of concern for the safety of the interior of the structure and evidence of unauthorized occupation, Code Enforcement staff requested an inspection of the interior of the property, but Property Owner failed to respond.

8. In October 2023, the property was posted as unsafe to occupy based on observations of San Luis Obispo Police Department officers and conditions observable from the public right of way.

9. On October 26, 2023, staff observed no progress towards compliance and issued a subsequent Notice to the Property Owner ordering the vacation and boarding of all structures.

10.By November 30th, 2023, the Chief Building Official (CBO) and Code Enforcement Officer observed conditions that were determined to be imminent dangers, such as structurally unsound stairs, missing door hardware, collapsed ceiling and electrical hazards. Staff concluded that these hazards were all related to the unsecured nature of the structure. The conditions presented an unmitigated, imminent danger to the life and health of entrants to the structure and surrounding neighbors.

11.On December 4, 2023, staff notified the Property Owner via voicemail that the structures were to be declared dangerous buildings by order of the Chief Building Official and that the structures were to be boarded by the City.

12.As a result of the imminent danger associated with the structures, on December 5, 2023, the CBO authorized, through contracted services, the installation of temporary safeguards including disconnection of electrical services and physical boarding of all entry points in compliance with the Boarding Standards found in Appendix A of the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) to prevent harm caused by further entry upon the dangerous property.

13.Property Owner has failed to resolve the code violations, and because the exterior areas of the Property remain open to the public, furniture and other debris continues to be dumped on the site.

14.The deteriorated state of the Property and continued property maintenance violations meet the criteria for the existence of a public nuisance under

8.24.020(A)-(B.)

Page 422 of 480 ends

Resolution No. _____ (2024 Series) Page 3
R _____
SECTION 2: Determination and Order. Based upon evidence presented at the public hearing and the findings stated above, the City Council declares that a public nuisance exists at 205 Casa Street/1067 Murray Avenue. If the same is not promptly abated as follows by the owner of said premises within 30 days from this date, said nuisance may be abated by municipal authorities by removal or other appropriate action, the cost of which will constitute a lien upon such premises until paid.

1. Weed abatement for the entire lot.

2. Trash removal for the entire lot.

3. Safety pruning of all trees including lifting and pushing back out of City right of way.

4. Trimming of all bushes and shrubs/ pushing back out of City right of way.

5. Install perimeter fencing to prevent further unauthorized access to the lot and structures.

SECTION 3. Environmental Review. The action to declare this property a public nuisance and order abatement is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15321 (enforcement actions by regulatory agencies.) The action to install a perimeter fence and nuisance abatement measures are exempt from CEQA under Section 15301 (existing facilities) and Section 15601 (no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.)

Page 423 of 480 ends

Resolution No. _____ (2024 Series) Page 4
R _____
SECTION 4. The City Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this resolution ordering the abatement of the nuisance to the property owner as required by San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Sections 8.24.110.

Upon motion of Council Member ___________, seconded by Council Member ___________, and on the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _______________ 2024. ___________________________
Mayor Erica A. Stewart
ATTEST:
____________________________
Teresa Purrington,
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
J. Christine Dietrick,
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on ______________________. ___________________________
Teresa Purrington,
City Clerk

Page 424 of 480 ends

Page 425 of 480 ends

Page 426 of 480 ends

Page 427 of 480 ends

Page 428 of 480 ends

Notice to Correct Code Violation(s)/Notice of Violation (Courtesy Warning Prior to Issuance of Administrative Citation) April 12, 2022
Ryan Diller
PO Box 863
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
SUBJECT ADDRESS: 205 Casa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 APN: 001-031-016 Code Case #: CODE-15-2022
Dear Property Owner,
On March 22, 2022, City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department staff noted the following violations of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code or other relevant codes at the above listed address:

1. Vacant Structures and Land (SLOMC 15.02.010, International Property Maintenance Code 301.3
“Vacant structures and premises thereof or vacant land shall be maintained in a clean, safe, secure and sanitary condition as provided herein so as not to cause a blighting problem or adversely affect the public health or safety.”
The vacant property is in violation of health and safety standards as outlined below.

2. Accumulation of Rubbish or Garbage (SLOMC 15.02.010, IPMC 308.1) “Exterior property and premises, and the interior of every structure, shall be free from any accumulation of rubbish or garbage.”
Trash and debris are spread out on the property. Items shall be cleaned up and disposed of or stored properly.

3. Exterior Walls (SLOMC 15.02.010, IPMC 304.6)
“Exterior walls shall be free from holes, breaks, and loose or rotting materials; and maintained weatherproof and properly surface coated where required to prevent deterioration.”
Sections of the exterior siding are damaged or missing. Repairs shall be made to ensure proper weatherproofing.

4. Exterior Doors (SLOMC 15.02.010, IPMC 304.15)
“Exterior doors, door assemblies, operator systems if provided, and hardware shall be maintained in good condition. Locks at all entrances to dwelling units and sleeping units shall tightly secure the door. Locks on means of egress doors shall be in accordance with section 702.3.”
Multiple exterior doors are damaged and in need of repair/replacement.

Page 429 of 480 ends

5. Handrails and Guards (SLOMC 15.02.010, IPMC 304.12)
“Every handrail and guard shall be firmly fastened and capable of supporting normally imposed loads and shall be maintained in good condition.” The exterior stair railing and guard is missing, posing a safety hazard. The railing and guard shall be replaced. A permit is required for the repair.

We request that you voluntarily take action to correct the above noted violation(s) no later than May 12, 2022. These violations constitute a public nuisance and must be abated. Failure to correct the violation(s) by the specified date will result in the issuance of an Administrative Citation requiring payment of FINES in accordance with SLOMC Chapter 1.24. For Municipal Code violations that remain uncorrected after issuance of an Administrative Citation, the City may seek enforcement by other civil or criminal remedies.

Any person having a title interest in the property may request a Director’s review of this Notice by completing the enclosed Request for Director’s Review Form and submitting it to the Community Development Department, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93406, within five (5) days of the date of this Notice. This Notice shall be deemed final unless you timely file a Request for Director’s Review.

We look forward to working with you to resolve these violations and would like to thank you for your efforts to maintain your property and to help preserve the safety and beauty of our community. If you have questions, please contact the undersigned Officer at (805) 783-7841 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
____________________________
Steve Sheats, Code Enforcement Officer
Cc: File
Enclosures: Request for Directors Review

Page 430 of 480 ends

Page 431 of 480 ends

Page 432 of 480 ends

Page 433 of 480 ends

Page 434 of 480 ends

Citation No.: 28617

ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION

AND ORDER TO COMPLY WITH

SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE
1 st Citation 2nd Citation 3rd Citation Additional / Daily Fines ADDRESS OF VIOLATION: 205 Casa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 APN: 001-031-016 DATE OF VIOLATION: June 2, 2022
NAME: Ryan Diller
ADDRESS: PO Box 863, San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 1.24 OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE, YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO IMMEDIATELY CORRECT THE VIOLATION(S) DESCRIBED BELOW AND PAY THE FINE. YOU ARE FURTHER ORDERED TO CEASE THE ACTIVITY GIVING RISE TO THE VIOLATION. WHEN CORRECTIONS ARE COMPLETE PLEASE SCHEDULE AN INSPECTION BY CALLING (805)781-7180. TO AVOID ADDITIONAL FINES COMPLIANCE MUST BE VERIFIED BY DEPARTMENT STAFF. IF DAILY FINES APPLY AS NOTED ABOVE, THE FINES SHALL ACCRUE DAILY UNTIL THE VIOLATION(S) ARE CORRECTED. FAILURE TO

CORRECT THE VIOLATION(S) WILL RESULT IN THE ISSUANCE OF ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS AND ESCALATING FINES OR OTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTION.

CODE SECTION DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION FINE
MC § 15.02.010
IPMC § 308.1 Accumulation of Rubbish or Garbage $100
MC § 15.02.010
IPMC § 304.6 Exterior Walls $100
MC § 15.02.010
IPMC § 304.15 Exterior Doors $100
MC § 15.02.010
IPMC § 304.12 Handrails and Guards $100
Amount Due $400
Failure to pay the fines may result in the suspension of any pending applications or permits. Unpaid fines become delinquent after 30 days and are subject to interest accrual of 8% per month as contained in SLOMC 1.24.070 C. The City may pursue all legal, equitable, and administrative remedies for the collection of unpaid civil administrative fines. Delinquent fines will be forwarded to a collection agency for payment.

Each responsible party is individually required to file an appeal. FAILURE TO FILE AN APPEAL WILL WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO CONTEST THIS CITATION. Please see the attached Appeal Form for more information.

Page 435 of 480 ends

[Type text]
Mail Appeals to: City of San Luis Obispo, City Clerk
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Issued By: Steve Sheats Signature: Title: Code Enforcement Officer RELATED CE CASE: CODE-15-2022 DATE CITATION ISSUED: June 3, 2022

Page 436 of 480 ends

Citation No.: 28718

ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION

AND ORDER TO COMPLY WITH

SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE
1 st Citation 2nd Citation 3rd Citation Additional / Daily Fines ADDRESS OF VIOLATION: 205 Casa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 APN: 001-031-016 DATE OF VIOLATION: June 9, 2022
NAME: Ryan Diller
ADDRESS: PO Box 863, San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 1.24 OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE, YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO IMMEDIATELY CORRECT THE VIOLATION(S) DESCRIBED BELOW AND PAY THE FINE. YOU ARE FURTHER ORDERED TO CEASE THE ACTIVITY GIVING RISE TO THE VIOLATION. WHEN CORRECTIONS ARE COMPLETE PLEASE SCHEDULE AN INSPECTION BY CALLING (805)781-7180. TO AVOID ADDITIONAL FINES COMPLIANCE MUST BE VERIFIED BY DEPARTMENT STAFF. IF DAILY FINES APPLY AS NOTED ABOVE, THE FINES SHALL ACCRUE DAILY UNTIL THE VIOLATION(S) ARE CORRECTED. FAILURE TO

CORRECT THE VIOLATION(S) WILL RESULT IN THE ISSUANCE OF ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS AND ESCALATING FINES OR OTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTION.

CODE SECTION DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION FINE
MC § 15.02.010
IPMC § 308.1 Accumulation of Rubbish or Garbage $500
MC § 15.02.010
IPMC § 304.6 Exterior Walls $500
MC § 15.02.010
IPMC § 304.15 Exterior Doors $500
MC § 15.02.010
IPMC § 304.12 Handrails and Guards $500
Amount Due $2000
Failure to pay the fines may result in the suspension of any pending applications or permits. Unpaid fines become delinquent after 30 days and are subject to interest accrual of 8% per month as contained in SLOMC 1.24.070 C. The City may pursue all legal, equitable, and administrative remedies for the collection of unpaid civil administrative fines. Delinquent fines will be forwarded to a collection agency for payment.

Each responsible party is individually required to file an appeal. FAILURE TO FILE AN APPEAL WILL WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO CONTEST THIS CITATION. Please see the attached Appeal Form for more information.

Page 437 of 480 ends

Page 438 of 480 ends

Citation No.: 28880

ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION

AND ORDER TO COMPLY WITH

SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE
1 st Citation 2nd Citation 3rd Citation Additional / Daily Fines ADDRESS OF VIOLATION: 205 Casa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 APN: 001-031-016 DATE OF VIOLATION: June 16, 2022
NAME: Ryan Diller
ADDRESS: PO Box 863, San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 1.24 OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE, YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO IMMEDIATELY CORRECT THE VIOLATION(S) DESCRIBED BELOW AND PAY THE FINE. YOU ARE FURTHER ORDERED TO CEASE THE ACTIVITY GIVING RISE TO THE VIOLATION. WHEN CORRECTIONS ARE COMPLETE PLEASE SCHEDULE AN INSPECTION BY CALLING (805)781-7180. TO AVOID ADDITIONAL FINES COMPLIANCE MUST BE VERIFIED BY DEPARTMENT STAFF. IF DAILY FINES APPLY AS NOTED ABOVE, THE FINES SHALL ACCRUE DAILY UNTIL THE VIOLATION(S) ARE CORRECTED. FAILURE TO

CORRECT THE VIOLATION(S) WILL RESULT IN THE ISSUANCE OF ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS AND ESCALATING FINES OR OTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTION.

CODE SECTION DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION FINE
MC § 15.02.010
IPMC § 308.1 Accumulation of Rubbish or Garbage $1000
MC § 15.02.010
IPMC § 304.6 Exterior Walls $1000
MC § 15.02.010
IPMC § 304.15 Exterior Doors $1000
MC § 15.02.010
IPMC § 304.12 Handrails and Guards $1000
Amount Due $4000
Failure to pay the fines may result in the suspension of any pending applications or permits. Unpaid fines become delinquent after 30 days and are subject to interest accrual of 8% per month as contained in SLOMC 1.24.070 C. The City may pursue all legal, equitable, and administrative remedies for the collection of unpaid civil administrative fines. Delinquent fines will be forwarded to a collection agency for payment.

Each responsible party is individually required to file an appeal. FAILURE TO FILE AN APPEAL WILL WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO CONTEST THIS CITATION. Please see the attached Appeal Form for more information.

Page 439 of 480 ends

Mail Appeals to: City of San Luis Obispo, City Clerk
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Issued By: Steve Sheats Signature: Title: Code Enforcement Officer RELATED CE CASE: CODE-15-2022 DATE CITATION ISSUED: June 16, 2022

Page 440 of 480 ends

Page 441 of 480 ends

Page 442 of 480 ends

Page 443 of 480 ends

Page 444 of 480 ends

Page 445 of 480 ends

Page 446 of 480 ends

Page 447 of 480 ends

Page 448 of 480 ends

Page 449 of 480 ends

Page 450 of 480 ends

Page 451 of 480 ends

Page 452 of 480 ends

Page 453 of 480 ends

Page 454 of 480 ends

Citation No.: 00032626

ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION

AND ORDER TO COMPLY WITH

HEREBY ORDERED TO IMMEDIATELY CORRECT THE VIOLATION(S) DESCRIBED BELOW AND PAY THE FINE. YOU ARE FURTHER ORDERED TO CEASE THE ACTIVITY GIVING RISE TO THE VIOLATION. WHEN CORRECTIONS ARE COMPLETE PLEASE SCHEDULE AN INSPECTION BY CALLING (805)781-7180. TO AVOID ADDITIONAL FINES COMPLIANCE MUST BE VERIFIED BY DEPARTMENT STAFF. IF DAILY FINES APPLY AS

NOTED ABOVE, THE FINES SHALL ACCRUE DAILY UNTIL THE VIOLATION(S) ARE CORRECTED. FAILURE TO CORRECT THE VIOLATION(S) WILL RESULT IN THE

ISSUANCE OF ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS AND ESCALATING FINES OR OTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTION.

CODE SECTION DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION FINE
MC § 15.02.010
IPMC § 304.6 Exterior Walls $7000
MC § 15.02.010
IPMC § 304.15 Exterior Doors $7000
MC § 15.02.010
IPMC § 304.12 Handrails and Guards $7000
Amount Due $21000
Failure to pay the fines may result in the suspension of any pending applications or permits.

Unpaid fines become delinquent after 30 days and are subject to interest accrual of 8% per month as contained in SLOMC 1.24.070 C. The City may pursue all legal, equitable, and administrative remedies for the collection of unpaid civil administrative fines. Delinquent fines will be forwarded to a collection agency for payment.

Mail Payments to: City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
You may file an APPEAL of this Administrative Citation by submitting a request in writing to the Hearing Administrator within ten days of the date this Administrative Citation is issued as shown below. Each responsible party is individually required to file an appeal. FAILURE TO FILE AN APPEAL WILL WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO CONTEST THIS CITATION. Please see the attached Appeal Form for more information.

Page 455 of 480 ends

Page 456 of 480 ends

Citation No.: 00032936

ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION

AND ORDER TO COMPLY WITH

NOTED ABOVE, THE FINES SHALL ACCRUE DAILY UNTIL THE VIOLATION(S) ARE CORRECTED. FAILURE TO CORRECT THE VIOLATION(S) WILL RESULT IN THE

ISSUANCE OF ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS AND ESCALATING FINES OR OTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTION.

Page 457 of 480 ends

Page 458 of 480 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, Community D evelopment, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3218, 805.781.7170, slocity.org

SITE INSPECTION REQUEST
October 17, 2023
Diller Ryan
1067 Murray Avenue
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
RE: 1067 Murray & 205 Casa Street (APN 001-031-016), San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 This Department has observed that the subject property is possibly in violation of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (SLOMC). Please be advised that the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code reads as follows relative to the report violation(s):

Reported Violation:

1. Unsafe Structure (SLOMC 15.02.010 International Property Maintenance Code 108.1)
“When a structure or equipment is found by the code official to be unsafe, or when a structure is found unfit for human occupancy, or is found unlawful, such structure shall be condemned pursuant to the provisions of this code.” Comments: Our department has received concerns from the public and from law enforcement over the interior conditions of the residence. I would like to conduct an interior inspection of both residences to determine if a violation exists.

Please contact me on or before October 28, 2023, to schedule an appointment for an inspection. Failure to contact us by this date may result in formal enforcement action.

Sincerely,
Steve Sheats
Code Enforcement Officer
(805) 783-7841
[email protected]

Page 459 of 480 ends

Page 460 of 480 ends

Notice to Correct Code Violation(s)/Notice of Violation (Courtesy Warning Prior to Issuance of Administrative Citation) October 26, 2023
Diller Ryan
PO Box 863
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
SUBJECT ADDRESS: 1067 Murray Avenue/205 Casa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 APN: 001-031-016 Code Case #: CODE-000015-2022
Dear Property Owner,
On October 19, 2023, City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department staff noted the following violations of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code or other relevant codes at the above listed address:

1. Closing of Vacant Structures (SLOMC 15.02.130, International Property Maintenance Code 111.2 )
“If the structure is vacant and unfit for human habitation and occupancy, and is not in danger of structural collapse, the code official is authorized to post a placard of condemnation on the premises and order the structure closed up so as not to be an attractive nuisance. Upon failure of the owner or owner’s authorized agent to close up the premises within the time specified in the order, the code official shall cause the premises to be closed and secured through any available public agency or by contract or arrangement by private persons and the cost thereof shall be charged against the real estate upon which the structure is located and shall be a lien upon such real estate and shall be collected by any other legal resource. 111.2.1 Authority to Disconnect Service Utilities
The code official shall have the authority to authorize disconnection of utility service to the building, structure or system regulated by this code and the referenced standards set forth in Section 102.8 in case of emergency where necessary to eliminate an immediate hazard to life or property or where such utility connection has been made without approval. The code official shall notify the serving utility and, whenever possible, the owner or owner’s authorized agent and occupant of the building, structure or service system of the decision to disconnect prior to taking such action. If not notified prior to disconnection the owner, owner’s authorized agent or occupant of the building structure or service system shall be notified in writing as soon as practical thereafter.

The structures have been posted as uninhabitable due to substandard and dangerous conditions.

The structures are an attractive nuisance to the public and are constantly being subjected to trespassing and other criminal activities. The structures shall be boarded up in compliance with the attached standards. The electrical service being active is an attraction for individuals to occupy the building. Once the building is properly boarded, the utilities shall be disconnected. If not done voluntarily, the Building Official will be ordering the utilities to be stopped to help deter further trespassing.

Page 461 of 480 ends

We request that you voluntarily take action to correct the above noted violation(s) no later than November 10, 2023. These violations constitute a public nuisance and must be abated. Failure to correct the violation(s) by the specified date will result in the issuance of an Administrative Citation requiring payment of FINES in accordance with SLOMC Chapter 1.24. For Municipal Code violations that remain uncorrected after issuance of an Administrative Citation, the City may seek enforcement by other civil or criminal remedies.

Any person having a title interest in the property may request a Director’s review of this Notice by completing the enclosed Request for Director’s Review Form and submitting it to the Community Development Department via email at [email protected] or to 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, within five (5) days of the date of this Notice. This Notice shall be deemed final unless you timely file a Request for Director’s Review.

Sincerely,
____________________________
Steve Sheats, Code Enforcement Officer
Cc: File
Enclosures: Request for Directors Review

Page 462 of 480 ends

Page 463 of 480 ends

Page 464 of 480 ends

Page 465 of 480 ends

Page 466 of 480 ends

Page 467 of 480 ends

Page 468 of 480 ends

Page 469 of 480 ends

Page 470 of 480 ends

Page 471 of 480 ends

Page 472 of 480 ends

SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY ■ Complete Items 1, 2, and 3.
■ Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.

A. SJgnature
X

1. Article Addressed to: D. I Ivery aadress different from Item 1? Vivvfl..
?o tSu-,.

If YES, enter dellve,y address below:
s�,, cf>r

3. Service Type
IIIIIIIII IIII IIIIII IIIII II II 111 1111 111111111 ==R�CMdDelwery -::----:--::-:-9--:5..,.9 _0..,.9_4-:0::-2_6.:,_8,:...0 ::.,::.....:9 1-=0..:.7....:4....:6:..4.:...4.:..::.....:..2 1 .:::.6 __ --f g �:��t!,� De!Nery !) Art1.-, .. l\h 1rnh0r rr,,,,,.,,..,. frnm _.,,,n,;,.,, ,,.,,,,,. D Collect on Delivery Restricted Deliver, 7019 0700 0001 5404 7 9 6 8 :: Reslllcted Delivery
D Priority Mall Express®
D Reglster8d MaJITII
D �ered Mall Reslticted
□ Signature Confirmation"'
D Signature Confirmallon
Restrtcted Delivery
PS Form 3811, July 2020 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 Domestic Return Receipt

Page 473 of 480 ends

Page 474 of 480 ends

Item 7c
Department: Utilities
Cost Center: 6001
For Agenda of: 7/2/2024
Placement: Business
Estimated Time: 30 minutes
FROM: Aaron Floyd, Utilities Director
Prepared By: Mychal Boerman, Utilities Deputy Director - Water SUBJECT: ESTABLISH AN AD-HOC SUBCOMMITTEE TO DETERMINE RECYCLED

WATER SALES NEGOTIATION PARAMETERS AND TO EXPAND THE

RECYCLED WATER REQUEST FOR INTRESTED PARTIES

SOLICITATION TO INCLUDE NON-AGRICULTURAL INTERESTS

RECOMMENDATION

1. Establish an ad-hoc subcommittee consisting of two members of the City Council to assist in determining negotiation parameters, participate in contract negotiations, review draft agreements, and provide a final recommendation to the City Council for the contractual sale of surplus recycled water; and

2. Direct staff to release an expanded supplemental Request for Interested Parties solicitation for the sale of surplus recycled water to non-agricultural interests.

POLICY CONTEXT
The formation of this subcommittee and release of a supplemental Request for Interested Parties aligns with the City's long-term strategies for maximizing the use of recycled water as outlined in the 2017 Recycled Water Master Plan and the 2022 Recycled Water Maximization Study. It supports the goals of transparency, legal compliance, and cost recovery while ensuring that the Community’s best interests are met.

DISCUSSION
Background
On November 15, 2022, the City Council reviewed the Recycled Water Maximization Study, which included strategies for both short-term and long-term uses of recycled water.

At this study session staff received guidance from the Council regarding the direction for use of the City’s recycled water supplies, including general City Council support for further investigating the sale of recycled water outside of City limits.

Following the study session staff developed and released a Request for Interested Parties (RFIP) that was designed to gauge local interest in purchasing recycled water for agricultural use. This RFIP requested information from interested parties regarding the volume of recycled water they were interested in purchasing, where the water was proposed to be used, and whether or not the party was able to accommodate a minimum sales price of $1,200 per acre-foot.

Page 475 of 480 ends

Item 7c
The RFIP also noted that purchasing parties may be required to fund and install infrastructure improvements to deliver recycled water to their properties if the City’s recycled water lines do not currently meet the proposed delivery location. The RFIP intended to both notify potential buyers of costs and restrictions on the use of recycled water, and to collect information to help the City estimate project costs, delivery duration, and complexity. City staff identified a list of geographic areas where surplus recycled water could be feasibly delivered for agricultural use and sent the RFIP to local agricultural representatives in those areas. The City received one response to this RFIP. The responding party, the Edna Valley Growers, indicated that they were willing to adhere to the initial limitations, including the proposed minimum price of $1,200 per acre-foot.

Non-Agricultural Interest in Purchasing Recycled Water
In June 2024, City staff became aware of non-agricultural interest in the City’s surplus recycled water from a local environmental group. To-date, staff had been following the Recycled Water Maximization Plan outline, which solely contemplated the sale of recycled water for agricultural purposes. The new stated interest involves utilizing surplus recycled water to provide supplemental streamflow in San Luis Obispo Creek until longterm creek enhancements are made to support steelhead and other natural habitat. This proposal maintains the current release of recycled water to the creek and would not require the installation of new infrastructure, additional pumping for delivery, or additional staffing resources.

Without having additional details about the proposed project, similar to those requested in the original RFIP, staff cannot determine whether the delivery for agricultural use and environmental use can be made concurrently, nor can staff evaluate the potential merits and benefits of the differing proposals. For these reasons, staff is recommending that the City Council approve the release of a second, supplemental RFIP to gather additional information from environmental groups that are interested in purchasing surplus recycled water. Staff anticipate that releasing a supplemental RFIP would require an additional month, resulting in the subcommittee convening in August 2024. Staff anticipate that the negotiations and final recommendation to the Council will be completed by the end of 2024.

Formation of a Subcommittee
Once all RFIP responses have been received, which may or may not include nonagricultural interests dependent on City Council action, staff will request that a subcommittee consisting of two City Council members and representatives of the Utilities Department meet to review RFIP submissions. In order to begin negotiations with interested parties, it is crucial to establish clear negotiating parameters to ensure that the City Council’s and community’s interests are met. The proposed subcommittee would ensure that the terms of any sales contracts align with City policies, protect the City’s existing water rights, and provide the maximum benefit to the community.

Page 476 of 480 ends

Item 7c
A subcommittee, consisting of two Council members, would collaborate with City staff to develop a comprehensive framework for negotiating recycled water sales contracts. This framework would address several key areas, including but not limited to the following categories and topics the subcommittee may provide input on:

1. Delivery Limitations and Restrictions
a. Service Prioritization – Protection of the needs of in-City uses of recycled water before providing recycled water for outside-City use.
b. Delivery Quantities – Definitions of the minimum and maximum daily, monthly, and annual volumes of recycled water available or required to be delivered. c. Quality Standards – Provisions outlining the quality of the water the City ensures it will deliver and ensuring that secondary treatment is the responsibility of the recipient.

2. Delivery Pricing and Project Cost Recovery:
a. Cost Distribution – Delineation of costs for recycled water production, treatment, and delivery. Including costs allocated to inside-City customers and outside-City users.
b. Offset to City Rates – The minimum and maximum amount of revenue that the City should receive to offset existing or future water rates or to supplement investments in aging infrastructure.
c. Annual Pricing Adjustments – The methodology for establishing annual pricing adjustments to account for increases in City-costs for categories such as electricity, chemicals, and staffing.

3. Regulatory and Environmental Responsibility:
a. Water Quality Standards – Water quality standards and regulations for the use of recycled water for agricultural, environmental, or other uses. b. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) Compliance – Measures that may be required by the City to ensure that recycled water is being utilized to ensure compliance with SGMA.

4. Land Use Restrictions:
a. Conservation Measures – Provisions that ensure that properties receiving recycled water are unable to develop or intensify agricultural operations while receiving recycled water.
b. Ownership Changes – Measures to ensure that restrictions imposed as a result of utilizing recycled water carry forward if ownership of receiving property changes.

5. Contract Duration and Extension:
a. Contract Length – Definition of the minimum and maximum contract length that could be negotiated.
b. Extension Options – Definition of the extension options that may be practiced at the end of a contract.
c. Early Termination Penalties – Description of penalties that may be assessed if a party terminates the contract early.

Page 477 of 480 ends

Item 7c

6. Legal Provisions:
a. Dispute Resolution – Identification of standard practices for dispute resolution, such as the use of a mediator.
b. Indemnification – Establishing language that ensures the City will be held harmless from liability arising from the sale or use of recycled water. c. Protection of City Water Rights – Establishment of language that ensures the City’s water rights are protected and not compromised as a result of delivering recycled water to a third party.

These parameters will guide the subcommittee in creating a robust and fair framework for negotiating recycled water sales contracts, ensuring all agreements are beneficial, compliant, and sustainable for the City while protecting the investments the City has made in its water supplies.

Next Steps
If directed by the City Council, staff will release a supplemental RFIP to gauge interest from local environmental groups. Staff anticipate that this RFIP will be open for 30 days, commencing at the beginning of August 2024. It is recommended that, after closure of the supplemental RFIP solicitation, the subcommittee will review all RFIP responses from the initial solicitation and the supplemental solicitation and prioritize negotiations based on community benefit and recycled water availability. Based on the results of the RFIP solicitation, the subcommittee may ultimately negotiate with multiple interested parties.

Upon the conclusion of negotiations, City staff will present a draft contract or contracts to the City Council for their consideration. At that juncture, the full five-member Council will be afforded the opportunity to review the draft contract(s), approve it/them, or propose amendments. This process ensures that the final agreement(s) align with the City's priorities and interests, while receiving input from all Council members.

Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
On March 21, 2017, the City Council approved the 2017 Recycled Water Master Plan, which outlined the City’s strategy for expanding the use of recycled water, including plans to ultimately utilize recycled water as a potable water supply. Additionally, as part of the 2021-23 Financial Plan, the City Council authorized funding to develop the Recycled Water Maximization Study. This study aims to identify opportunities for both short-term and long-term expansion of the City's recycled water supplies in alignment with the Council's directives. On November 15, 2022, during a study session, the City Council received an update on the Recycled Water Maximization Study and provided input regarding the future expanded use of the City’s recycled water supplies. These actions demonstrate the Council's ongoing commitment to enhancing water resilience and sustainability through the strategic use of recycled water.

Page 478 of 480 ends

Item 7c
Public Engagement
The topic of selling recycled water outside of City limits has been discussed in several public meetings, providing numerous opportunities for community input and engagement.

Notably, during the study session held on November 15, 2022, the City Council received an update on the Recycled Water Maximization Study. This session included a comprehensive presentation on the potential for expanded use of recycled water, both within and outside City limits. The meeting was open to the public, allowing community members to voice their opinions, ask questions, and provide feedback.

CONCURRENCE
This report has been reviewed by Utilities staff involved in the production and delivery of recycled water.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed action is limited to the establishment of an ad-hoc subcommittee to establish recycled water sales negotiation parameters and the release of a supplemental RFIP and would not commit the City to any form of agreement, nor the sale of recycled water or construction of any physical improvements. Therefore, pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), action on this item is not subject to environmental review because it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and falls within the “common sense” exemption, which excludes actions where “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.”

FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: NA Budget Year: 2024-25
Funding Identified: NA
Fiscal Analysis:

The proposed actions do not directly have any fiscal impact. Staff will return to the City Council in the future to outline specific fiscal impacts related to signing a contract to sell recycled water outside of City limits. This meeting will be held after the City has developed a draft contract with the party proposing to purchase recycled water.

Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
Water Fund $ $0 $ $
State
Federal
Fees
Other:

Total $ $ $ $

Page 479 of 480 ends

Item 7c

ALTERNATIVES

1. The City Council could choose not to form the subcommittee and instead direct City staff to independently develop the negotiation parameters for recycled water sales contracts. Under this alternative, a draft agreement would be prepared and, ultimately, presented to Council for consideration at a future public meeting, at which time Council could provide direction regarding any necessary changes. Those changes would then need to be negotiated with the potential recycled water purchaser(s), which would extend the time and costs associated with preparation and approval of the agreement. This alternative is not recommended, as the City Council’s perspective in development of negotiating parameters will provide valuable oversight, ensure alignment with community goals, and enhance efficiency, transparency, and accountability in the negotiation process.

2. The City Council could choose not to approve the release of a supplemental RFIP for non-agricultural parties. Under this alternative, the City Council could elect to move forward with the establishment of an ad-hoc subcommittee to assist in the negotiation process with the single agricultural respondent to the initial RFIP. This alternative is not recommended, as the proposal from the interested environmental group may align with City goals and priorities, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions, protecting the environment, and promoting fiscal sustainability.

Page 480 of 480 ends

San Luis Obispo City CouncilJuly 2, 2024

San Luis Obispo City Council
July 2, 2024