Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/11/1997, 1 - AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AND ANNEXATION council j acEnba REpout CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O FROM: John Dunn, City Administrative Offr ; PREPARED BY: Airport Area Staff Team 7 SUBJECT: AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AND ANNEXATION CAO RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approve and issue a request for proposals(RFP)for the Airport Area Specific Plan and EIR, and other related infrastructure planning. 2. Approve a specific plan funding program, including the proposed conditions for participants and consisting of an initial$330,000 contribution by the City and an initial$155,000 contribution by property owners,with all City costs to be recovered in the future as development takes place in the Airport Area 3. Direct staff to implement the proposed Interim Airport Area Annexation Strategy until the specific plan is adopted. REPORT-IN-BRIEF In 1994 the City adopted an update to the General Plan Land Use Element, including a policy that the City should work to complete a specific plan and annex the Airport Area by 1995. Near the end of 1995 staff presented the Council with a status report on progress made to implement the Land Use Element Airport Area policies. After reviewing the progress report and the issues in that report, the Council directed staff to finalize the scope of the specific plan and to work with property owners to develop a strategy for sharing the costs of completing the plan. Staff has worked over the last fifteen months to carry-out the Council direction. At this point,thea seems to be agreement by all parties on the benefits of annexing the Airport Area,and on the elements of what is first necessary for achieving this goal: a specific plan that addresses infrastructure improvement needs, a financing plan that ensures that the area pays for its fair share of these costs, an urban design plan, and environmental review. How to pay for the initial costs has remained the only stumbling block in preparing the needed plans and moving forward with the annexation(it has always been clear that the City can recover the full costs of this plan over time). i After intensive discussions with property owners in the Airport Area for many years,with a renewed focus beginning in December 1995, staff believes the highest level of up-front financial participation from property owners that is possible at this time has been achieved. This participation comes with certain conditions, as outlined in this report. The core policy issue facing the Council at this time is clear and straight forward: If it is the City's goal to annex the Airport Area, and realize the various benefits that this will bring about, some level of up-front City financial participation is required at this time. There is simply no alternative. This is the City's last, best opportunity to control its land use destiny on its southern boundary. The question before the Council is Is this worth an initial investment of $330,000? With respect to the overall benefits of annexation,these have been detailed elsewhere many times before, and the primary intent of this report is to implement General Plan policy by following-up on the direction provided by Council in December 1995. However,to summarize, by annexing the Airport Area the City can: • Control the quality and character of development that will occur at our southern gateway, • Ensure that all impacts from Airport Area development are adequately mitigated, and better protect open spaces in the area and at our southern edge; • Increase our limited inventory of property appropriately zoned for the location of the kind of clean industries that can create more head-of-household jobs. In short,the annexation is necessary to achieve a key component of the City's economic development program; • Use revenues from the Airport Area to help offset the costs of serving the City's last remaining major residential expansion areas—the Margarita and Orcutt Areas. The intent is to annex the entire Airport Area at the conclusion of the specific plan. However, consistent with prior Council direction(and the reality that all development will not wait for completion of the plan),this report also sets forth a strategy for interim annexation in those limited circumstances where such annexation is appropriate. DISCUSSION Backeround Chapter 7 of the General Plan Land Use Element(LUE)contains policies regarding the Airport Area south of the current city limits. This area is shown as being within the area the City intends to provide urban services. Included in the direction provided by these policies is that the City work with property owners to complete a specific plan and pursue annexation by 1995. Near the end of 1995, in December, staff presented the Council with a status report on the progress that had been made to implement these policies. A copy of that staff report is in the Council's reading file. The situation near the end of 1995 was that background work had been done on a specific plan,but the plan had yet to be prepared . The City had filed an application for annexing the Margarita and Airport Areas with the Local Agency Formation Commission(LAFCo),but that application is still pending at the City's request because the City's General Plan states that the Airport Area cannot be annexed until a specific plan is adopted. Previous efforts to produce a specific plan funded by assessments to property owners in County Service Area 22 lead to the land use designations that were incorporated into the 1994 update of the City's Land Use Map. But a plan still needed to be prepared detailing development standards and how infiastructure would be provided.. Despite many meetings between 2 staff and property owners to try and devise a strategy to complete the specific plan, property owners were unwilling at that time to provide additional up-front financing for a specific plan. The December 1995 staff report also noted that a significant amount of development was occurring in the Airport Area under the County's jurisdiction at that time. In the three years prior to 1995, about 175,000 square feet of additional floor area had been added to the Airport Area. If the area were to substantially develop outside of the City's jurisdiction, many of the benefits annexation would bring would be lost. In addition, a plan for area-wide infrastructure would be necessary if all or even a portion of the area were ever to annex to the City. A plan for increasing water and sewer service capacity in the southern part of the City is becoming necessary to allow for development and buildout of the Edna Islay, Dalidio,Froom, Oram and Margarita Areas,regardless of what eventually happens in the Airport Area. While staff would recommend proceeding with water and sewer planning and facility upgrading should the Airport Area specific plan not proceed, it would be most efficient to plan for all of the future mfrast acture needs comprehensively. For that reason separate planning for water and sewer ficility upgrading is pending, awaiting the Council's decision regarding the Airport Area specific plan. December 12'b, 1995 Council Direction At the December 12`s, 1995 Council meeting, staff presented the idea that marry of the State's requirements for specific plans had recently been addressed in updates to several General Plan elements. It was recommended that to most efficiently complete the specific plan, consultant work should concentrate on infrastructure,infrastructure financing, area-wide design standards, and environmental review. At its December 12' , 1995 meeting,the Council reaffirmed the goal.of annexing the Airport Area and gave staff the following d i ection to accomplish it: 1. Interpret the specific plan requirement in the Land Use Element to be a "lean and mean" specific plan, which uses existing land use designations, adopted policies, and existing standards to the maximum extent feasible. The specific plan should address the minimum required contents stipulated in state law and the City's General Plan. Additional work to be completed will include urban design guidelines, water delivery, wastewater collection, drainage, circulation, impact on agricultural land, and a public facilities financing plan; 2. Prepare and return with a plan for paying and recovering the costs of consultant preparation of a speciftcplan. Revised planning costs to be shared between the City and property owners in a partnership, with staff to provide alternative financing options; 3. Prepare an analysis regarding the boundaries of the Airport Area,- 4. Include for consideration in the 1996 Community Development Block Grant a program for contributing to the preparation of the Airport Area specific plan; and S. Continue to process individual Airport Area annexation proposals as incremental amendments to the Land Use Element. Since December 1995, staff has done everything possible to carry-out the Council direction. The remainder of this staff report discusses the status of each individual Council direction and the strategy now recommended to complete the direction given by the Council and implement the City's policies for the Airport Area. 3 �-3 Status of Efforts to Implement Previous Council Direction Direction#1 -Focused Scope for Specific Plan Work Staff has defined a scope of work for consultant services to provide the information necessary to complete a"lean and mean" specific plan that still fully meets State and City requirements. Staff will use existing land use designations of the General Plan and zoning and engineering standards to the maximum extent possible. Open space requirements are already well articulated in the General Plan and will be supplemented by staff to meet the specific plan requirements. The scope of work for completing the specific plan now focuses on the following items: •Water master plan for the Airport Area and buildout of the rest of the City; •Wastewater master plan for the Airport Area and buildout of the rest of the City; • Drainage master plan for the Airport Area and the southern portion of the City; • Circulation plan for the Airport Area and; • Public facilities financing plan;and • Urban design plan for the Airport Area . •Environmental impact report As the topics suggest, the boundaries of planning that will need to be done will be larger than the Airport Area itself for water, wastewater, and drainage plans. The Airport Area specific plan is the focus of most of the planning and the catalyst for other planning that goes beyond the boundaries of the Airport Area. As noted above,water and wastewater systems in the southern portion ofthe City are at or beyond capacity, and systems upgrades are needed whether or not the Airport Area is annexed to the City. An analysis of impacts on agricultural lands has been discussed in the environmental impact report (EIR)for the LUE update. The LUE contained policies to in part mitigate the impacts its implementation would cause on open space and agricultural resources. The LUE stipulates that an Airport Area annexation should not take place unless the annexed area helps protect part of the greenbelt near the Airport Area It establishes two approaches for protecting against further expansion of urban uses into rural and agricultural areas. These open space protection requirements will be included in the specific plan document. By including requirements in the specific plan, annexation will require property owners to participate in the open space protection. The environmental impact analysis that accompanies the Airport Area specific plan will analyze any impacts of the specific plan on agricultural land not already addressed by the LUE EIR. While not a specific component of the workscope,the fiscal impact analysis prepared Angus McDonald in February of 1994 will be updated by staff during the preparation of the specific plan in order to reflect changes in tax sharing with the County which have occurred since 1994. The tax exchange assumption will be based on County staffs' recent agreement to base Airport Area tax exchange on the countywide agreement,whereby the County retains all property tax and all sales tax is passed through to the City. The RFP workscope is provided as Attachment 1 and the complete document is available in the Council reading file. The RFP has been reviewed by an advisory group of property owners who have commented that it is acceptable and adequate. Direction#2-Funding and Cost Sharing Plan for Specific Plan Pmoaration Property Owner Participation in Specific Plan/EIR Funding, The estimated total cost of the Airport Area component of the specific plan and EIR ranges from 4 $390,000 to$485,000. Staff's efforts to establish a cost sharing program with property owners has been the most challenging part of implementing the December 1995 Council direction, and countless hours have been invested in attempting to do so. Attachment 2 outlines this extensive effort. To summarize, in the last twelve months staff has held many meetings with property owners attempting to forge an agreement for shared participation in funding the completion of a specific plan. Meetings were held in large groups, in small groups, and with individual property owners. In addition, a survey was sent to all property owners and tenants in the Airport Area seeking to identify what form of partnership property owners would support. At the meetings, staff solicited recommendations from property owners. Staff also presented variations on forgiving portions of planning costs in exchange for contributing a portion of the cost. Many ideas were presented,but in the final analysis few property owners were supportive of contributing any additional finds to complete the specific plan. Many expressed feelings that they had already contributed their"share"by virtue of having contributed between$300,000-$400,000 through Community Service Area(CSA)22 for planning in the Airport Area. Many expressed a fear that the annexation would never occur, and thus any money"fronted"by them would be lost. By early fall of 1996, it became clear that it would not be possible to get the larger population of property owners to jointly agree to contribute to the specific plan in some proportionate, "fair share" manner. There was simply too much history and fear, and too little similarity and coordination among the over 200 property owners in the area. The logistics alone were somewhat overwhelming. In a"last chance"meeting with property owners held on October 1� it was proposed by a small group of owners that they might consider contributing more than their proportionate share on behalf of reluctant owners, if the amount in excess of "fair share" could be credited back in some way in the future(e.g. toward future development fees;or, should an assessment district be the vehicle for paying planning and infrastructure costs, toward the assessments). Staff felt that this suggestion offered potential, and discussions continued on how best to facilitate such a program for property owner participation. However, during these discussions, it also became clear that several property owners offered to contribute fimding in return for various guarantees that went beyond future fee credits, such as commitments as to when the area would be annexed or infrastructure would be installed, or how they could use their property. It was not possible for staff to agree to several of the proposed conditions. In addition, sta$s consensus was that it would be extremely complicated to propose several different pre-annexation agreements that would provide different guarantees to different property owners In order to make this method of property owner participation work effectively, staff prepared a list of what seemed to be appropriate standard commitments in exchange for participating in funding the specific plan at a higher level. In late January,the following proposed conditions were set forth in a letter from the CAO to interested property owners(Attachment 3): 1. Contributions will be used to fund only the direct costs of the specific plan for the Airport Area Annexation; 2. Arty funds received will be fully refunded if the specfc plan is either not initiated or not completed; 3. During the preparation of the speck plan, contributors will be kept informed as to its status and will be placed on the mauling list for all notices and hearings regarding the plan and the airport rnmexation. Contributors may also review speck plan materials as they are prepared and will receive a copy of the final plm. s /-s 4. If after the specific pkn is completed the City Council,for reasons within the control of the City, decides not to annex the Airport Area and/or their property, the contribution will be fully refunded; 5. After annexation, the amount contributed to the specific plan will be credited to the Area-Wide .Annexation Impact Fee at the time of property development This fee is currently calculated at $17,827 per developable acre(this includes$15,327 per developable acre for sewer, water, storm drain and circulation improvements, and$2,500 per developable acre for open space); 6. Contributions will only be accepted from property owners(or their representatives)who own properties within the City's urban reserve line. Consistent with the above conditions, several property owners have provided signed letters committing to a total of$155,000 to the cost of preparing the plan, as outlined below: • Ball,Ball,Williams, & Senn: ..................................$ 5,000 • Alan Strasbaugh: ..................................................$ 5,000 • Bill Thoma: ....... homa: ....... $ 5,000 • P.G. &E.:­­­­­­....... ............$1001000 • Unocal:....................................................................$ 30,000 • Richard DeBlauw Construction ............................$ 5,000 • King Ventures: .................................................... 5,000 Total Property Owner Participation.................. $155,000 Proposed City Funding for Specific Plan The Council has already approved funding$95,000 for the cost of preparing the plan from the City's 1996 Community Development Block Grant(CDBG). In addition, the County also approved$55,000 of funding for the specific plan in their 1996 CDBG allocation. Another$21,000 is available from a previous City CDBG program. Collectively these CDBG funds amount to$171,000 of funding for the completion of the specific plan. Council previously authorized preparation of water and sewer master plans. This planning is integral to the Airport Area specific plan. These master plans will be paid for from the Water Fund and the Wastewater Fund. $100,000 from each of these funds has been allocated to prepare these two master plans. The portion of this master planning attributable to the Airport Area is approximately$70,000 for each master plan, or$140,000. In addition, in 1996$12,000 in funding for completing the specific plan was allocated by Council from the General Fund's Economic Development Program. In summary,the following amounts have already been appropriated for completing the Airport Area component of the Specific Plan: Airport Citywide Components Components* TOTAL General Fund- Economic Development Program...........$ 125000 $ 12,000 Water Fund...................................... $ 70,000 $303000 $100,000 Sewer Fund...................................... $ 703000 $30,000 $1002000 CDBG Funding..................................$171,000 $171,000 Total Already Funded.........................$323,000 $609000 $3839000 6 (*For city-wide water and sewer master Planning components) The actual total costs of preparing the specific plans, related master plans and the EIR will not be known until proposals are received. The cost for the specific plan and related city-wide master plans is presently estimated to be$450,000 to$545,000, as outlined in the table below. The preliminary cost estimates for completing the AirportlMargarita Area specific plans range from $390,000 to$485,000. With the property owner contributions outlined above, along with already budgeted City resources, only$7,000 remains to be funded from another source. The City has the$7,000 needed from funds budgeted in the Economic Development Program for"expansion area studies" (page D-119 of the Financial Plan). The total funding program would be as follows: ::�{e�}M::kk{}ini� �nnYv:}+.::�.y x�.__:x..rv.. ni:.oJ`Y.'JY+{'{'.✓wJ'h N�ntli,",./. ;nhtlii.:�Y �}UY. wvv'i,S .FCi x::C. p.`.: '%v'.Lxv}�;}y}Yl::�}: ::Fl.'}OW i xo.�;}g::x%.3.40:::. on�N�+. c!+\'if'. y:..-. .�`S:..e.iJ?: p53<:;3:;% -'jb? : . .:,o::�:.: ::?<.�': i$`Yi" ?c'j:;<:;xY....;n:�:+}: v..,w.n?r•.k`�:S:i}>..; �x' :.. w. � fl xia}:x'�,3x4x� � {.}}A'�i x.+E;}:tk`w'o:S;-0�cy�,i.i;2 jx.{� ��.. :::x :;: :.: '� ; , ti.::.w, c• ,o-. ., ;. Fo ..,....:v::;.nxi::;,:.:}x•xu..:n:.:::.o:..:.,v;. }.n:.v};we.;N.ccv,...;.}}k.;.v}:: :�:=: n'^'• :n :: �[4+J n .xH.ri iN'v .No A::,:k SL` ,�r ...L.:` :'fin..`........4�krr� .: 3F. / iswi.i}.NO..xCv 00... j.�.M^:: ,�'F'i t: i VNh•JY:..Y : .}{+.^...;< :A�` ' 'fN1y}i\� v\U�J. yy� `v.'n N•::.' .Y}:<.. ^.:L'¢;;.J}o},. oo... .3....iso:;h 3"{..:F;Sn,.`F::°:x;t c.,...n,: }:. S. \ �, {:,v '..�n}D:n ..ac}kN:a:,}.,: ...:, .. ., ..-:-: :;: Y: �{� .:...�..o..:x: �,:h\`}�G?n:{�xn �'�. k4... y , ,.(. ..i:%i{.L....:} � '::".'.07T oo .}. �Y".Ab...�,O.vFo: J.`.o.cY ..Wii:v.JpyJ.i�;:!Y::�.�.�: : i�v' n�. v� The$155,000 level of up-front participation will cover an estimated 32%-40°/a of the Airport Area component of the specific plan/EIR costs, depending upon the final contract amount. The City will eventually be able to recover all specific plan costs from property owners as they develop their property once.the properties are annexed. Thus, any planning costs the City incurs can be recovered in the future in the same manner that infrastructure costs are financed. .The City can distribute these costs on an equitable basis among Airport Area property owners, either through impact fees or via an assessment district. The specific plan financing section will identify the most appropriate method. Staff is recommending that the Council support completing the specific plan, using only a small amount of general fund monies and recovering the City costs after the area is annexed, at the time of assessment district collection or property development. Direction#3-Analysis of Specific Plan Boundaries. Council directed staff to prepare an analysis of the annexation area boundaries. Because of the recent action by the Board of Supervisors to rezone about 300 acres of rural land to Industrial land use, staff is recommending that the infrastructure plans and the alternatives discussion of the EIR for the specific plan address the alternative of a boundary that includes the areas rezoned by the County. In addition, the consultant will be asked to analyze the impact of not including certain properties, such as the County Airport and the UNOCAL properties. Staff has reviewed the legal and liability issues associated with annexing the UNOCAL property and can find no significant increase in liability for the .City whether the property is annexed or left unincorporated. A key issue created by leaving either of these properties out of the annexation is that by doing so the City's options for annexing parcels to the south may be limited, and so the current Land Use Element boundaries are preferable. Nevertheless, these alternatives and others will be considered. With the assistance of the Natural Resources Manager, staff will also begin exploring ways that the Unocal property can be enhanced as an open space/wedand area. This analysis will be integrated with the specific planning process. This spring,the City Council may be meeting with the Board of Supervisors to discuss a number of issues, including the potential annexation of the Airport itself; as presently shown in the City's LUE. �-7 However, it was felt by the staff that this is not the proper time to be considering modifications to the City's sphere of influence or to attempt to amend the General Plan, and that such considerations, if they arise, should be a result of the analysis involved in the Specific Plan preparations. Direction#4-CDBG Funding for Airport Area Specific Plan Completion. Pursuant to the previous Council direction, staff included a program in the 1996 CDBG for funding the Airport Area Specific Plan. The Council approved funding$95,000.00 for the cost of preparing the plan. In addition,the County also approved funding for$55,000 of their CDBG allocation for funding the specific plan. These CDBG funds, along with$21,000 from the close-out of a previous State loan, have been reserved for the Airport Area specific plan($171,000 total). Direction#5. Interim Annexation Strategy (Continue to process individual Airport Area annexation proposals as incremental amendments to the Land Use Element). Interim Annexation Issues. Although Council provided this direction to staff in December 1995,the first proposed interim annexation(by P.G. &E.)was stymied by a dilemma: in the absence of a specific plan detailing costs, how could the City assure that properties annexing"in the interim" adequately contribute toward the area-wide,backbone infrastructure that will eventually be necessary to serve the entire annexation area? In addition to this issue,there were a number of other complicated considerations that had not been addressed at the time by the City. Eventually,P.G. &E. stopped pursuing the effort. Since that time, however, several other proposals and inquiries regarding the incremental annexation -of properties in the Airport Area have come forth. A map showing the areas involved in annexation inquiries is provided as Attachment 4. The two projects which most significantly resurfaced the issue were the Ball and Spice Hunter expansions—the former having initiated a development application in the County, and the latter having purchased property in the Airport Area adjacent to the City. Both, however, were interested in annexation to the City if possible(these annexations will be before the Council on April 1 st). In fight of these requests, staff began to pursue the interim annexation issue again in a more comprehensive way, considering such factors as infrastructure capacity, economic development and fiscal stability goals, and infrastructure costs and allocation methods. The Council has received numerous Council Notes, memos, and updates describing how staff worked through these issues in order to process interim annexations like the Spice Hunter and Ball Guitar while at the same time avoiding negative fiscal and service impacts the infrastructure plans and financing mechanisms are intended to resolve. To achieve these broad goals, staff began to prepare a strategy designed to ensure that incremental annexations occur in a way that addresses: • Coping with inadequate infrastructure-existing water and sewer pipes and sewer lift stations have very limited capacity to serve additional development(for example,the Laguna sewer lift station is currently at 95%capacity and the Broad Street lift stations have operational constraints that currently result in intermittent overflows); • Addressing piecemeal extensions of infrastructure without a plan for completing an infrastructure system that will eventually serve the entire area; • Obtaining"fair-share"financing participation from Airport Area property owners as they develop their property so that eventual costs for area-wide improvements(such as intersections and drainage systems) are not concentrated among fewer property owners or by default become the obligation of City residents or property owners. City policy dictates e that new development pay for its fair share of the costs of building new facilities necessary to serve it; • Implementing an open space protection program as required by the General Plan Land Use Element; and • Establishing an accurate and comprehensive financing program that will insure that the necessary improvements are provided and that a financing program to fund the improvements is in place and is adequate. Recommended Interim Annexation Strategy. A strategy has been drafted for addressing these development issues in the interim,until a specific plan is adopted. This"Interim Airport Area Annexation Strategy'will accommodate annexation and development of properties for which the City has adequate infrastructure capacity. It is intended to allow for the annexation of properties that would be developing within the County's jurisdiction while the specific plan is being prepared. It is desirable to limit these annexations because existing infrastructure capacity is currently limited, and it would be best to discourage installing additional infrastructure until the ultimate capacity needed for these extensions is known. Interim annexations should also be limited because the infrastructure fees that would be assessed in the interim are only estimates, actual fees could be higher. A set of criteria has therefore been prepared for Council consideration to create a compromise between the interim annexation needs of property owners with the practical need to recognize infrastructure limitations. The recommended criteria will allow a property within the Airport Area to be considered for annexation prior to adoption of the specific plan under the following circumstances: 1. It is contiguous to existing city limits;and 2. It is within the City's existing urban reserve line;and 3. It is near existing infrastructure;and 9. Existing infrastructure capacity is available to serve the proposed development,and 5. The applicant intends to proceed with development immediately whether metered or not, and thus a development plan for the applicant's property accompanies the application for a nexaton;and 6. The applicannt(s) agree to contribute to the cost of preparing the specific plan and constructing area-wide infrastructure improvements pursuant to the interim Airport Area Annexation Financing Plan. The Interim Strategy will only work as long as existing sewer lift stations and other infrastructure can accommodate the additional development. Run-off and stormwater would need to be retained on-site until area-wide drainage facilities are constructed. Therefore,the interim strategy should be replaced with the specific plan as soon as possible. Contributions to the cost of constructing area-wide facilities would be assessed according to the financing plan that is part of the Interim Annexation Financing Plan (Attachment 5). This financing plan is based on preliminary infrastructure studies,cost estimates, and funding approach assumptions. The specific plan will provide greater detail with greater accuracy. It is important to note that any inaccuracies in assumptions or under-estimates will have a greater adverse effect the longer the interim solution is used. 9 Summary and Conclusion Steps needed to complete previous Council direction and to implement General Plan policy for the Airport Area. The staff recommendation outlines the steps necessary to complete the direction given by the Council in December of 1995 and move toward accomplishing the goal of annexing the Airport Area. The individual recommendations will allow the City to complete the specific plan and have an EIR prepared. This would in turn allow the City to complete the annexation it has pending before LAFCo. Implications ofNot Proceeding: Update of Continuing Development Under County Jurisdiction. In the last 12 months, an additional 221,775 square feet of floor area has been approved or constructed in the Airport Area. This means that in the last five years, about 400,000 square feet of new space has been added in the area. As the area continues to develop outside the City's jurisdiction,buildings are being constructed without Architectural Review Commission review, without the City's approval of impact mitigation, and without participation in the eventual construction of area-wide improvements. In addition, as development continues, Airport Area property owner support for annexation may be diminishing,because those property owners who invest in developing to County standards are not likely to want to pay any costs for additional future development potential in the City. These property owners will have just recently invested in development based upon County standards and are not likely to consider additional investment in the same property for some time. Continued development of the Airport Area within the County's jurisdiction remains likely as time goes by. The more time goes by, the less likely it will become that the City will be able to accomplish its goals involving the Airport Area. Although the City does not agree with this logic, the perceived lack of substantive action by the City to annex the area was a reason recently used by the Board of Supervisors to significantly expand the amount of industrial land south of the City limits and urban reserve line and to remove proposed development restrictions on Airport Area properties. The County has approved redesignating about 300 additional acres of land south of the City's urban reserve line for Industrial land uses. Based on recent Board of Supervisor actions,the City will need to take more definitive actions toward completing the specific plan and annexing the Airport Area to get the support from the Board for containing sprawl and urban development within the City's urban reserve line. CONCURRENCES The staff work and recommendations have been prepared by the Airport Area Staff Team, consisting of representatives from the Community Development,Public Works,Utilities,Finance, and Administration Departments. Members of the team,including major roles and responsibilities,is outlined in Attachment 6. The RFP has also been reviewed by an advisory group of Airport Area property owners who support the scope of work for the planning work that needs to be done. Staff has also carefully coordinated with County Planning Department staff throughout this entire effort. 10 FISCAL EWPACTS The actual costs of a specific plan and its EIR will not be finally determined until the City has received proposals in response to the RFP. However, as mentioned earlier, based upon the range of estimated costs for the specific plan and EIR,the amount of funding already acquired and set aside for this project, and the amount of funding advanced by the property owners, only$7,000 of additional general fund money would be needed to do the necessary work. These funds are available in the existing Economic Development budget. Other fiscal considerations are: Fiscal Impact Update. As mentioned earlier, an update to the work completed by Angus McDonald will be completed by staff as a part of the specific plan process. The tax exchange assumption will be based on the recent concurrence by County staff to apply the countywide tax exchange agreement for raw land to the Airport Area,whereby current and future property tax accrue to the County and current and future sales tax accrue to the City. Cost Recovery Policy. Generally,the City's fiscal policy has been that long-range planning activities are a general fund expense. The approach to the Airport Area specific plan thus far has been that the specific plan is not a typical long-range planning activity. Instead the approach has been that the specific planning costs are more like development costs that fall under the City's policy of development paying its own way. Because the proposed funding strategy includes full cost recovery over time,the specific plan will not require permanent general fund support in the way long-range planning activities do. In addition, it should be noted that the City's current policy for planning activities is for development review fees to recover only 25%of costs. Risk Assessment. The City's funding of the specific plan comes with a risk that much of the area might never annex to the City. The City could complete the plan and have the pending annexation of the whole area turned down by a majority of property owners. This situation is not likely,but it is a possibility. Should the area-wide annexation fail, it is likely that much of the area would annex to the City incrementally over a period of years. The information the specific plan will offer is as important for incremental annexations as is it for a comprehensive annexation. Therefore,because of the need for planning in the area in either case, staff does not see the risk as being substantial. However, without accepting at least some risk, the specific plan will not be done and annexation will not occur. On the other hand,the long-tern development of the area in the County will occur,but without adequate infrastructure to serve the area. In staffs opinion, this represents a much greater risk to the long term well-being of the City. Therefore, if it is the Council's intent to implement the Land Use Elements policies for the Airport Area, the specific plan must be prepared. If properties don't annex immediately after adoption of the plan, the plan will be used to influence the way the area develops under the County's jurisdiction and help the City assure that area wide conditions(e.g. traffic impacts), have been adequately considered by the County. ALTERNATIVES 1. City Funds Entire Planning/EIR Costs If the Council is uncomfortable with the conditions necessary to secure the property owner contributions,the City could choose to front the entire cost of $155,000. The best source of funds for this level of contribution is the General Fund Balance. Based on the mid-year Budget Review, the City will end 1996-97 with fund balances that are 23%of operating expenditures or$527,500 more than the policy level of 200/o. While this option poses added exposure to the City if the entire area does not annex, such outcome would be partially offset as individual properties annex incrementally and pay the fees. As discussed earlier, specific plan and EIR will offer a number of other benefits. �—t✓l 2. No Action. The Council can take no action at this time or continue its consideration to a later time, giving staff direction for an approach to implementing the General Plan's policies for the Airport Area that differs from previous Council direction. If it remains the Council's desire to continue to allow for incremental annexations without preparing a specific plan to comprehensively plan infrastructure for the entire area, the City should at a minimum move forward with water and sewer facilities planning for the City. Existing facilities are at the point that upgrading should be underway. There is very limited water and sewer capacity for additional development in the future annexation areas within the urban reserve line at this time, so preparing water and sewer plans and upgrading facilities should occur even if the Council decides not to proceed with the specific plan. 3. Revise City General Plan goals for annexing the Airport Area. The Council can determine that the General Plan goals for annexing the Airport Area are no longer in the community's best interests or representative of the community's desires and initiate a change to the General Plan provisions, regarding the specific plan requirement and the annexation. The City staff strongly believes that if this area is to be developed consistent with present County and City land use plans,this development should take place within the City and the City should be the agency doing the planning controlling the development, and providing for proper infrastructure to serve the area. In this event,the scope of the water and sewer plans would be significantly revised to exclude this area,but should nonetheless go forward for the balance of the City's General Plan area. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Workscope Portion of RFP 2. Airport Area Property Owner Participation Efforts 3. Specific Plan Contribution Letter 4. Map of Recent Annexation Interest 5. Interim Annexation Financing Plan 6. Airport Area Staff Team 7. Applicable Land Use Element Policies COUNCIL READING FILE December 12' 1995 Council Agenda Report and Council Action Request for Proposals for Airport Area Specific Plan,EIR and Related Master Plans Anpit97.car 12 AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND RELATED FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING B: PRELIMINARY WORK SCOPE OVERVIEW In cooperation with City staff, the consultant will prepare the following documents: • A specific plan for the Airport Area • A city-wide Water Master Plan • A city-wide Wastewater Master Plan • A Master Storm Drainage Plan • A Public Facilities Financing Plan • An environmental impact report The specific plan tasks shall include preparing a draft specific plan that can be recommended to the Planning Commission and the City Council for adoption. The specific plan will comply with the minimum required contents for specific plan stated in California Government Code Section 65451. City staff will prepare the specific plan chapters on land use and open space protection as described in GC 65451(a)(1) and (3). The consultant's planning will focus on water delivery, wastewater, drainage, circulation, public facilities financing, and urban design. All of these topics . shall be addressed by the specific plan as they pertain to the Airport Area. The Water and Wastewater Master Plans, as well as the Master Storm Drainage Plan are necessary to prepare the Airport Area specific plan. Information from these plans will be incorporated into the Airport Area specific plan. Separate stand alone documents for these subjects should also be prepared as their scope will go beyond the boundaries of the Airport Area. The draft environmental impact report (EIR) shall be prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines. Following public hearings and direction by the City Council, the consultant will prepare a final EIR including comments and responses, and a document reflecting the adopted Specific Plan. The EIR will be an integral part of the specific planning process rather than be an after-the-plan exercise. The environmental evaluation should start early enough in the process to enable environmental considerations to influence decisions regarding preferred alternatives for land use distribution, circulation, and infrastructure. A analysis of the EIR's project alternatives that allows for a detailed comparison of infrastructure capacities, design of facilities, public services and costs is a required component of this project. For this reason, engineering and fiscal work should consider project alternatives early in the process, and environmental evaluation of infrastructure layout should occur during the planning process. B- 1 ATTACHMENT 1 1-13 In their proposals, prospective consultants may recommend changes to the details of the following work items based on their experience and independent judgment. The final work scope will be subject to City approval and will be an attachment to the consultant services agreement. The consultant shall confer with staff to discuss the accomplishment of milestones and drafts of completed work. At the final draft stage of the plans being prepared, the consultant will provide a presentation of the plan to the City Council, at the direction of the City's Project Manager. PRODUCT FORMAT The requested plans will be published as: • 8.5" X 1 I" paper documents • Printed both sides • Binding to be decided (plastic comb anticipated) • Use of color minimized (to enable legible black and white photocopying) • Use of oversize(fold-out) pages minimized The documents will be written in a simple, direct style, and will be grammatically correct. Units of measure will be metric, with English equivalents in parentheses. The consultant will provide: • One camera-ready original of a draft Water Master Plan; • One camera-ready original of a draft Wastewater Master Plan; • One camera-ready original of a draft Master Storm Drainage Plan; • Fifteen copies of an administrative draft Specific Plan for review and direction by City staff, prior to publication of a public review draft; • Five copies of an administrative draft environmental impact report for review and direction by City staff, prior to publication of a public review draft; • One camera-ready original of the draft Specific Plan for public review and hearings; • One camera-ready original of a public review draft environmental impact report; • One camera-ready original of the adopted Specific Plan; • One camera-ready original of a final environmental impact report; • One computer file (3.5" disc) in Microsoft Word (version 7.0) or a compatible file format, for each of the adopted plans. B- 2 WORK ITEMS - • .:S."..:.,it::,�•X,..t.W,f:`}.'',gay,.a':.<'�i:,�:c.3:�.x.,.^?`:aCa::'s.'.\az:.�'w<iiv:i:::J;:.x:a.:'.v.<y0:::?,'..:;t..,:�,�2x2.i:u;;riv•u\,.:a,\,:,+:c::,\w:.;.::..uJ\f.n:2A:Cw:.::n::\a<vIBM= JJv:a.t..J::..,t.\.w.'.ni�,,:;.w.'b,.;Jw."..,x..JvA,..:a•to\e:,�.m...3i\t...`.,.i•,RS,<.,...«\>.ti;.,:.i>a:.fi..:.:ix,:.a<t,'i.:::..,,,.,•b.....t.,v:x,v.,.u,....:..xt:w,n.a.,...A.vJv:i.v..,vkuy.:aac..,v\«s..:,....aa...v,a:::<3:.i,.a.i::::c:`.;a..?::.,:.:.::v.i,,.:..,',:a:vv:,::',..Y<:i.'.<.i.Ci,.vN.:;..,..:......::ix..:,,.w.•:,.,..fi..�t,..Y:.,Nx::?.:%.:�.,:.,>.�x...;:.i,..:i,.!:ih:.:...+ >,..\t.w.\.v:,•,,�:\.::xv,r.,:. ` 1. LAND USE The land use designations and standards of the specific plan will be consistent with the adopted Land Use Element of the City's General Plan (see also the discussion of alternatives under the "EMR" heading below.) City staff will prepare the draft chapters on land use, development . standards, and open space protection described in GC 65451(a)(1) and (3). This information will be supplemented by the urban design plan prepared by the consultant. The consultant will integrate all information and format the text and prepare graphics for consistency with the rest of the specific plan. City land use plans and data will be an important factor in consultants planning and will be provided to the consultant at the beginning of the project. :.Au• . .yR.•q,. "� R nv..:rliiaiiti 2NOA dC. t�h,`v.Hs�•$...',1��, M1 1w,S,'v.`�:}\gi�":.\,Y'smv vr�\N;�?wx,:y,�1i. x. ?k?1q:,,.,��SCv t :4`uy�y �n .x�,.:.:k..�i..'�Ri...�:,��((.aayy}}2 f•,:J:.:.Y..:,..: \, ...k\\..<. �,.'tr:tlyyT:d.x�":,ji�v .\.%:\4,:JnWx:G:... :.J:.'..:C. ..�:i'c}�: ...Jti J.ki?'tt +P\*.\,x i.v. ,{.' v O > v,. ati, � C; •C v. ,v. ,. J v Lv. \'..:. < Kv, �, 2. INFRASTRUCTURE The consultant will prepare infrastructure plans capable of economically supporting the planned land uses and of being integrated with existing and planned City infrastructure outside the specific plan area. Infrastructure planning should be coordinated with the environmental analysis as described in the OVERVIEW and in Part 5 of this workscope. The following infrastructure components shall be addressed: 2.1 Water Distribution The City of San Luis Obispo is interested in developing a Water Master Plan to identify facilities necessary to serve new annexation areas, address existing system deficiencies, and provide recommendations in other areas relative to city-wide water system facilities and overall operations. The goal is to review the raw water delivery systems, water treatment plant facilities and water distribution system and provide recommendations for improved operations, elimination of identified deficiencies, and identification of facilities necessary to serve the City as a whole, as well as future annexation areas per the City's adopted General Plan. The document will provide a long range plan to guide implementation of recommended improvements and expansion of services to future annexation areas. Section I below provides additional information relative to the scope of work for this study. Section II provides an overview of the City's current water related facilities and Section III provides a listing of past reports and studies which are available for review at the Utilities Department Office at 955 Morro Street. B- 3 Z Scope of Work The following sections identify general areas of the water system that must be included in the plan. Based on the evaluation and identified areas for improvements, the Consultant shall provide recommendations, cost estimates and a long range implementation plan for all areas identified below. The implementation plan shall identify additional studies (if necessary), design, and construction activities. The consultant shall work closely with Water Division staff in identifying issues and deficiencies, and in developing solutions and alternatives. A Raw Water Conveyance Facilities Evaluate existing raw water conveyance facilities from Salinas Reservoir and Whale Rock Reservoir and provide recommendations for operational and infrastructure improvements. The Salinas Reservoir conveyance facilities were constructed in 1941. The facilities are owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and operated by the County of San Luis Obispo. The City of San Luis Obispo pays all costs associated with operations, maintenance and capital improvements. .Existing operations shall be reviewed and recommendations provided for enhanced efficiency and cost saving measures. Several years ago, the County initiated an interior inspection of the pipeline (see reference in Section P which provided a detailed review of all pipe and joints along the 9 mile pipeline. This information shall be reviewed and the additional facilities related to the conveyance facilities (pump stations, standpipes, etc.) shall be evaluated and all deficiencies noted. Recommended improvements, cost estimates, and phasing plans shall be developed. The Whale Rock conveyance facilities were constructed in 1961 and a major upgrade to the two pump stations were completed in 1993. The consultant shall review existing operations and provide recommendations for improvements and cost saving measures. B. Water Treatment Plant The Consultant shall review and evaluate.the existing operations at the water treatment plant and provide recommendations for improved operations and efficiency. The Consultant shall evaluate the ability of the treatment plant to meet future water demands at full build-out based on the City's adopted General Plan. Areas to be included are: water quality constraints, treatment plant process limitations and improvements, treated water storage, and pumping capacity limitations. Cost estimates and phasing recommendations shall be developed. C. Distribution Facilities The Consultant shall develop a computer model of the City's water system using Cybenrnet Version 2.16 software. The model shall be developed for the City's entire water system to provide the ability to model the main pipelines and components of the system. The model shall be in sufficient detail to analyze the options available to correct existing system deficiencies and areas for improvement as well as the new facilities necessary to serve the annexation areas. B- 4 The Consultant shall evaluate and recommend appropriate design assumptions relative to the City's water supply system. Areas to be addressed include fire flow requirements, water demand projections, hydrant spacing, and storage capacity. The water system shall be evaluated to insure adequate storage capacity, water pressures, fire flows, etc. Recommended system improvements shall be provided, along with cost estimates and suggested phasing strategies. The City of San Luis Obispo's General Plan identifies a number of areas which are planned for future annexation into the City such as the Airport Area, Froom Ranch, Dalidio property, etc.. The facilities necessary to serve the annexation areas shall be evaluated and preliminary design developed for the areas. This design shall include all new facilities (pipelines, tanks, etc.) and upgrades to existing facilities necessary to serve the areas. The overall goal will be to provide a water facilities plan which can guide development as it occurs in the future. The Consultant shall develop recommendations for phasing construction of new infrastructure necessary to serve the expansion areas.- Review existing policies relative to oversizing of facilities such as waterlines. Provide recommendations for policy revisions or alternative approaches. An additional area of concern in the Airport Area relates to the petroleum byproducts soil contamination near the Unocal facilities. The issues relative to increased costs associated with hazardous materials, placement of new facilities, and other special precautions shall be addressed- The ddressedThe Consultant shall provide recommendations for typical replacement schedules for pipelines, pump stations, storage tanks, etc. Options for rehabilitation of existing facilities shall be addressed and recommendations provided. The City's existing aboveground facilities shall be surveyed and recommended replacement schedules developed for each location. An evaluation of various water meter remote reading systems shall be provided and implementation alternatives prepared. Recommendations shall be provided and a cost/benefit analysis prepared for each alternative. D. Final Water Facilities Master Plan Report The consultant shall finalize and present all information requested in this scope of work in a bound report, with copies in a digital form compatible with City systems that will comprise the completed Water Facilities Master Plan. IL Current Facilities Description A Water Sources The City of San Luis Obispo currently utilizes water from three sources of supply. The vast majority of the water necessary to meet the water demands of the community comes from two surface water reservoirs: Salinas (Santa Margarita Lake) and Whale Rock Reservoirs. A small amount of local groundwater is also utilized to meet daily demands. Groundwater currently represents approximately 5 B- 5 /_17 percent of the total annual water supply for the City of San Luis Obispo. The City's water demand in 1996 was approximately 6,300 acre-feet per year. The City is also currently pursuing three additional supplemental water supply projects to meet the future water demands of the community. These are the Water Reuse Project, Nacimiento Pipeline Project, and the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project. B. Water Treatment Facilities The existing water treatment plant is located on Stenner Creek Road, northwest of the Cal Poly campus. The facility was originally constructed in 1964 to provide treatment of surface water from Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs. The plant was originally designed to treat up to eight million gallons per day(mgd). In 1977,the plant was upgraded to provide 11.5 mgd of treatment capacity but actually treated up to 12 mgd for limited periods during peak water demands. A major upgrade to the treatment plant was completed in January 1995. The upgraded facility utilizes ozone as the primary disinfectant instead of chlorine. The water treatment plant is a conventional plant that includes coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, filtration, and disinfection. The upgrade project increased the capacity of the plant from 11.5 mgd to 16.0 mgd. This was accomplished through increased filter efficiency and the ability to bypass the sedimentation process (e. direct filtration) for water delivered from Whale Rock Reservoir. C. Distribution Facilities The water distribution system delivers potable water from the water treatment plant and wells to customers and fire hydrants via three storage reservoirs, six pump stations, nine water tanks, and approximately 150 miles of water mains. It is unlikely this basic distribution pattern will change, since the water treatment plant will continue to be the principal source of treated water for the City. There are approximately 150 miles of water distribution pipelines throughout the City. The engineering estimate for the life expectancy of these facilities is 50 years. Complete replacement within the term of life expectancy would require that the City replace an average of 2% of the system infrastructure each year. Pressure Zones The water delivered from the treatment plant is split into two main distribution networks. About 52% flows into the City by gravity and the other 48% is pumped to a storage reservoir at a higher elevation and then flows into the various service areas by gravity and through pressure reducing valves(PRV's). The most apparent strain is in the pumped delivery system. Since electrical power for pumping water is a major expense, a goal is to develop a system which minimizes pumping. The goal of the water supply system is to deliver water at pressures between 40 pounds per square inch and 80 pounds per square inch at the customer's meter without using a pressure reducing valve on the pipe connecting the water main to the meter. This pressure range will meet the needs of most irrigation B- 6 1-If sprinklers and other uses, and provide adequate pressure for fire sprinkler systems: Pressure zones are established in the distribution system to maintain these pressure ranges. The City currently has 15 pressure zones divided between the gravity and pumped delivery systems. The City of San Luis Obispo requires all new buildings, including residential, to install fire sprinkler systems. These systems have been designed based on 90% of the available pressure in the area. Due to these design constraints, significant changes to pressure zones in the future may not be acceptable. Also, due to the age of the infrastructure throughout the system, minor increases in pressure have caused numerous waterline breaks in the past. Water Storage Facilities Water storage facilities are necessary to provide water during peak demand periods and emergency situations such as fires. The City has twelve water storage facilities, seven of which are steel storage tanks ranging in size from .04 to 4 million gallons, one .35 million gallon buried concrete tank, three concrete facilities with a capacity of.03 to 7.5 million gallons, and one hydropneumatic station. The total maximum storage capacity is 24.6 million gallons. Water Transmission System Parts of the City's water transmission system are over 100 years old. Most of the pipes are made of cast iron. Other pipes are made of asbestos cement (located primarily in the Laguna Lake area), or, since the mid-1970's, PVC. Water pipes serve two basic functions. The larger pipes or transmission mains move large volumes of water from one portion of the City to another. They range in size from 12 inches to 30 inches. The smaller pipes or distribution mains are to distribute water within a local area and deliver it to each property in the City. They range in size from 2 inches (n the older portions of the City)to 12 inches. The current minimum City standard is 8 inches for distribution mains. Water from the water treatment plant in Stenner Canyon is transported through a 30 inch transmission line 3,500 feet to the transfer pumps (located on Stenner Canyon Road). The transfer pumps take approximately 48% of the water, increase the pressure, and then provide water to Stenner Canyon Reservoir, Cal Poly, and other portions of the City, generally north and east of the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. From the transfer pumps, there are two 24 inch transmission lines that move water about one mile to the city limits. One pipe is the high pressure line from the transfer pumps and the other pipe has lower pressure supplied directly from the water treatment plant's clear well. Fire Protection System Fire protection is one of the most important services the City provides to its residents. The fire protection system is a network of 1,661 public hydrants and 160 private hydrants. The Las Pilitas fire in 1985 nearly exceeded the City's capability to supply sufficient water for fire suppression. The Johnson Avenue and Orcutt Road areas are the weakest areas for emergency water supply, because less than 3.5%of the total storage is in this area and our delivery from the distribution system is limited to about 2,000 gallons a minute. The alternatives for improving this situation are to increase the water storage capacity in that area or increase the capacity of the transmission delivery system. B- 7 Q Fire flows can now be met in all of the other gravity zones. There are local distribution problems within all zones that will be remedied by removal of deteriorated and undersized pipes as part of the ongoing capital replacement program. Ill Previous Reports and Studies 1. Whale Rock Pump Stations Preliminary Design of Upgrade and Expansion, Leedshill-Herkenhof, November 1989. 2. Preliminary Draft Report Basis of Design for Whale Rock Pump Stations, Leedshill-Herkenhofl; August 1990. 3. Operation and Maintenance Manuals for Whale Rock Upgrade of Existing Pump Facilities, Volumes I-IV, August 1993. 4. Water Treatment Plant Modifications and Ozone Pilot Study Technical Memorandum: Raw Water Characteristics&Treatment Objectives, Black&Veatch, October 1989. 5. Water Treatment Plant Modifications and Ozone Pilot Study Technical Memorandum: Plant Hydraulics, Black&Veatch, December 1989. 6. Water Treatment Plant Modifications & Ozone Pilot Study Final Report, Black & Veatch, June 1990. 7. Water Management Plan, Public Works Department, April 1989. 8. Urban Water Management Plan, City of San Luis Obispo, December 1990. 9. Urban Water Management Plan, Utilities Department, November 1994. 10. Operation and Maintenance Manual for Stenner Carryon Hydroelectric Plant, Public Services, November 1984. 11. Municipal Water Distribution System Improvements Preliminary Engineering Information, City Water Department, February 1974. 12. City of San Luis Obispo Water Supply Study, Engineering- Science, Inc., April 1977. 13. Hathway Pump Station Evaluation, Boyle Engineering, May 23, 1990. 14. Downtown Water System Model Calibration-Draft Report, Boyle Engineering, August 1, 1990. 15. Foothill/Reservoir No. 1 Zone Analysis, Boyle Engineering, March 28, 1991. B- 8 q �'nc� 16. Groundwater Utilization Assessment, Boyle Engineering, July 1991. 17. Preliminary Specific Plan Analysis for the San Luis Obispo County Airport Area Specific Plan, Willdan Associates, April 1988. 2.2 Wastewater The City of San Luis Obispo is interested in developing a Wastewater Master Plan to identify facilities . necessary to serve new annexation areas, improve existing system deficiencies and provide recommendations in other areas relative to city-wide wastewater system facilities and overall operations. The goal is to review wastewater treatment facilities and the wastewater collection system and provide recommendations for improved operations, elimination of identified deficiencies and identification of facilities necessary to serve the City as a whole as well as future annexation areas per the City's adopted General Plan. The document will provide a long range plan to guide implementation of recommended improvements and expansion of services to future annexation areas. Section I below provides additional information relative to the scope of work for this study. Section II provides an overview of the City's current wastewater related facilities and Section III provides a listing of past reports and studies which are available for review at the Utilities office at 955 Morro Street. I. .Scope of Work The following sections identify general areas of the wastewater system that must be included in the plan. Based on the evaluation and identified areas for improvements, the consultant shall provide recommendations, cost estimates and a long range implementation plan for all area identified below. The implementation plan shall identify additional studies (if necessary), design and construction activities. The consultant shall work closely with Wastewater Division staff in identifying issues and deficiencies, and in developing solutions and alternatives. A. Water Reclamation Facility The consultant shall review and evaluate the existing operations at the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) and provide recommendations for improved operations and efficiency. The Consultant shall evaluate the ability of the WRF to meet future wastewater demands at full build-out based on the City's adopted General Plan. Areas to be included are: water quality constraints and treatment process limitations and improvements. Cost estimates and phasing recommendations shall be developed. B. Collection System The Consultant shall evaluate and recommend appropriate design assumptions relative to the City s wastewater collection system. Areas to be addressed include, sewer main and trunk line capacity projections and lift station capacities. B- 9 �—� The wastewater collection system shall be evaluated to insure adequate sewer main and trunk line capacities and lift station capacities. Recommended system improvements shall be provided, along with cost estimates and suggested phasing strategies. The City of San Luis Obispo's General Plan identifies a number of areas which are planned for future annexation in the City such as the Airport Area, Froom Ranch, Dalidio property, etc... The facilities necessary to serve the annexation areas shall be evaluated and preliminary design developed for the areas. The design shall include all new facilities (pipeline, lift stations, etc.) and upgrades to existing facilities necessary to serve the areas. The overall goal will be to provide a wastewater facilities plan which can guide development as it occurs in the future. The Consultant shall develop recommendations for phasing construction of new infrastructure necessary to serve the expansion areas, review existing policies relative to oversizing of facilities such as sewer mains and lift stations, and provide recommendations for policy revisions or alternative approaches. An additional area of concern in the Airport Area relates to petroleum soil contamination near the Unocal facilities. The issues relative to increased costs associated with hazardous materials, placement of new facilities and other special precautions shall be addressed. The Consultant shall provide recommendations for typical replacement schedules for pipelines, lift stations, etc.. Options for rehabilitation of existing facilities shall be addressed and recommendations provided. An evaluation of the City's approach to handling M related problems and issues shall be provided and. implementation alternatives prepared. Recommendations shall be provided and a cost/benefit analysis prepared for each alternative. D. Final Wastewater Facilities Master Plan Report The consultant shall finalize and present all information requested in this scope of work in a bound report, with copies in a digital form compatible with City systems that will comprise the completed Wastewater Facilities Master Plan H. Current Futilities Description. A. Wastewater Treatment Facilities. The City's Water Reclamation Facility(WRF) is located at the Southern portion of the City on Prado Road. Originally built in the 1920's the WRF completed its latest upgrade in 1994. The upgraded facility is a tertiary plant that includes clarification, biofiltration, activated sludge/nitrification, final clarification, filtration, cooling, chlorination and dechlorination. Currently ADWF is 4.5 MGD with capacity at 5.1 MGD. Peak wet weather flow design was increased to 22 MGD. B- 10 B. Collection System The wastewater collection system collects and conveys wastewater from customers via 130 miles of sewer mains. The system has eight pump stations, 17 siphons, several large trunk lines and one large diameter interceptor. Lift Stations The City has eight lift stations. The stations are all Smith and Loveless underground dry well models with pump capacities ranging from 260 gpm to 1800 gpm. Several of the stations experience operational difficulties due to level control problems, I/I or capacity. Collection System Facilities Portions of the collection system are almost 100 years old and are made up of a variety of materials including terra cota, vitrified clay pipe (VCP), asbestos cement, cast iron, PVC, and steel. Pipe sizes range from 6 inches to 48 inches, with the majority of the system being 6" VCP. The current minimum standard is 8 inches for sewer mains. Much of the collection system was constructed before 1960 and consists of VCP with mortared joints. This older portion of the system has settled, cracked and/or has serious root intrusion which has allowed significant I/I into the system. A recent basin investigation has also pinpointed older inferior private sewer laterals as a significant source of the IR. In 1990 the City installed an interceptor line that conveys the large IR flows to the WRF eliminating overflows in the City. The.Utilities department is also proposing a voluntary private sewer lateral rehabilitation program to assist residents who would like to replace their old inferior sewer laterals. This program along with mainline replacement is hoped to gradually control UI. III. Previous Reports and Studies 1. Master Water and Sewage Plan, CDM Inc.,December 1972. 2. Sewer System Study for Southerly Portion of City Planning Area, Jenks& Adamson, 1975 3. Wastewater Management Plan, CH2M Hill, September 1986. 4. Major Infiltration/Inflow Source Detection Study, CI-12M Hill, September 1986. 5. Letter Report IR Evaluation Plan,Brown&Caldwell,December 1986. 6. M Study-Flow Graphs,Brown&Caldwell,December 1986-March 1987. 7. Wastewater Management Plan&Executive Study,Brown and Caldwell, October 1987. B- 11 /-�23 8. Lateral Investigation&Rehabilitation Report, Brown& Caldwell, September 1988. 9. WWTP Upgrade& Sewer Line Replacements Final Report,Brown& Caldwell,March 1990. 10. Results of Site Assessment - Unocal Pipeline Proposed Tank Farm Road Sewer Line, Unocal Corp-ERS, September 1996. 11. Preliminary Specific Plan Analysis for the San Luis Obispo County Airport Area Specific Plan, Willdan Associates, April 1988. 2.3 Master Storm Drainage Plan for the Airport Area L Reconnaissance and Data Collection The Consultant shall perform field reconnaissance of the area of study and acquire and review available information, including, but not limited to: • 1988 Willdan Associates, Preliminary Specific Plan Analysis for the San Luis Obispo County Airport Area Specific Plan • 1986 Wallace& Assoc., "Master Storm Drain Plan for Airport Area" • 1974 Zone 9 Flood Management Study- Nolte and Assoc. • Edna Islay Area Specific Plan-Drainage Section • 1983 Flood Management Policy- City of San Luis Obispo • Draft Margarita Area Specific Plan • SLO General Plan -Land Use and Circulation Elements • Current City Storm Drainage Design Guidelines • Current SLO County Storm Drainage Design Guidelines • Existing Electronic GIS files of study area- including aerial photography and digitized contours • FEMA FIRM panels for Applicable Areas within the City of San Luis Obispo and San Luis Obispo County • Existing rainfall data as compiled by SLO County and/or California Department of Natural Resources • Any documentation available from the"in progress" Flood Management and Natural Resources Study • USGS Quad Sheets These documents, as well as other documents deemed important by the City of San Luis Obispo, will be reviewed prior to and/or as a part of performing subsequent tasks outlined in this Scope of Work. B- 12 -A H. Design Philosophy It shall be the goal of the Storm Drainage Master Plan to limit flows from the total development scenario to those flows expected from the undeveloped scenario. In order to achieve that goal, the consultant will need to consider the use of master/regional storm drainage detention facilities, on-site detention facilities or a combination of both. It is the City's desire that master storm drainage detention facilities be favored in order to allow full development of lands within the Specific Plan area without any necessity to construct any mitigation facilities within San Luis Obispo Creek. It is noted that some areas already developed have on-site detention facilities. The consultant shall take special care to identify riparian areas impacted by any proposed facilities and identify mitigation measures to enhance and/or recreate additional such amenities. 11L Hydrologic Analysis The Consultant will formulate a hydrologic model of the watershed and sub-basins impacting and comprising the Airport Area Specific Plan study area. The consultant shall, after calibrating the model, model the 10-year, 25 year and 100-year events for flows into San Luis Obispo-Creek as a pre-existing totally undeveloped basin. The model shall then be run again assuming full development, as described in the Airport Area Specific Plan and the City of San Luis Obispo Land Use Element/General Plan, for the same 10-year, 25 year and 100-year events. It will be the consultant's task to design and create an implementation plan for a drainage system which will allow for the abandonment of those on-site facilities upon, and only upon, annexation to the City. Likewise the consultant shall study the effects upon the Creek of the delay in time of concentration of flood flows from the study area, due to proposed and existing detention basins, upon flows volumes in the creek. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' HEC-I watershed model (or equal) will be used to simulate flow rates and volumes that would occur at appropriate nodal points of concentration during a 10-year, 25 year and a 100-year storm event. Based upon a review of available information and field reconnaissance, existing watershed and sub-basin boundaries will be developed by Consultant. Subsequent preliminary assumptions regarding alignment and types of drainage infrastructure components(i.e., channels and storm drains) will be superimposed onto the overall watershed information and preliminary routing assumptions shall be developed. Precipitation data and distributions available from the California Department of Water Resources for the City of San Luis Obispo shall be used in the modeling effort. Impervious cover and lag time assumptions shall conform with values inherent to the land uses represented on the Draft Airport Area Specific Plan and surrounding land uses as identified by the Land Use Element of the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan. Based upon initial sets of assumptions, the HEC-I watershed model will be formulated and subsequently modified as refinement of the drainage infrastructure occurs through the performance of subsequent work tasks. Should a need for one or more regional stormwater B- 13 600 r detention facilities become apparent during refinement of the drainage infrastructure design, the HEC-1 model will be modified to include routing of flood flows through these facilities. The HEC-1 model will ultimately be finalized by the Consultant to reflect final components of the Storm Drainage Master Plan. In determining the basin and sub-basins within the area under study, the consultant shall set flight panels according to the City's coordinate grid system, capture the area by digital aerial orthophotography(black and white-- pixel 0.28m or less), plot contours to 0.5M(accuracy: 0.2M) via a digital elevation model, plot a planametric view and reproduce those results on CD at a scale of 1:500 to match City grid (approximately 22 tiles). Of the flight panels, at least two shall be of USGS accuracy and tie to the City's coordinate system and at least one shall be located on either a horizontal or vertical City grid line. Data for these points shall be given in both horizontal and vertical measurements. After establishing base and supplemental horizontal control for the area the Consultant shall revise existing City street center line data for the area to first order accuracy. Consultant shall revise existing City parcel line data from existing survey data available and from information available from the aerial photographs. All information developed shall be made available in AutoCad drawing file format. For areas outside of the Specific Plan area, existing aerial photography shall be acceptable to the City however the consultant may wish to propose additional work in order to achieve consistent or more accurate results. Consultant shall provide in the cost estimate the additional cost of providing digital orthophotography in color. IV Hydraulic Analysis As infrastructure proposals become more refined, the Consultant will verify the effectiveness of the proposed overall drainage infrastructure components utilizing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' HECRAS (IEC-2) model for proposed channels, the Kentucky Pipe model for proposed storm drains and the HEC-1 model for regional stormwater detention basins. If hydraulic analyses performed indicate a need to adjust the hydrologic model or drainage infrastructure components, these adjustments will be made and re-tested until the desired hydraulic criteria and compatibility with hydrologic assumptions are achieved. V Drainage Infrastructure The primary elements comprising the stormwater runoff conveyance system for the City under buildout conditions will be formulated by the Consultant. The completed drainage infrastructure plan shall include the alignment and sizes of proposed channels(new or existing- natural or manmade), storm drains, and regional stormwater detention basins, including data such as: flowline elevations, flow volumes, shear forces and sediment loads at selected key locations and preliminary slopes where appropriate. All data must be calculated and submitted in a metric format. All mapping produced must be in a digital format acceptable to the City and a copy of the final documentation shall be included as a part of the final report. It is expected that an initial layout for the proposed drainage infrastructure will be formulated at the early stages of Storm B- 14 Drainage Master Plan preparation. However, it is anticipated that the proposed drainage infrastructure will frequently be refined in conjunction with: • the refinement of hydrologic and hydraulic information • the addressing of other concerns identified through coordination with the City of San Luis Obispo and other interested parties. As part of the refinement process, evaluations of the relative cost effectiveness for channels versus storm drains, and the possible need for regional stormwater detention, will be performed. The recommended drainage infrastructure shall also consider future opportunities for retrofitting of existing structures/basins or the placement of proposed basins to meet Best Management Practices (BMPs)to improve water quality associated with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program, in anticipation that the City eventually fall under its jurisdiction. VI. Right-of-Way Assessments The Consultant will perform preliminary assessments of the right-of-way needed to accommodate drainage infrastructure proposals, utilizing information presented on available assessor's record maps as supplemented by the City of San Luis Obispo. Consultant should recommend right.of way or easement bands along natural waterways to allow maintenance access. VII. Design Guidelines The Consultant will prepare guidelines for the hydraulic function and aesthetic treatment of channels, storm drains, drainage crossings and detention basins as a part of preparing the Storm Drainage Master Plan. These guidelines will be discussed and documented, but will also be graphically represented using cross-sections, sketches, charts and other demonstrative techniques. These design guidelines should be coordinated with the urban design plan described in part 4 of the work items to be completed. VIII. Phasing Concepts General discussions and recommendations will be provided by the Consultant to address priorities and phasing of infrastructure improvements to conform with and accommodate the needs of land development activities as they occur. These recommendations will be based upon flood control impacts and needs, costs effectiveness and requirements for providing capacity for future infrastructure. B- 15 IX Operation and Maintenance Issues Consultant shall recommend how ownership and maintenance of various components of the drainage system shall be accomplished. Consultant shall propose a maintenance program and recommend a financing system to provide for ongoing system maintenance. X Cost Estimates The Consultant will provide construction cost estimates for each component of the recommended drainage infrastructure, and these costs will be subtotaled for each primary drainage conveyance system serving large portions of the Airport Area Specific Plan area. Costs shall not only be categorized by facilities which benefit sub zones but also by those which benefit future areas not within the Specific Plan area and those which benefit existing developed areas. The City of San Luis Obispo will provide the Consultant with unit costs for right-of-way for various land use areas. Construction costs will be represented in current dollars, with general recommendations being provided to convert values to future dollars. The consultant's phased implementation plan (mentioned elsewhere) shall identify the cost's associated with that plan and recommend an appropriate financing program . XI. Final.Storm Drainage Master Plan Report The Consultant shall finalize and present all of the information performed as a part of this Scope of Work in a bound report, with copies in a digital form compatible with City systems that will comprise the completed Storm Drainage Master Plan for the Airport Area. 2.4 Transportation I. Review all existing documentation: A. General Plan Circulation Element B. Bicycle Transportation Plan C. Traffic impact studies for: 1. Prado Road Project 2. Prado Road Interchange PSR 3. Marigold Project 4. others as identified D. General Plan Land Use Element Land Use Element E. Preliminary Specific Plan Analysis for the San Luis Obispo County Airport Area Specific Plan,Willdan Associates, April 1988. F. Draft Master Plan for County Airport. In Progress II. Investigate soils of the area and determine type and structural strength B- 16 ���0 M. Capacity Analysis For the years 2005 and 2020, analyze the traffic impacts and improvements needed for peak p.m. traffic at the following locations assuming a linear growth pattern between 1997 and 2020 which yields full buildout of the airport area and the rest of the City's General Plan by the year 2020. A. Intersection of Tank Farm Road and Higuera B. Intersection of Tank Farm Road and Broad C. Intersection of Tank Farm Road and Santa Fe D. Intersection of Higuera Street and Prado Road E. Intersection of Tank Fane Road and Long Street F. Intersection of Higuera Street and Surburban Road G. Interchange of Los Osos Valley Road and Hwy 101 H. Interchange of planned Prado Road and Hwy 101 I. Broad Street corridor from Orcutt Road to 4km south of Buckley Road J. Higuera Street corridor from Hwy 101 to Prado Road K. Tank Farm Road Corridor from Broad Street to Higuera Street IV Alternatives Analysis Review and provide recommendations of ways to increase circulation/transportation capacity without increasing right-of-way requirements: A. increased use of transit B. increased use of tdm/tsm C. use of roundabouts in lieu of traditional traffic signals D. realignment of Prado Road and/or Tank Fane Road to provide freeway to Broad Street accessibility for the benefit of existing traffic, that generated by Airport Area traffic and that generated from other areas within the City designated for future growth E. others as identified. V. Hazardous Materials Avoidance Review all documentation available related to Unocal hazardous materials and pollution in the Airport area; wetland habitat; its impacts on constructibility and cost impacts to construction. Recommend alternatives that provide for connections between Broad and Higuera Streets in a manner that optimizes cost effectiveness and environmental protection. VI. Stanrlar(ls Recommend standards for adoption detailing optimum: A. driveway spacing along roadways(e.g. 100m)and from intersections (e.g. 15m) B. distance between signals (e.g. 400m) B 17 1 -� p C. breaks in median islands which would allow left turn movements (e.g. 200m) D. widths of medians E. appropriate forms of landscaping for medians islands F. street lighting standards for industrial and commercial areas G. the use of shared driveways H. width of driveways and structural design of driveways I. design elements of sidewalks-their preferred width and intersection design with both corners and driveways to meet current ADA design standards I parkway width, landscaping, and design elements K. appropriate TI and R values for roadway design purposes L. structural design of roadways VII. Alternative Paving Materials Review and recommend alternate forms of roadway construction including the use of concrete brick, concrete, rubberized asphalt, reuse of existing materials(cold mix recycle), etc. Provide a recommended material and design based upon benefit/cost ratio including factors such as pavement life, maintenance impacts as well as original cost. B- 18 1 ��� VIII. Graphics and Drmpings Prepare City Standard Drawings for adoption of new standards which are a result of this study. DIG Construction Cost Estimates Provide construction cost estimates to accomplish all recommended improvements for the two time periods studied. Include right-of-way acquisition, preliminary design, environmental review, hazardous mitigation, design, and actual construction plus contingencies. X. Implementation Strategies Recommend an implementation strategy based upon priorities of safety and traffic capacity to guide staff in the gradual construction of the improvements needed for the two time frames identified. i'aH i$?..a(< C Y.0\U..'>v.: ,�,>f$S.f�].f )': •} : .v .. C {2} < $`t } { :$ * C a"}'\#4.,{#f4.i a,C. n u . ' .• ' hu.na'a.vaP\ff�pf:0.,54%3.vY:.aaw.avma.aWm�333.akaaaavavaaMaw.v.w✓:va�vaC'w}Rvava a 3. PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN It is the City's policy that new development pay its fair share of the cost of constructing the facilities necessary to serve it. As such, a critical component of this specific plan will be a clear and "doable" strategy for funding the needed infrastructure improvements in the airport area. The financing plan must be specific enough that it can provide a meaningful implementation tool upon specific plan adoption; major fee or assessment issues can not be deferred to some future date. The resulting plan should give policy-makers and landowners a sound basis for understanding the costs of the project, the allocation of costs to various properties, and the best financing mechanism. I. Scope of Work The plan should cover the following key areas: ■ Water, sewer, circulation and drainage improvement costs; and open space in-lieu fees. ■ Allocation of improvement costs between currently developed and undeveloped property. ■ Allocation of costs among land uses (residential, commercial, office, industrial). ■ Basis for allocating costs (such as per unit, per acre, per square foot, per equivalent dwelling unit). ■ Phasing of improvements and absorption rates: what is the relationship between when and where the improvements will be needed, and when and where properties are likely to be developed? ■ Best funding methods (such as direct developer responsibility, impact fees, assessment district). B- 19 II. Preferred Sub-Contractor In October of 1993, the City entered into an agreement with Angus McDonald & Associates to prepare a fiscal impact analysis (phase 1 work) and a public facilities financing plan (phase 2 work) for the proposed airport area annexation. Phase 1 work was completed in February of 1994; however, phase 2 work has not been initiated, and is now included as an integral part of this larger, more comprehensive workscope. Because of their previous work on this project, and their.understanding of the policy and fiscal issues surrounding this annexation area, we would prefer that Angus McDonald & Associates be part of the team that prepares the financing plan. They can be contacted as follows: Angus McDonald&Associates 1950 Addison Street Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 548-5831 However, we do not want to create arbitrary partnerships that will not work. As such, it is not required that Angus McDonald & Associates be part of this work; but if they are not part of your proposed team, your proposal should clearly discuss why you did not include them, and how you will bring a comparable level of understanding and expertise to this project. III. Other CityAdvisors The City's financial advisor for project financing is Evensen Dodge and our bond counsel is Jones, Hall, Hill & White. We expect that they will be part of any financing team that may be required to implement any debt financing component of the public facilities financing plan. They will be available for assistance during this project if needed. Contacts are: Evensen Dodge Jones Hall Hill& White Timothy Schaefer, Senior Vice President Charles Adams, Vice President 2750 Bely7ower Boulevard, Suite 201 4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1950 Long Beach, CA 90815 San Francisco, CA 94111 (310) 429-2121 (415) 391-5780 IV. Work Completed To Date As part of an interim airport annexation strategy, the City has completed some initial work in preparing a financing plan. This interim financing plan identifies (but does not resolve) a number of key methodological issues, and is provided in Section G of this RFP. B- 20 rr;.:•,r;,...;..K;_;:`>„xy;m:owr•`C'. ..rk•'r :.r>,:if.m ..'t+A"`S:...va�"^.m`nrr:frc:;r+;:f..e:.. a��r:.?..^.ie:R:.,.:r.:.,r.�v,',.�,+ry,».:,;µron.::.,� >a: �>' ti�'r?f\ \. •••.>....A::C'.\v: .n r:.:y::.:...:.xn..::.:.........4.'C....n....\4:i;i.rri:f.rrr:�;:.::Cy.\.:{i i:i:Cn;:n.:inr.n+C::::f::f:is;C:i.r:.r:fC:f.i:f.r'.r:^:f.::f::.".:..v r.{n y� r, q ).:.NvC`,�`ti L :.,..,.:. ..r:f• ::?.�4 r.+.:r...+v.:..S. ;;{hr O.r.. .w.......:..,+ �`L+T:.f'a4.f2""wub:+iw:w..k �a "'iawV rraF�r+1.....o�`..r::ai'';;.a�t.cw:4iN"r:Jr.`-;r<'kwia v. �\�Ql�r 4. Urban Design The consultant will prepare urban design guidelines for the purpose of creating a cohesive character within the Airport Area. These guidelines should also lead to an integration of the character of the Airport Area with the overall character of the City. The consultant will identify key elements of the City's natural and built environments that are essential to the character of San Luis Obispo. The Consultant should refer to the City's General Plan (especially the Land Use, Open Space and Circulation Elements) for guidance. A locally focused visual preference survey, or other similar methodology, is also recommended. These elements of character will be translated into a general set of guidelines for architecture and landscaping. The guidelines should create a palette of imagery and materials that can be used by property owners, the City, and developers as structures and-landscaping are added or modified. The urban design guidelines will work in concert with otherwise applicable standards and guidelines contained in the City's General Plan, Architectural Review Guidelines, Zoning Regulations, Subdivision Regulations, and other design related documents. As with other City specific plans, this specific plan would not need to repeat all the details of citywide standards, but would instead emphasize modifications or additions to existing standards that should be in effect in the specific plan area. Main topics are anticipated to be: • Character of appearance from public streets, particularly the roads which are entries to San Luis Obispo from the surrounding rural area. Specific guidelines for roadway corridors may include guidelines for architectural treatments and materials, landscaping, and paving materials*. • Median landscaping • parkway width, landscaping, and design elements • street lighting standards for industrial and commercial areas • Sense of connection with natural features, including views of distant His and mountains, and the creeks and wetlands within the area • Visual compatibility among the sites which have been, and are likely to be, developed for different types of uses at different times * (These guidelines should be coordinated with Part 2.4, Section VI..of this workscope.) The consultant shall present the recommended guidelines to the City's Architectural Review Commission for comments and recommendations prior to incorporating them into the draft specific plan. B- 21 /��? ..: gm— ... ,+".rrr}�K: �`nvA� }r}4W}.,k.}. mom vJ.�::}n'.\`:}\ \}::w: rwn.r n:n.:..n. vv.....v.n.:p: ::::::. $(:C�n kk.vnrr::.:i'..v.{.YC:Y\!n:, .:h�i'.+;%:i.:i:::i:ii{j;':: i:i\rJi;if::>:Cirtii :n\,':C>::is :i::)v''i }'.vv.v,Crr:.k:iv:%.:a::va<ir}".akCi\:.jJn r rWvh v:M'.}"r}'Cti..,. ."f: nC:0. .\,...n..r Er r.S.:::, .r.v ..\.,};`:ro... ..a.r::::}.:.¢�' :::kre: .°+i �:, :::;.3....nu.r.:.... ...�.........n...w.:::;..}}:n:::av:�......':C..a.. .. :.Z,.:,.:::::::r:..o•'::�:Yi,::t'Y:i(4y`. .oy<' ::.:.::::::::.`;,..r,....SO rn.; � r v..:r4:. .,... .:r.w..vr:.:::. .r...r .:.,::.t.o..n\s':;+y<.':k:):k:::.r.<:..r.:Kvn.�..,...:.:::::.:........t.o.}$:\. .... .}}}:.rpw:y2r o:.r.:kkr.}:.. x.,:amtr �f .. �T+isxt44�.�'aQb'.rJnwn�.w\V.a\a.Sw.�r,C::a'Gw.�:'Cv.�....aS::.:.�.Av..v,..�uwau:F:c::ut:ava:;.::aiwnww.:ua:;a✓.:a.'wn<SVJaW:a"�:,rrr.c.:itaac:Jkarw5i:::;a55::\"''r>..k'a�:aiaarr: 5. Environmental Impact Report The consultant will prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines. The consultant will be expected to make a recommendation on the scope and focus of the EIR after conferring with affected agencies and reviewing previously prepared material. A program level EIR was prepared for the for the City's 1994 Land Use and Circulation Elements Update. The Preliminary Specific Plan Analysis prepared in 1988 by Willdan Associates also contained an analysis of environmental issues in the Airport and Margarita Areas. The specific plan will go into a greater level of detail with regard to certain planning topics. Therefore it is likely that some impacts and mitigations not previously discussed in the EIR for the City's 1994 Land Use and Circulation Elements Update will need to be discussed. The City anticipates that each topic in the standard CEQA checklist will need to be addressed in some way, even if only to explain why there is no need for further study or concern. As discussed in the Background discussion, a specific plan for the Margarita Area adjacent to the northern boundary of the Airport Area will be completed at about the same time as the specific plan for the Airport Area specific plan. These two plans will share many public facilities and will be related to one another by cumulative impacts. It is expected that combining the environmental analysis for these two specific plans will be the most efficient means of meeting CEQA requirements for both areas. It has not yet been determined if one EIR for each specific plan or a joint EIR for both specific plans would be the best approach. The consultant should make a recommendation regarding the best format. The EIR format and deliverables will be as described above for the Specific Plan. The alternatives analyzed should be analyzed in an appropriate level of detail to allow a comparison of infrastructure systems that would be necessary to serve alternative designs. These alternatives follow from the alternatives analyses requested for the scope of work for the requested transportation planning (2.4.IV.) and the CEQA guidelines. The EIR should evaluate the following alternatives: • No Project - Development under existing County policies and standards. This alternative will include two options. One will assume that imported water and centralized wastewater treatment will not be available independently from the City. The other will assume that area- wide water and sewer will be provided by.a special district independently from the City. • Land Use and Circulation Design Alternatives - Substantial differences in the patterns of land use, circulation features, or both, which would avoid or.minimize adverse impacts, including aircraft hazard, traffic congestion, energy consumption, disruption of natural drainage or wetlands, and disruption or dispersion of any soil or groundwater contaminants that are now largely confined. The City expects that these alternatives will have about the same overall B- 22 development capacities as the adopted General Plan, but that the location of major features will be different. • Alternatives Capable of Eliminating or Reducing One or More Adverse Impacts - One or more of the alternatives should consider a change in land use or that reduces the potential adverse impacts of the project. • Expanded Urban Reserve Alternative - At least one alternative should evaluate an expansion of the City's urban reserve line to encompass the areas recently designated by the County for commercial or industrial use outside the currently defined Airport Area. The City will provide all notices associated with the EIR. Meeting Attendance The City expects the consultant to attend the following public meetings: • Community Workshop - near the beginning of the preparation work, to introduce this latest effort to area property owners, other citizens, and public officials from various agencies who may be interested; • Planning Commission hearing after the draft EIR and Specific Plan have been available for public review (probably two sessions) • City Council hearing (probably two sessions) B- 23 �'�J 4x �: , ����a�xfp:\`,�`4'\V.WCh„Sj`�Nyh,...,,v..,�,,:?Vp.?Cu:�i,.`�\Nl:;'iY�l.'.':)Ci\it,\n..,M,\;J�p.WK?��..is .?�...•bM,.y\W.,`.•.,.Q..,.'NOui`�tlW:�.•.9,i`{ \v^.,•?�,.•., . ..`fit);t.��..):;�,�, ,::3.:..\\s.x\.x.?`u�>:k >:....., •C2y; u.w,,...v.+....� • +n, •'C+5..� ., \.a.:u\\'C::�c::..,.. .: ... J....:t:.svvs;. ..C.:o.,;.l`,..:...:,.`�',\iai. v....::..:.o.:a:.,..,,�.,:>:v.',w:���s:.:fi.::.>::.:�:s.: ..��:r}.:�::i.\a,:x::ts`;.:;�.:.��.;:\ \x.A\ , Y1xa\. �\Viaorx::.:';\5ati\„�:<:Ac.*tawa�?:,,.:„:sa�u;::`�a'v:?.;,�v�:.,.7CS.a?m:ax,:taxat,ti'w:zip:xik:.:8»,F.°c:3.;3zcatiet'xa�.v`�».a�.:;c..r.?�.C�ih�a:E:?.aw�3:�.<,�f?:.uaa,.•` SCHEDULE The following tentative schedule has been established. Item 1 Target Date Pre roposal Conference April 3, 1997 ___...._._��_......._. ___...._..._.__................._..._...__.________—_._._ Proposal Deadlines 1 May 1.5, 1997 ._..._ .......... ............................................................... __..__._.... Execute consultant services contract `:. Jud/August 1997 - __ __.— ,— ............._.......__-__ Community workshop June 1997 _— . ............._.........._..,..........................._.............................__ Administrative draft Specific Plan November 1997 _......___ .. Administrative draft EIR : December 1997 ___.._....-_..._._.............................................._..................................................._..................----• Public review draft Specific Plan : February, 1998 Public review draft EIR February 1998 _ _._.__._—.......�_ . ................................,. ...•........_... Community Workshop _ March 1998 End of EIR comment period.......� `•. April 1998............................................................ -- Response.to,EIR comments May 1998 ....................._....._.........................._._..-- _. ...-..................__................................--...... Planning Commission recommendation July 1998 _ __.._...... ..._.. Adoption by City Council - September 1998 B- 24 ��lo SUMMARY OF PROPERTY OWNER PARTICIPATION EFFORTS FOLLOWING DECEMBER 12, 1995 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Since December 1995, staff has met with owners of property and their representatives regarding the airport annexation numerous times, and has further communicated through a survey and in other correspondence. In addition to these efforts, there have been countless other telephone calls, individual meetings and letters, and meetings with County staff. Staff was also invited to attend several Manufacturers Association meetings to keep them apprised of status, and to solicit their support for specific plan funding. A summary of the key efforts to communicate with property owners and engage their participation in specific plan funding is outlined below: Group Meeting: February 23, 1996 Purpose: The purpose of this meeting was to review the actions taken by the City Council on December 12, 1995, and to begin the dialogue regarding cost sharing for the specific plan. An outline of several options for cost sharing was distributed by staff. Non-staff attendees included: Steve Rarig Mike Biggi Oneil Theriault Bob Wisberg Cliff Smith Charlie Senn John French Jim Filbin Denny Wheeler Kenneth Glick Dave Martindale Alan Strasbaugh Steve Barasch Jack Penrod Group Meeting: March 1, 1996 ose: The purpose of this meeting was to continue the dialogue begun on February 23'd and to receive specific feedback on the cost sharing options distributed at that earlier meeting. In general, no consensus emerged from the meeting relative to cost sharing. Agreement was reached that the issue needed to be broached with a wider audience of property owners in the form of correspondence and a follow-up"town hall' meeting. Non-City staff attendance included: ATTACHMENT 2 �'3 7 Richard DeBlauw Dana Lilley Bob Wisberg John French Roy Garcia Polly Garcia Jack Penrod Charlier Senn Veteran's Hall Town Hall Meeting: May 20, 1996 Purpose: The program, which was jointly presented by County and City staff focused on the County area plan process and City actions relative to the annexation and specific plan. The same funding options provided to the smaller groups were presented to this larger audience, with feedback obtained through a questionnaire. Those non-City/County attendees who signed-in included: Nick Brause Warren Dolezal Gene and Margaret Force Bob Wisberg Ray Blain Mike Sims Richard Marshall Richard De Blauw Jay Parsons Johannah Bradley Monica Touchstone Maggie Cox RG. Rosenberger Ben Parker Larry Rathbun Chas Franklin Ronnie French Bill Berfuss Dick Bueler Gerald Dilbeck Roy and Dolly Garcia Bert Jacobs Paul Gimer Jeanne Helphenstine Bob Miller Bob Hather Jack Penrod Idan and Joe Gardner Brad Dolezal Ernie Ball C&G DelnwLine David Erbstoesser Bill Thoma Ken Brooks Matt Quaglino Ben Maddalena Charlie Senn Follow-Up Survey: July 1996 Next, the questionnaire was mailed to all property owners and tenants who did not attend the Town Hall meeting. The survey attempted to further determine the potential for financial commitment to the annexation by asking a variety of questions regarding payment of the specific plan. The cumulative results of both surveys (about 100 responses)was that about 701/6 were interested in annexation, but about 70% also did not wish to front any portion of the specific plan. The responses were anonymous and therefore no list of respondees is available. Group Meeting/New Strategy for Participation Identified: October 1, 1996 Purpose: The main purpose of this meeting was to review the total survey results and attempt to determine what, if anything, could be further done to attract a property owner contribution to the specific plan. Key conclusions reached at this meeting were(1)It would not be possible to get the"larger population" of property owers to contribute to the specific plan; (2) Without wide spread property owner support, the Board of Supervisors would not"impose" a fee through CSA 22; and (3) The only remaining"hope" for cost sharing would be if a smaller group of certain property owners would agree to front costs —with the understanding that since their investment would be greater than their pro rata "fair share", the amount in excess of "fair share" could be credited back in some way in the future. Non-staff attendees included: Bob Wisberg John French Bob Burke Ben Coats Susan Ostrov Dave Watson Charlie Senn One-on-One Follow-up with Property Owners Following the meeting on October 1, with the help of key property owners, those property owners"most likely" to front funds on behalf of the entire area were identified for staff. /39 The Economic Development Manager then held individual discussions with those persons, and supplied each with information about project status. Questions were raised by the owners which cumulatively covered a wide range of complicated matters (e.g. zoning, coverage ratios, development fees, on/off-site infrastructure, availability and cost of water and sewer, water allocations, etc.). All had varying time frames and development proposals, with the status of the properties ranging from totally undeveloped to partially developed. Individual discussions of this kind were held with the following: Susan Ostrov(representative for the Martinelli property) Dave Watson(representative for John King) Bob Fowler, R.W. Hertel Bob Burke, PG&E Bill Thoma, Thoma Electric Mike Biggi, Unocal Jack Penrod, SAES Gas Alan Strasbaugh, Strasbaugh Aero Loop Associates, Vic Montgomery and John Rossetti Charlie Senn Matt Quaglino Steve Rarig John French Diane Behn(representative for the Moerman property) Ned Rogaway(representative for the Touchstone property) Ken Glick Rob Burke Erbstoersser Family, A&R Welding Tom Copeland December 16, 1996 Letter A letter was sent to the above parties and others on December 16 which attempted to provide answers the various questions raised during the individual meetings concerning "interim annexation" and credits for fronting specific plan costs on behalf of others. A "deadline" was given for indicating an interest in contributing toward the specific plan. Property owners were also invited to another group meeting to discuss the issues in the letter. Group Meeting: January 10, 1997 Purpose: To review the issues in the letter to referenced above. At the meeting several new ideas and questions were raised, and property owners requested an opportunity to further consider these issues prior to making any commitment. Non-staff attendees included: John Rossetti David Garth Michael Biggi Tim Erbstoesser Steve Rarig Patty Nunes Ned Rogoway Carlos Moenman Charley Senn Rhonda Hadley David Erbstoessor Ben Coats Diane Behn Richard De Blauw Dave Watson LeeAnn Hagmaier Group Meeting: January 16, 1997 R=ose: To continue the dialogue begun on January 10". Non-staff attendees included: John Rossetti Vic Montgomery Ned Rogaway Ben Coats LeeAnn Hagmaier Alan Strasbaugh Richard DeBlauw Mike Biggi Bob Burke Dave Watson Andrew Merriam Tim Erbstoesser Steve Rarig Property Owner Letters, Staff Response,and the Final Outcome Follwing the above meeting, approximate 10 letters of interest were received. While each of these letters included offers to invest in the specific plan in some amount, all contained various implicit or explicit"conditions", some of which the.staff could not support in exchange for a contribution. Therefore, a letter outlining a proposed"acceptance criteria" was prepared and marled to all contributors. (See attached letter). As a result, ppp final letters of commitment were received prior to this report to Council. ��►������►�►�►►i��► �IIIIIIIIIIIIIh1Q11"�► II j Cl Of SMMIS OBISPO lab 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 January 29, 1997 Dear. Thank you for your letter offering to contribute toward the specific plan costs for the Airport Area Annexation. Your letter was one of several we received, and we are gratified by the level of interest in this important undertaking. As you might imagine, Airport Area property owners bring a myriad of differing interests and circumstances to the matter of specific plan funding and annexation. Collectively, therefore, the letters have set forth a wide range of proposed conditions in exchange for plan contributions. We have carefully considered each of these proposed conditions, and are prepared to commit to the following: 1. Contributions will be used to fund only the direct cost of the speck plan for the Airport Area Annexation. 2. Any funds received will be fully refunded if the specific plan is either not initiated or not completed (completion is anticipated within 3 years). 3. During preparation of the specific plan, contributors will be kept informed as to its status and will be placed on the mailing list for all notices and hearings regarding the plan and the airport annexation. Contributors may also review specific plan materials as they are prepared and will receive a copy of the final plan; 4. If after the specific plan is completed the City Council, for reasons within the control of the City, decides not to annex the airport area and/or your property, your contribution will be fully refunded. 5. After annexation, the amount you contributed to the specific plan will be credited to your Area Wide Annexation Impact Fee at the time you develop your property. This fee is currently calculated at $17,827 per acre (this includes $15,327 per acre for sewer, water, storm drain and circulation improvements, and $2,500 per acre for open space). 6. Contributions will only be accepted from property owners, or their representatives, who own properties within the City's adopted urban reserve line. (This does not mean that such properties cannot one day be considered for annexation; but rather that such a determination must be made through the usual general plan amendment process, and not in exchange for a contribution toward planning the area now within the line.); The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. V Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. ATTACHMENT 3 �� We very much hope that the commitments outlined above address the core concerns of most property owners interested in contributing toward the specific plan. However, it is not possible to meet all of the conditions that have been posed in the letters. For example, the City's Municipal Code precludes extending city services outside the existing city limit; therefore, extending sewer and water lines to certain properties prior to annexation is not possible. Committing to certain land uses or land use entitlements in exchange for contributions is also prohibited legally. In closing, we once again hope that you find the commitments we are able to make responsive to your most important concerns. If you find that they are, please sign this letter below acknowledging agreement with the terms set forth in this letter, and return it with your payment (payable to the City of San Luis Obispo, Attn: Ken Hampian). Payment should be received by February 12, 1997, or sooner if possible. The date for taking the Airport Annexation matter to Council has been postponed to March 11 to allow added time to work out the fairly complex matters surrounding the contributions. For a variety of reasons, however, we have almost no margin for further delay. Therefore, it is important to know where we stand relative to your proposed contribution at the earliest possible time. Thank you once again for your interest, and if you have any questions, please feel free to call either Jane McVey at 781-7174 or Ken Hampian at 781-7112. Sincerely yours, John Dunn City Administrative Officer APPROVED: Property Owners Signature Date Amount Paid: $ /-�l3 Recent Annexation Interest Airport & Margarita Area lb ®® .,woo Tenk F Rose :' ...... .......... ... ... . .. ..... .v :::...... .... ..::...... .... ... ::::: ................... . �:'SbWrGan'Roatl N Properties With Short-Term Annexation Interest City Limit w E 00 00* ° Urban Reserve Line S ATTACHMENT 4 . I��� } i • ' .}v::..iv...».nv:..v......,:Liv.ii;'C::n:f.i y.:hr'n.rci ..H.y.. ....v vni. 'Y}:S'.;nY.•f.vY .vY::�.P .}hr....... ..\:....m...?:........n...v:., }r .n. ...nxn�.:..::..x.:..v v.t.i.K...:...n.\............:n....... v.....n.....::. :qv:?CiLi:fY:'nY:}•.0.:.::/.2.Y'n?f:::::vi!i::i�i Y:rx:.. ..n.v:i.::... ..�;:... .nt.:.:.,.; .?:. f;{..>..,.}+.:. .fnnn..:..»•..f .:.JJ.•f..}:::+:..::.:::::::r.Y:.3'F.f.... ..rY;.. ..?.:::3.,.:?.Y..� .... .y;?u.,..,.n.r:f.t.. .Yx.i 3}Y:.Y} "s..•,.t :..: .r tJwo-�.;Y'^.:„r:;;.} .. .. ::.r.::A.o<&..,.....,...r.....,.S..J.i`.5........$'.t...V.n�.:,.Sr;:uf.......ri... .....+.3..... .. '•'X:;v{:.:::.:::.:n.R.3F:?}:i..}.....:.:::.:...... N OX. S Yn.......:...:»......n..n...n. ...n ,.n vAf...�.v...:.. �+' ..\....:....v.......... ..n,..rvY...r.: :.::::vj�:::'v' J:O:::f.}•fp..iv:i'J:v:^::;+ .f.......n.........f:................v...../..x.C.n..n......n......+.,}A.v..:..Y.f..:. :J::}:\.::J:n::,.iv:::.:.:::::::}::v:.:..::..Af.x........?, ..:ifn ./.:..........r...n\}:{S.\;n}:�.::ii:J}i:;.f.t.....nv.n.n:::.n::v:::::•::'i:�:i? vasty:.}}:. :f.vkti'.?•:r. :?:Xis INTERIM Airport Area Annexation Financing' Pian Marc-b 1997 :'y><' ^'Y:9nn?:'sx:...;;:.;fJ}.,;J,..e.;}ys.. .}x.>rx:.rs. .,e•�:ue.:.s.:n' v:f.:':.:ors.Ysai iiY.r.- ____ — »c},Y...�:.:--_—_ _ _ .a?YF'in ..v�+ Y;r. ..an..hni.•,,a:. .w ,}i:. ,.{.}. .•.>?N:l.'S:^..:.'J:}}::i r :fil:{,.?}iY}iiY}:fJ} ,Jx+.ni x.i':.Y}%JiSJY;,m..}; �.J:3}'}:}i::f+...Y >... w:f+k...., .?$'+':@ +.i•Y•.y:::::.y.::. ::}...f.,...n,x.: a.n..+}YYnKf.: C+.3.:r ;•.:Y:is::?F$�rc::?+f:3:f"t3:�t'..}:n :,+; ti`Y':3::.:.... ;t” .. ...:..v:::. % \:�{..,f..:,.: ...:.:.k:,..:. .:f..i•.:fh:.:{:.i:; ..x.:.::.r.Q:r.;.:a.�.:.:e+o-..C+h ,n.y,."+ .x;iyi:f?:.J:J:<3x.•Y:?;:;5}:.F: ..Y'�•:.:'r:'f .:5:. :.+y.v:.vf:... u.. ::.r a.:::>. »:....,....r....JA'.. :::.....:t:,Y:::a::..•.:...»..' ::.0. .;:. Y. .. §f: Q"..br..:..:..xaVf �.. v:: .. .:..: .:.:s::.:n::..:::. .n:....6.�..:.J:.Ya;,:.k;?:ie:.iJ�:::i�::r.::f::fij"::3:}kio„'v'::?,..:... <:r:�G:.•i• ..v.v.r.: }n.{(J.G-0(SSM:Nv... :A ..q::..J:Y.' ,C r}'nr:vrc»A:.h:.v.:v v: ..: � v'v': •:in.:.:. CITY .OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ATTACHMENT 5 /- . Airport Area Interim Annexation Criteria Purpose: To allow annexation to the City, and development within the City, of those properties which will otherwise develop in the short term within the County. It is not to stimulate new development prior to adoption of the specific plan Criteria: A property within the Airport Area may be considered for annexation prior to the adoption of a specific plan for the area, provided: 1. It is contiguous to existing city limits; and 2. It is within the City's urban reserve line; and 3. It is near to existing infrastructure; and 4. Existing infrastructure capacity is available to serve the proposed development; and 5. A development plan for the applicant's property accompanies the application for annexation. 6. The applicant(s) agree to contribute to the cost of preparing the specific plan and constructing area-wide infrastructure improvements according to a cost sharing plan maintained by the City. Interim Airport Area Annexation Financing Plan OVERVIEW The purpose of this report is to develop an interim financing plan for case—by—case airport area annexations. Even with this financing plan, it is important to note that annexations can only proceed in accordance with the City's overall interim annexation strategy. One important element of this strategy is that interim annexations can only occur as long as the annexation itself does not trigger the need to complete the improvements identified in this financing plan. Based on the analysis that follows, interim fee estimates range from $17,828 to $28,736 per undeveloped acre as follows: Cost Estimate Per A]2,500 Low Ran High Water system improvements 2,730 Sewer system improvements 4,485 Circulation system improvements 3,000 Storm drain system improvements 4,625 Open space in—lieu fee 2,500 S cific lan rearation 488 Total $17,828 $2 As discussed in greater detail below, these costs and apportionment methodology are very preliminary, and will be refined further as part of the specific plan work effort. Consistent with past practice in setting fees based on preliminary cost estimates(most notably water impact fees as established in the Urban Water Management Plan), it is recommended that interim fees initially be set at the "low range" level. These fees will be modified to the appropriate level upon completion of the specific plan. Implementation It is recommended that the open space in—lieu portion of the fee ($2,500 per acre)be collected upon annexation. The balance of the fees($15,328 per acre)could be deferred (secured by a letter of credit) until the airport area as a whole is annexed, or an assessment district is formed. ASSUMPTIONS The following outlines key assumptions in estimating interim airport area infrastructure fees. It is important to note that these are rough "order of magnitiude" estimates based on very preliminary cost projections and a very simple apportionment methodology. This approximate, interim methodology underscores the importance of proceeding with preparing a specific plan that more fully develops infrastructure costs and funding plans. Apportionment of Costs • There are about 950 developable acres in the Airport/Margarita area, of which about 150 acres are currently developed. These are very rough estimates,and will need to be further — 1 — 7 Interim Airport Area Annexation Financing Plan March 1997 refined and detailed by land use type as part of the specific plan work effort. • For this interim analysis, costs are allocated on a simple per acre basis. In the final work that will be done as part of the specific plan, it is likely that a more detailed cost apportionment methodology will be used that allocates cost by land use (such as single family residential,multi—family residential,commercial, industrial or office). • For this interim analysis, infrastructure costs are spread only to new development (about 800 acres). This may not be the final basis for apportioning costs. In the final work that will be done as part of the specific plan, it is possible that infrastructure costs will be apportioned to both exisiting and new development There are a number of good arguments for either approach, including a "blended" approach that weights exisiting and new development differently. Basis for not allocating costs to existing development Existing development doesn't need the new infrastructure -- it is functioning without it today, and therefore it will not benefit from future improvements and should not be allocated costs. If existing development intensifies its uses in the future (or if existing infrastructure fails or is inadequate), the cost of serving the expanded use can be recovered at that time. Basis for allocating costs to existing development All properties in this area will benefit from the new infrastructure, and should pay their fair share accordingly. In short, the future prospects of now—developed(or partially developed)properties will benefit from full infrastructure development These are all critical methodological issues,which is why it is important that the financing component of the specific plan be prepared by an expert specializing in these types of analyses. Funding Mechanisms If costs are only apportioned to new development, then funding can probably be accomplished through either impact fees(payable at the time of development) or an assessment district. However,if costs are apportioned to existing development as well,then it is likely that at least some part of the funding will have to be accomplished through an assessment district Regardless of the apportionment methodology,the success of an impact fee approach will depend largely on an analysis of when infrastructure improvements will be needed, and whether this can be phased successfully with when new development is likely to occur. — 2 - 7P Intemn Anport Area Annexation Financing Plan March 1997 Again, these are important methodological issues that need to be addressed by an expert specializing in these types of analyses. INFRASTRUCTURE, OPEN SPACE AND PLANNING COSTS The following summarizes the cost assumptions for building needed infrastructure improvements, meeting General Plan open space requirements, and preparing the specific plan. Because the cost estimates are so rough at this time, a low and high—range cost estimate is provided for each of the major cost areas:water, sewer,circulation, storm drainage, open space and specific plan preparation. Water System Improvements The following cost estimates are based on major trunkline distribution system improvements only. They do not include main and lateral improvements that would typically be required of new development on a project—by—project basis. They also do not include any treatment plant improvements or new source of supply costs. These will be the same as City—wide impact fees for these improvements. These fees are already in place,and are payable at the time of building permit issuance ($6,228 per single family equivalent). The improvement costs are based on a very preliminary plan that runs a major 16 inch trunk line down Tank Farm Road. The actual placement of these improvement has not been determined, and will be the main focus of the water system infrastructure plan that will be prepared as part of the specific plan. The major difference.between the low and high cost estimate is how much hazardous materials are encountered along Tank Farm Road in trenching for this line, and the related costs for handling and disposing of this material. . Water System Improvements Cost Estimates Quantity Low High 16 inch water line 12,000 If 1,820,000 3,640,000 Contingencies @ 20% 364,000 728,000 Total 2,184,000 4,368,000 Sewer System Improvements The following cost estimates are based on major trunkline collection and lift station system improvements only. They do not include main and lateral improvements that would typically be required of new development on a project—by—project basis. They also do not include any costs for any needed treatment plant improvements. These will be the same as City—wide impact fees for these improvements. This fee is already in place,and is payable at the time of building permit issuance ($2,566 per single family equivalent). However,an analyis of treatment plant — 3 — Q Intemn Airport Area Annemtion Financing Plan March 1997 capacity, and related expansion costs if needed,will be part of the specific plan infrastructure work,and as such, this fee may change significantly in the near future. The improvement costs are based on a very preliminary plan that runs both gravity and force main trunk lines down Tank Farm Road. The actual placement of these improvements has not been determined, and will be the main focus of the sewer system infrastructure plan that will be prepared as part of the specific plan. The major difference between the low and high cost estimate is how much hazardous materials are encountered along Tank Farm Road in trenching for this line, and the related costs for handling and disposing of this material. . Sewer System LWrovements Cost Estimates Quantity Low High 15 inch gravity sewer line 5,500 If 825,000 1,650,000 18 inch gravity sewer line 3,500 If 630,000 1,260,000 12 inch force main 4,500 If 585,000 1,170,000 Access holes 30 each 150,000 150,000 Lift station 1 each 800,000 800,000 Contingencies @ 20% 598,000 1,006,000 Total 3,588,000 6,036,000 Circulation System Improvements The following cost estimates are based on major street improvements only. They do not include street, sidewalk and landscape frontage improvements that would typically be required of new development on a case-by—case basis. They also do not include costs for City—wide transportation impacts. These will be the same as City—wide impact fees for these improvements. This fee is already in place, and is payable at the time of building permit issuance ($1,265 per single family equivalent,with a 50% credit for retail and hotel uses). The improvement costs are based on a very preliminary plan for Tank Farm Road(no other road improvements are included)and various intersection inprovements. More specific street improvements will be the main focus of the circulation system infrastructure plan that will be prepared as part of the specific plan. The major differences between the low and high cost estimate are: • How much hazardous materials are encountered along Tank Farm Road in widening this street and the related costs for handling and disposing of this material. • The level of median and landscape improvements. — 4 - l� Interim Auport Area Annexation Finanang Plan March 1997 Circulation System improvements Cost Estimates Low High Street improvements 1,900,000 3,800,000 Intersection improvements 500,000 750,000 Total 2,400,000 4,550,000 Note on Prado road interchange responsibilities As part of previous work on City—wide transportation impact fees and initial funding strategies for the Prado road road/Highway 101 interchange, it was determined (based on traffic generation projections)that about 87% of the estimated cost of$10 million for this project was attributable to three basic areas: Dalidio, Prado road area to the east of Highway 101, and the Margarita area. Of this$8.7 million apportionment, about 10%was allocated to the Margarita area (or about $870,000). The balance of the.project benefit (13%, or about $1.3 million)was attributable to the balance of the City, with 69.4% of this residual amount(or about$900,000)allocated to existing development, and 30.6% (about$400,000)allocated to new development in other areas of the City. Under this concept for funding the Prado road interchange improvements, this means that: • The Margarita area will be responsible for about$870,000 in costs, or $4,300 per acre based on about 200 developable acres in this area. This cost will probably be collected as part of the Prado road project assessment district. Because part of this project is included in the transportation impact fee, the Margarita area will receive a small transportation impact fee credit when it develops. • The balance of the airport area will not have a direct responsibility for the Prado road interchange project; its contribution is included in the transportation impact fee. Storm Drainage System Improvements The following cost estimates are based on the storm drain master plan prepared by Wallace Engineering in 1986. Estimated costs provided in this plan have been adjusted for inflation since that time (approximately 5% compounded annually). More specific improvements and cost estimates will be the main focus of the storm drain system infrastructure plan that will be prepared as part of the specific plan. The major differences between the low and high cost estimate are the uncertainty of the appropriateness of this plan, and the reliabilty of these cost estimates, 10 years later. — 5 — Interim Airport Area Annexation Financing Plan March 1997 Storm Drainage LmProvements Cost Estimates Estimates adjusted for inflation from the 1986 Wallace Engineering re ort Low High Total 3,700,0001 5,550,000 General Plan Open Space Requirements Annexation areas are required to make open space dedications. Based on past practice, this can either be in the form of direct land dedications or the payment of an in—lieu fee. The costs of recent open space protection purchases by the City have ranged from $12,500 per acre for"in fee" ownership to $270 per acre for open space easements. This is consistent with a recent review of"in fee"property values in our greenbelt area ranging from $1,500 to $15,000 per acre depending on the circumstances. Based on these factors as well as the analysis that was performed for the TK annexation (the City's first case of using an open space in—lieu fee as part of the annexation process), the average cost for open space acquisition in the greenbelt area is estimated at $2,500 per acre. The General Plan does not set specific targets for how much open space should be dedicated per developed area. However, for the Dalidio, Froom, and De Vaul annexations, the General Plan sets a 1:1 ratio — for each acre of developed property, one acre of permanent open space should be preserved. Based on this policy guideline for these other areas, the open space in—lieu fee is estimated at $2,500 per acre. Specific Plan Preparation Costs The costs for preparing the specific plan have previously been estimated as follows: S c Plan Preparation Costs Cost Estimates Low mely Infrastructure improvement plans 200,000 280,000 Infrastructure financing plan 50,000 50,000 Urban design plan 35,000 50,000 Environmental impact report 80,000 80,000 Plan preparationfintegration 1 25,0001 25,000 Total 1 390,0001 485,000 COST AND APPORTIONMENT SUMMARY The following summarizes infrastructure, open space and planning costs, and allocates them to undeveloped property on a per"developable" acre basis. As discussed previously, this apportionment is based on an estimate of 800 developable acres in the Airport/Margarita area (exclusive of existing development). — 6 — .SOL Interim Apport Area Annexa don Financing Plan March 1997 Cost and Apportionment Sununazy Low—RangeCost Estimate High—Range Cost Estimate Cost Cost Per Acre Cost Cost Per Acre Water system improvements 2,184,000 2,730 4,368,000 5,460 Sewer system improvements 3,588,000 4,485 6,036,000 7,545 Circulation system improvements2,400,000 3,000 4,550,000 5,688 Storm drainage system improvements 3,700,000 4,625 5,550,000 6,938 Open space in—lieu fee -- 2,500 -- 2,500 Specific plan pre aration 390,000 488 485,000 606 Total 12,262,000 17,828 20,989,000 28,736 • As discussed above,this excludes costs ofabout$4,300 per acre for the Margarita area for its share of costs for the Prado road interchange.. Placed in perspective, this represents a range of$3,600 to$5,700 per"equivalent dwelling unit." IMPLEMENTATION Interim Fee Amount Consistent with the City's past practice in setting fees based on very preliminary cost estimates (most notably water impact fees as established in the Urban Water Management Plan), it is recommended that interim fees initially be set at the"low range" level as follows: Pro osed Interim Annexation Fee Per Acre Infrastructure and Planning Fees 15,328 Open space in—lieu fee . 2,500 Total $17,828 Interim Fee Payment Terms Deferral option Fees will generally be due upon annexation based on the amount of property proposed for development at.that time. However, since it is likely that the costs that drive these fees will only be incurred if annexation of the balance of the airport goes forward, an option would be to defer payment of the infrastructure and planning portion ($15,328 per acre, secured by a letter of credit)until the rest of the airport area is annexed, or an assessment district is formed. (The open space portion at$2,500 per acre would be due upon annexation, and would not be available for deferral). If this does not occur within five years after annexation, this payment obligation would no longer exist; however,property owners would continue to agree to participate in any future area—wide assessment district. In exchange for this deferral,the amount payable at that time (or the share of assessment costs) should be whatever the airport area impact fee/assessment spread is at that time. — 7 /-S3 Interim Airport Area Annexation Financing Plan Marcb 1997 Under this conceptual approach, no fees would be due for already—developed portions of annexed property. However,if the final financing plan allocates costs to all developable property (both existing and new), and the property owner has deferred fees and agreed to participate in a future assessment district, there would be some liability for the existing developed property. Lump sum payment option Under this option, the property owner could make a lump sum payment upon annexation and avoid any future liability or uncertainty for the entire site. Other Fees In addition to this interim fee, annexed properties in the airport area will pay all other City impact and development review fees in the amount and at the time that they would otherwise be required under existing City policies,including water, sewer and transportation impact fees. ANNEXATION AGREEMENT Usually,the City would formally adopt this fee under the standards of AB 1600,which establishes the framework for adopting and implementing development impact fees in California. Under AB 1600, impact fees are generally collected at the time of development as measured by building permit issuance. However,because annexation and development are not synonymous, and because the future annexation of the airport area and development of infrastructure is not certain, the commitment to pay this fee should be made earlier in the process — at the time of annexation. Accordingly, while the terms should be similar for each annexation, an agreement should be entered into between the property owner and the City on a case—by—case basis clearly setting forth the financial terms for annexation. GFINAN - 8 - AIRPORT AREA STAFF TEAM AND MAJOR ROLES John Dunn Leadership,direction. CAO Ken Hampian Overall Team coordination,interim annexation strategy ACAO and criteria,conditions for property owner contribution, staff report. Jeff Jorgensen Overall strategy,interim annexation strategy and criteria, City Attorney conditions for property owner contributions Arnold Jonas Planning and land use issues. Comm.Development Director John Mandeville Planning and Land Use Element implementation issues, Long Range Planning Manager coordination with County,town hall meeting and property owner surveys,coordination and preparation of RFP, staff report. Bill Statler Interim Annexation Financing Plan development, Finance Director interim annexation strategy,property owner contribution conditions, staff report. Jane McVey Property owner liaison,contribution coordination. Economic Development Manager John Moss Sewer and water components of RFP and Interim Utilities Director Financing Plan. Dan Gilmore Sewer and water components of RFP and Interim Utilities Engineer Financing Plan. Mike McCluskey Storm drain and transportation components of RFP and Public Works Director Interim Financing Plan. Neil Havlik Interim annexation open space policy development,EIR, Natural Resources Manager resource considerations. ATTACHMENT 6 J-SS Land Use Element Policies Relating to Airport Area Annexation COMMUNITY GOALS Approach to Planning San Luis Obispo should.• 1) Choose its future, rather than let it happen. San Luis Obispo should be proactive in implementing its vision of the future, and should work with other agencies and . institutions to create our desired mutual future. Environment San Luis Obispo should. 2) Protect and enhance the natural environment, including the quality of air, water, soil, and open space. 5) Recognize the importance of farming to the economy of the planning area and the county, protect agriculture from development and from incompatible uses, and protect remaining undeveloped prime agricultural soils. Society & Economy 9) Provide employment opportunities appropriate for area residents' desires and skills. 11) Retain existing businesses and agencies, and accommodate expansion of existing businesses, consistent with other goals. 13) Provide an adequate revenue base for local government and public schools. 14) Provide high quality public services, ensuring that demands do not exceed resources and that adequate facilities and services can be provided in pace with development. 21) Provide a resilient economic base, able to tolerate changes in its parts without causing overall harm to the community. 22) Have developments bear the costs of resources and services needed to serve them, except where the community deliberately chooses to help pay in order to achieve other community goals. 24) Serve as the county's hub for: county and state government; education;transportation; visitor information;entertainment;cultural,professional, medical, and social services; community organizations;retail trade. ATTACHMENT 7 ��s(o City Form San Luis Obispo should: 28) Maintain the town's character as a small, safe, comfortable place to five, and maintain its rural setting, with extensive open land separating it from other urban development. 30) Keep a clear boundary between San Luis Obispo's urban development and surrounding open land. 33) Develop buildings and facilities which will contribute to our sense of place and architectural heritage. 34) Develop buildings and places which complement the natural landscape and the fabric of neighborhoods. LU 1.6: City Size and Expansion LU 1.6.1: Urban Reserve The City shall have an urban reserve line containing the area around the City where urban development might occur(Land Use Element Map and Figure 2). Urban uses within this line should be developed according to City-approved plans, consistent with this element. Nonurban agricultural, open space, and wildlife corridor uses are also encouraged within the urban reserve, as interim or permanent uses shown on City-approved plans. LU 1.6.2: Expansion Areas Expansion areas adequate for growth consistent with these policies should be designated within the urban reserve line (Land Use Element Map and Figure 2). LU 1.6.3: Interim Uses Expansion areas should be kept in agriculture, compatible agricultural support services, or open-space uses until urban development occurs, unless a City-approved specific plan provides for other interim uses. LU 1.11: Growth Rates & Phasing LU 1.11.1: Overall Intent Growth rates should provide for the balanced evolution of the community and the gradual assimilation of new residents. Growth must be consistent with the City's ability to provide resources and services and with State and City requirements for protecting the environment, the economy, and open space. �-s7 LU 1.11: Growth Rates & Phasing LU 1.11.1: Overall Intent Growth rates should provide for the balanced evolution of the community and the gradual assimilation of new residents. Growth must be consistent with the City's ability to provide resources and services and with State and City requirements for protecting the environment, the economy, and open space. LU 1.11.4: Nonresidential Growth Rate Each year, the City Council will evaluate the actual increase in nonresidential floor area over the preceding five years. The Council shall consider establishing limits for the rate of nonresidential development if the increase in nonresidential floor area for any five-year period exceeds five percent, except that the first 300,000 square-feet of nonresidential floor area constructed after 1994 shall be excluded from calculating the increase. Any limits so established shall not apply to: A) Changed operations or employment levels, or relocation or ownership change, of any business existing within the City at the time the limit is set; B) Additional nonresidential floor area within the downtown core (Figure 4); C) Public agencies; D) Manufacturing, light industrial, or research businesses_ LU 1.13: Annexation and Services LU 1.13.1: Water & Sewer Service The City shall not provide nor permit delivery of City water or sewer services to the following areas. However, the City will serve those parties having valid previous connections or contracts with the City. A) Outside the City limits; B) Outside the urban reserve line; C) Above elevations reliably served by gravity-flow in the City water system; D) Below elevations reliably served by gravity-flow or pumps in the City sewer system. �f.SO LU 1.13.2: Annexation Purpose and Timing Annexation should be used as a growth management tool, both to enable appropriate urban development and to protect open space. Areas within the urban reserve line which are to be developed with urban uses should be annexed before urban development occurs. The City may annex an area long before such development is to occur, and the City may annex areas which are to remain permanently as open space. An area may be annexed in phases, consistent with the city-approved specific plan or development plan for the area. Phasing of annexation and development will reflect topography, needed capital facilities and funding, open space objectives, and existing and proposed land uses and roads. LU 1.13.3: Required Plans Land in any of the following annexation areas may be developed only after the City has adopted a plan for land uses, roads, utilities, the overall pattern of subdivision, and financing of public facilities for the area. The plan shall provide for open space protection consistent with LU policy 1.13.5. A) For the Airport and Orcutt expansion areas, a specific plan shall be adopted for the whole of each area before any part of it is annexed. LU 1.13.4: Development and Services Actual development in an annexed area may be approved only when adequate City services can be provided for that development, without reducing the level of services or increasing the cost of services for existing development and for build-out within the City limits as of July 1994, in accordance with the City's water management policies. Water for development in an annexed area may be made available by any one or any combination of the following: A) City water supply, including reclaimed water; B) Reducing usage of City water in existing development so that there will be no net increase in long-term water usage; C) Private well water, but only as an interim source, pending availability of an approved addition to City water sources, and when it is demonstrated that use of the well water will not diminish the City's municipal groundwater supply. f'S ! LU 1.13.5: Open Space Each annexation shall help secure permanent protection for areas designated Open Space, and for the habitat types and wildlife corridors within the annexation area that are identified in LU Policy 6.1.1. Policies concerning prime agricultural land shall apply when appropriate. The following standards shall apply to the indicated areas: D) Airport Area properties shall secure protection for any on-site resources as identified in the Open Space Element. These properties, to help maintain the greenbelt, shall also secure open space protection for any contiguous, commonly_owned land outside the urban reserve. If it is not feasible to directly obtain protection for such land, fees in lieu of dedication shall be paid when the property is developed, to help secure the greenbelt in the area south of the City's southerly urban reserve line. LU 1.14: Costs of Growth The costs of public facilities and services needed for new development shall be borne by the new development, unless the community chooses to help pay the costs for a certain development to obtain community- wide benefits. The City will adopt a development-fee program and other appropriate financing measures, so that new development pays its share of the costs of new services and facilities needed to serve it. AIRPORT AREA POLICIES LU 7.1: Regional Service The airport will continue to serve the region, consistent with the approved Airport Master Plan. LU 7.2: Airport Land Use Plan Development should be permitted only if it is consistent with the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan. Prospective buyers of property which is subject to airport influence should be so informed. LU 7.3: City Annexation and Services The City intends to actively pursue annexation of the Airport Area by the year 1995. Airport Area land inside the urban reserve shall be considered for annexation subject to completion of environmental and economic studies and a specific plan. Pending annexation: A) Any urban development approved by the County shall be consistent with City development standards; and B) Urban development and provision of adequate resources and services needed citywide shall be closely monitored. LU 7.4: Greenbelt Protection Annexation of the Airport Area, whether it occurs as one action or several, shall be consistent with the growth management objectives of maintaining areas outside the urban reserve line in rural, predominantly open space uses. An Airport Area annexation shall not take effect unless the annexed area helps protect an appropriate part of the greenbelt near the Airport Area, through one or more of the .following methods: A) Dedicating an open-space easement or fee ownership to the City or to a responsible land-conservation organization. B) Paying fees to the City in-lieu of dedication, which shall be used within a reasonable time to secure greenbelt open space near the Airport Area. LU 7.5: Internal Open Space The area designated for urban uses, but not necessarily each parcel, should include open areas as site amenities and to protect resources, consistent with the Open Space Element. In addition, wildlife corridors across the Airport Area shall be identified and preserved. LU 7.6: Development Before Annexation A) Areas which are designated for eventual urban development may be developed during the interim with rural residential or rural commercial uses. In such areas, County development standards and discretionary review should assure that projects will not preclude options for future urban development consistent with the City's planning policies and standards. Before any discretionary County land-use or land-division approval for such areas, a development plan for the site should be prepared, showing that circulation, water and other utility, and drainage proposals will be compatible with future annexation and urban development. B) Any development within the urban reserve approved by the County prior to annexation should comply with City standards for roadway cross-sections, bus stops, walking and bicycle paths, landscaping, view protection, setbacks, preferred site layouts, and architectural character. LU 7.7: Transit Service Transit service linking development sites with the citywide bus system should be provided concurrent with any additional urban development in the Airport Area. LU 7.8: Specific Plan The City will prepare a specific plan for land uses, habitat protection, circulation, utilities, and drainage within the Airport Area. LU 7.9: Business Parks LU 7.9.1: Location and Uses Business parks may be developed in areas designated for them. Business parks are to accommodate research and development and light manufacturing in a campus like setting. They should provide high quality design of public and private facilities. Land designated for a business park should not be further divided or developed until the City annexes the area and approves a master plan for the business park. LU 7.9.2: Building Intensity Building location and intensity standards will be provided in a specific plan for each business park. The ratio of building floor area to site area shall not exceed 1.0. The Zoning Regulations will establish maximum building height and lot coverage, and minimum setbacks from streets and other property lines, as well as procedures for exceptions to such standards in special circumstances. Dwellings may be provided only as caretaker quarters or as part of a specially approved mixed-use development. The appropriate residential density would be set considering the maximum residential density allowed in any neighboring residential area. LU 7.10: Recreation Area The large Recreation space shown in the Airport Area is to be a golf course or other outdoor recreational use such as sports fields, irrigated with non-potable (probably reclaimed) water. PROGRAMS LU 7.11: Specific Plan The City will work with Airport Area property owners to complete a specific plan. LU 7.12: Airline Service and Impacts The City will work with the County to assure that airline services and conditions in the vicinity of the airport are consistent with the Circulation Element policies. LU 7.13: Growth Management The City will annex the area and accommodate incremental development consistent with the growth management policies, including those concerning adequacy of resources and services and development paying its own way. LU 7.14: Open Space Dedication and In-lieu Fees In approving development proposals, the City will assure that Airport Area properties secure protection for any on-site resources as identified in the Open Space Element. These properties, to help maintain the greenbelt, shall also secure open space protection for any contiguous, commonly owned land outside the urban reserve. If it is not feasible to directly obtain protection for such land, fees in lieu of dedication shall be paid when the property is developed, to help secure the greenbelt in the area south of the City's southerly urban reserve line. The City shall set fee levels that would be appropriate in-lieu of open space dedication. �-�3 MEET" AGENDA DATE ITEM # MEMORANDUM DATE: March 11, 1997ET COUNCILTOREC D DIR 3'&0 DIR TO: City Council ICAO E CHIEF 1/ tERK4MG ORNEY DIR FROM: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer ( pCE CHF ❑ MGMT TEAM DIR SUBJECT: Additional Airport Area Questions ❑ c FILELDIR S DIR To follow up on questions raised by individual Council members over the last couple of5 days, outlined below is additional information regarding the matter before the Council II( ad on March 11th: Rk 'r 1. Why should the City front EIR costs for the Margarita Area when other recent residential developments have had to fund EIR costs themselves? There are three primary reasons for fronting the costs of the specific plan EIR: 1. The Margarita Area can annex to the City prior to adoption of a Specific Plan with Council approval of a draft plan that would be used as a project description for environmental review. However, environmental review needs to be done before the Margarita Area specific plan can be adopted and before development can proceed. If the City does not front the costs, it is uncertain when or if the Margarita property owners could have an EIR prepared for the Specific Plan. The Margarita Area is the most logical location for new housing in the City if the Airport Area is annexed. its location is essentially "in-fill", and it would provide housing in close proximity to jobs in the Airport Area. 2. There are critical interrelationships between infrastructure systems for the southern part of the City and the Margarita Area and Airport Areas. The focus of the EiR will be similar to the focus of the Specific Plan - infrastructure. The infrastructure system impacts would need to be analyzed systematically as a whole - analyzing both areas together whether there is one EIR or two. It is significantly more cost effective to complete a joint EIR for both the Airport Area, and the Margarita Area and won't require substantial new effort on the part of the City to do so and to implement a program for repayment. Completing an Airport Area Specific Plan EIR first would reduce the effort needed to do a subsequent Margarita Area Specific Plan. However, a subsequent Margarita Area EIR would still be required, necessitating duplicative administrative and procedural requirements that would not be necessary with one comprehensive EIR. 3. Because the Margarita Area is envisioned to achieve certain important public policy goals (e.g. affordable housing), the Council in the past has recognized that the Margarita Area property owners need some assistance to complete their planning Y requirements in a timely way. In the past the City Council has allocated 900 hours of staff time (about 800 hours remaining) to assist the property owners in completing their plan. In summary, the staff recommendation responds to issues related to interrelated uses and impacts, administrative efficiencies, timing, and prior encouragement of the Margarita Project. Nevertheless, the intent is to fully recover these costs as the area develops. 2. Would it be preferable to wait for future or final decisions on new water supply projects prior to funding the Specific Plan? The draft EIRs for the Nacimiento and Salinas projects are expected to be released in May 1997. Therefore, the Council will have draft information on the environmental impacts of these projects prior to the execution of a contract with the Specific Plan consultant, which is estimated to occur in July or August 1997. The "best case scenario"for completion of the Specific Plan and annexation is May 1998, around the same time as contracts will be considered for the Nacimiento Project. The Specific Plan could take up to a year longer. While there is some risk that the City might front the costs of the Specific Plan, and then ultimately not annex the area because of a decision to not proceed with a water supply project, at the present time both the water projects and the annexations represent General Plan policy and are also considered "Major City Goals." Therefore, proceeding as if we intend to complete both is fully consistent with policy and the course set by Council. While neither endeavor is a certainty, and as pointed out in the staff report, the Specific Plan Funding Program is not risk-free, staff continues to believe that completion of this work will be very beneficial to the City, whether or not the Airport Area annexes in its totality at one time. A well-prepared Specific Plan, for example, can better guide incremental annexations and also help the City mitigate continued development in the County. One final point. If the City delays action for several months (or more), it is unlikely that the property owner contributions can be retained. Therefore, should we choose to proceed later, our only option may be to front the entire Specific Plan cost. 3. Why didn't staff include the option of annexing the area first and completing the Specific Plan afterward? Staff did not include this as an alternative in the staff report primarily because the Council already debated and decided the issue, and our General Plan now says that a Specific Plan should be completed prior to annexation. In December 1995, Council then provided staff with direction as to how to proceed, given this assumption. The March 11th staff report represents the follow-up to the December 1995 direction. If the Council wishes to discuss this again, staff would make the following point. that completion of the Specific Plan prior to annexation is not only in the City's interest, but in the property owners'interest as well because it will provide them with the detailed cost information they need prior to determining whether or not they wish to annex. Staff would also add that annexing first, but conditioning further development on the completion of the Specific Plan is not likely to speed up the development of the entire area. Either way, the infrastructure plans are needed before substantial development occurs. Until such time that a Specific Plan is completed— whether before or after annexation —staff recommends a measured approach to interim development, consistent with the Interim Annexation Criteria set forth in the report. 4. Why are the Sewer and Water Master Plans split 70/30 between Airport Area property owners and the City at large in the Interim Annexation Fee? The estimated cost split whereby the Airport Area is allocated 70% of the sewer and water master plan costs was established with the adoption of the 1996-97 Budget based on a fairly straightforward assessment of geographic area served. The specific plan consultant, however, will be asked to evaluate and determine final allocations based on detailed engineering studies. Therefore, the present split will only impact the specific plan component of the Interim Annexation Fee, and then only in a very minor way. For example, if the split were 50-50, the total interim fee of $17,828 per acre would be reduced by $50; a 30-70 split would reduce the fee by $100. This is because the specific plan component of the interim fee represents only $488 of the per acre cost. It should also be pointed out that the recommended interim fee represents the low end of the cost range, including for the specific plan. Therefore, staff has leaned on the side of being reasonable so as to not discourage the annexation of appropriate properties that will develop in the County, if not in the City. The actual payment of interim annexation fees can also be deferred, if secured by a letter of credit. This is because most of the funds will only be needed if and when a major backbone infrastructure system is needed. 5. Will the EIR provide adequate documentation for the actual installation of future infrastructure in, or will further EIRs be needed? Because we will be using the already-completed environmental impacts reports for the land use and circulation element updates, as mentioned on page B-1 of the RFP (page 1-13 of the Agenda Report), the goal of EIR analysis will be to integrate with the infrastructure analysis. Therefore, this will involve the environmental evaluation of infrastructure layout. Because the "backbone"infrastructure system will consider total demand, the environmental work will be very comprehensive and should meet most, if not all, environmental requirements for eventual infrastructure construction. gJaddiVonal AAquestons.mem 3-11-1997 6:40PM FROM STRASBAUGH 8057810972+ P. 3 MEETING AGENDA / rw DATE ITEM # STRASBAUGH March 11, 1997 Mayor Allen Settle Fax 781-7109 Dear Mayor Settle, I am in favor of Airport Area annexation. Our.company has grown, along with our market the Semiconductor Industry, beyond my expectations. Starting with 65 employees when we moved to SLO in 1990, we now have 350 with the likely hood of reaching 500 next year. We barely have enough water and sewer now and our property may not support our potential size. We would be willing to pay a substantial amount to extend services to our property if that could happen soon. Our small contribution of$5000 toward the Specific Plan was out of concern that services may not reach our remote location for several years. If we could be included in the first phase of services, we would contribute much more. Our 350 employees have average annual incomes of$50,000. We provide many head of household jobs as envisioned in the staff report I will not be able to attend tonight's hearings. Best wishes on your tough decision. Regards, Alan Strasbaugh COUNCIL eCDD DIR eCAO ETIFIN DIA pe C= ❑ FIRE CHIEF RECEIVE® g1470RNEY GI-PWDIR K CLERKIORIG ❑ POUCE CHF NIAR 1 I ►yyJ ❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ 5EC DIR ❑ C REO FILE GrUTIL DIR CITY COUNCIL r u IGrs(ZA� ❑ PERS QIR c�n� R75 Rurklev Rand San Luis Uhison. California 93401 nhnne (8051 541-A424 fax(8051 541-6425 MEETING .AGENDA DATE '—ITEM # Yarch 10, 1997 Dear Mr. Nayor, I am writing you about the annexating of the San Luis Obispo Airport. Annexating of the area that is purposed is probibly proper for the Citys expansion but the Airport area itself, being now County Controlled , I believe would create future problems . I see it as the existing planes will be replaced in the next few years , with jet aircraft . And the corporate jets that will want to use it in the new City annexation, I can see the JP=4 fuel that they will be burning with our prevailing North-North West Winds , will be blowing the fumes toward the heavy populated areas and the Los Ranchio School yard . Not to mention the noise pollution. from those corporate jets.I am sure you will have RECEIVE many future problems . And trying to imagine the MAR 1 1 wi General Aviation trying to work in between Cm COUNCIL �nnl I ' — n^•ccn re these jets , in landing and taking off. As I see it if the Country Looses the control of the CPA CDD DIR County Airport we would have no Voting Power . Cil AA0 91FIN DIR AO Please reconsider not annexaing the Airport. U M 13 F ECHIEF "ATTORNEY Cil PW oIR 12�'CGLERIUDRIG ❑ POUCE CHF! ❑ MGMT TEAM 11,590 DIR D C R D FILE I3'UTIL DIR Yours truly, + ❑ PERS DIR !!! i G-1enn V' ei t-tone MAR-11-1997 10:06 P.01 MEETING AGENDA � San Luis City Council DATE -/-97 ITEM # 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo CA, 93401 COUNCIL CDD DIR Council Members: eCAO QFfN DIR RKACA0 ❑ FIRE CHIEF Mayor Alan SettleCYli7TORNEY I"PW DIR Dave Romero N cLERWORIG ❑ POLICE CHF Bill Rolman O MGMT TEAM ❑ 5EC DIR O C RfEAD FILE WIML DIR Dodi Williams ❑ PERS DI Kathy Smith This'is to inform you of our objection to the proposed annexa ort of the San Luis Obispo County Airport to the City of San Luis Obispo. The very description of this proposal illustrates the ironic nature of this action. It is ludicrous that a facility serving this county should be managed any city municipality. As residents of San Luis Obispo County, we are opposed to this annexation proposal since management of the Airport by the City of San Luis Obispo vests authority in a body that is not responsive to the people served by the facility as the residents outside of the City are without voter representation, in this case, 80% of the county population resides outside of the City of San Luis Obispo. As residents of the City of San Luis Obispo, we are opposed to this annexation proposal since it involves additional.administration and policy development, both actions equate to increased costs. This places a resource burden onto the City for which there is not appropriate resourcing or revenues. We do support additional taxes, fees, or formation of special districts to provide the required resources nor do we support the diversion of City resources from current mandates to provide the required resourcing. As pilots and users of the San Luis Obispo Airport, with an aircraft based at the facility, we do not support additional City fees, taxes, or formation of special districts that would be required to operate the Airport. In summary, this proposal is unnecessary, ill advised, financially irresponsible, and a political travesty. Actions of this nature should be decided by both City and County voters since both have vested interest in such proposals. We petition that you oppose annexation of the San Luis Obispo County Airport to the City of San Luis Obispo. Lu RECEIVED Harry Machado Jr. A leen S. Sco MAR j I Iyy� 883 Bougainvillea St. 949 West St. San Luis Obispo, CA San Luis Obispo, CA CITY COUNCIL ceen^•con re TOTAL P.01 P"--"-TING AGENDA N. Patrick Veesart Un E I.11-97 ITEM # 1446 Mono Street ♦ San Luis Obispo, CA ♦ 93401 ♦ (805) 546-0518 COUNCILD DIR TO: San Luis Obispo City Council QKCAO FIN DIR i FROM: Pat Veesart ICAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF DATE: 9 March, 1997 Gl"ATToRNEY U-PW DIR U/CLERK/ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF SUBJECT: Airport Area Annexation/Nacimiento Water Projecf'j ❑ MGMrTEAM ❑ REC DIR ❑ C READ FILE CAML DIR Recommendations: .❑� ❑ PERS DIR M2772OF • No new annexations until a new, reliable source of water is on line. fi �K • No wheeling of water or facilitation of water delivery outside of our city limits in any way, shape, or form. • Incremental annexation of the Airport Area (after we have water), over time, and as the land is needed and the benefits are clear. If nothing else, consider phased annexation in 3 or more phases. • Reduce our take of Nacimiento water from 3,380 of to 1,380 of and drop the "Reliability Reserve" concept. this will save us 2 million dollars (or more) a year and will reduce the growth inducing impacts of the project. • Water from the Water Reuse Project should not count as Safe Annual Yield until such time as it is actually offsetting potable water supplies. • No decision to participate in any water project until all impacts have been reviewed, all costs known, and the public clearly understands how much it will cost each household per month. Preferably, the public should have the opportunity to vote on multi-million dollar water projects. • Please take another look at de-sal. Technology is improving and costs are coming down. Reliability is built in; you desalinate the amount of water needed and not one drop more (see enclosed article). • Reinstate the full Infill Reserve and quit playing numbers games with our water. • Do not move the Urban Reserve Line out just because the county has rezoned for industrial development outside of our URL. What kind of precedent will this set? Reasoning: We are rapidly approaching the point of no return on both of these major decisions and I think that it is time for reality check. Let's pull back for a moment and really take a look at what is being proposed. I am addressing the two issues RECEIVED MAR 1 U I17, CITve na cvii CA �pN 1 2 together because it is obvious to me that they are linked and the decision that you make on March 11 will be the first dominoe in a series that has been set up by staff and development interests for you to knock over. Staff, and all the folks who stand to profit in the short-term, are proposing that we add about 25% to the city's physical size and massive amounts of expensive water. This is pretty much a classic California recipe for growth and you should not be too surprized at what "comes out of the oven". am not necessarily opposed to growth, the eventual annexation of the Airport Area, or even Nacimiento Water, but the combination of all three, all at once, is a disaster just waiting for three votes. Growth in San Luis Obispo should occur within existing city limits, and slowly move outward, if and when we need to expand. It shouldn't happen all at once. The expansion into the Airport Area should take place over time, as the land is needed, and as the benefits are clear. Nacimiento water should be used sparingly as the costs are high and paying those costs could easily lead to bad planning decisions. In the current political climate of California, the ability to raise taxes is decreasing while the cost of providing services is going up. What this means is that growth, in the classic sense, is a money loser. Oh, there will be short-term prosperity and profits for those in the growth industry, but in the long-term, it will end up costing the residents of this city more than it will bring in. Who is cheerleading for these projects? The Airport Area property owners who, of course, will profit from this, and the Chamber of Commerce, whose leadership traditionally comes from development, real estate, and banking interests. The people who are cheering the loudest are those who stand to profit, in the short- term, at the expense of the rest of us. There is also a great deal of cheering coming from the "staff" section of the bleachers. I hate to say this, but it is becoming increasingly clear to me that Administration is leading the cheering. You are being herded into a box-canyon, from which there is no escape, by your CAO and his posse of staff members. You are being asked to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars up front before you even know what the total costs will be, what the benefits will be, what the 1 A - 3 impacts will be, and whether or not you will have the means of providing water. Is this good planning? You are not being given information in the staff report that you need to make good decisions. How will you service this area if you annex? If you answered "Nacimiento", you are counting your chickens before they are hatched. The EIR comes out in May. That is when the City, and other potential participants will be able to see what the negative impacts will be, including the growth-inducing impacts. After reviewing the pros and cons, all the potential players will have until December to decide whether to play or not. At that point, how many will actually pony up the cash and sit down at the table, and how many will fold, leaving those remaining at the table to make a go of it? If one or more of the big players fold, will there be enough money in the kitty to make a game of it, or will everybody take their chips and go home? If Nacimiento doesn't happen, how will you service the Airport Area? Don't you think you should know that answer before you decide to spend $330,000 on a Specific Plan that, by all rights, should be paid for by the Airport Area property owners? December might be a good time to make that decision. just what exactly is the big hurry here? Staff claims that you currently have 300 acre feet of water, robbed from the residents of San Luis Obispo, available for annexations. This is a little like the "fishes and loaves" since we keep approving annexations and this amount never seems to get any smaller. Vying for this miraculous water are the Duvaull, TK, Dalidio, Froom, EI Capitan, Airport Area and Margarita annexations. We have brought no new sources of water on line since the drought, but all of the above mentioned annexations have been approved, or pre-approved since the drought. Hello? What is wrong with this picture? If the Sun and,Moon and all the planets line up perfectly, Nacimiento is still 3 to 5 years down the road. If you make a commitment now to annex the Airport Area, and $330,000 is a commitment, are you then committing yourselves to the Nacimiento Project before reviewing the environmental impacts? Is this legal? Is this ethical? One of the benefits of annexation, stated in the staff report, is that it will stop sprawl and control our southern border. it seems clear to me that by annexing, and committing to the Nacimiento Project, you will likely be facilitating the R 4 delivery of water to the areas outside of our Urban Reserve Line and you will be creating more sprawl than you reduce. Another benefit stated is that by annexing, the city will impose its development standards, as if the County has none. A look at the San Luis Obispo Area Plan will show you that the County does indeed have development standards, and that they are not all that different from the City's. They provide for roads, open space acquisition, architectural review, lower density than city standards, and best of all, the costs of servicing the area would be spread out among 250,000 county residents instead of 42,000 city residents. Again, where is the benefit? )obs? The City already has a glut of jobs. 30,000 people a day commute to our city. Will you guarantee that all these new jobs will be filled by city residents? People from all over the county will fill those jobs and they will be working here whether the City has jurisdiction or not. Runaway growth? Not likely under County jurisdiction since the cost of servicing the area will be greater. As long as the City does not "wheel" water or allow pipelines to be built within its jurisdiction it will retain some degree of control that allows for orderly annexation as time goes by. Unocal? Unocal is paying you $30,000, refundable of course, to annex their toxic waste dump. By doing so, you can join the ranks of Avila Beach and Guadalupe as Unocal's good neighbors and beneficiaries of their good will. Of course, Unocal's credibility and sincerity are legendary in this county, so you can believe them when they tell you that this is in our best interests. You have decided upon a "Reliability Reserve" of 2000 acre feet. At $1000 af, that's 2 million dollars a year for water that can't be stored and is not going to be used for (or paid for by) additional development? Do you really believe that? Can we afford that? I don't think that the way Measure "P" was worded will really lock up that water for emergency use only. Could it still be used for development? Maybe you should ask your City Attorney since I believe that is what city residents (and the City Council) intended. Look what is happening in Pismo Beach and Morro Bay as those cities struggle to pay for their State Water Project allotments. Do you think that city residents are going to be very happy when they finally figure out just what all this water (and.all these annexations) is going to cost them? Do you think that staff has been very "up A 5 front" with them (or you) about what those costs are really going to be? Do the benefits for existing city residents really outweigh the costs? I apologize for the length and rambling nature of this. These are complicated issues. I have been following these issues for years now, and while I may not have crossed all of my "t's" or dotted all of my "i's", I do sincerely believe that my basic premise is correct and that you are about to make blunders of magnificent proportion. Please try to look at the long-term good of the city, and not be influenced by the short-term desires of a vocal minority. Sincerely, Pat Veesart Enclosures: MWD article cc: LAFCO DESALINATION SUPPORTE" Metropolitan's board of direuors autho- rized spending $6 million to support a hew method of d6salting seawater as .well as for d.esr9n and development of a larger clemanstrat-ion. plant using the distillati2n . - .- -. • - - . •• - - • • millionventure of private companies to receive grants fromthe. United States and Israel .�Science and Technology Foundation.that will design a generic, non-site specific desalination plant capable of producing 4 million gallons per day. Results of / test•nt in Hunting- ton •• Beach have shown that costs can be cut to around $800 per ocre-�t.. Currently desalted sea- water costs a out per acre-oot, due to high construction Ecsts and the large amount of energy required. Volume GiNumber G,[9yG tAlarfa�,iuy Editor fim Pnromr &Gorr Jru•Pa«ir�iirn� ' ' .StafFWriters Gany flofi•r. /strnr AlrLtii�Jiliri"^ Sta(i I'hotographcr Liudrr 0/,runrn�r Dcsiyn llivrnr Gr««!r - MEMOPOUTU WATUDISTRICrOFSOUTHOWMFORNMAeuna Dircxorof[uBbe e\ffai rsand Conscrvatwn Sn!I9v/uc Post Office You eau e-mail your comments or yucstionsroiisat�' Box 54153 1pomento@inwd.dst.ca.tis Los Angeles,CA The mission oFthc Aletru/ro(usu ll�itir Dirnia ofSa«tLcrn 90054-0153Cn(forma is m provide its service arca with adequate and reliable supplies of hiGh-quality svan•rto meet present and future nceds- in an environ mcmally andccmtoniieally responsible way. Ar/ucdurt znno is publis6cd sic times a pear bytlfe i\ietrapulitan-+.:° \Vater Distrix of Sout6crn Califoniia,;So Soudt Grarid,Los An�cles.-Cr\9007[zi3-_t7.G000.Copyrighi O['9�Cr,by �tcvop6lirtn\C/atcr District of Sou[hcrn California. Rir�hts reserved.Scud address c6an�es and correspondence to Ar/urdurt , znno, i\t\VD;CO.Qas 54rS3•Los An�cics Cr\9ooS4-o tSi h[[p:/hvw•sv:mwd,dsi,ca:us/ ICover photo by Cram-P'inhr - - .� ` �� Printed air rt'ryrlyd pnper«:i Ji toy-Gnsrd arks , M _ .ING AGENDA DATE -// r ITEM #= MEMORANDUM Date: March 10, 1997 To: City Council From: John Dt n Subject: Clarification of Items in the Telegram-Tribune's Weekend Article on the Airport Area Certain clarifications are appropriate relative to the Telegram-Tribune's March 8'h article concerning the Airport Annexation. 1. The Mai). The map printed by the T-T includes areas not considered to be within the Airport Area by the City. On the southern boundary, the T-T includes the 300-acre Avila Ranch and on the eastern boundary, their map shows an area that is outside the Edna-Islay secondary planning area. 2. Costco. The article attributed to staff a "vision" of the Airport Area that includes a Costco. While some zoning in the Airport Area would allow for warehouse retailing, the Airport Area has never been considered as a potential location for a Costco. It is understood that the preferred location for shopping of this type is in the Dalidio/Madonna Road/Froom Ranch areas. 3. Use of Reserve. The specific plan funding program recommended by staff does not require any funding from the City's general fund reserve. The relatively small amount of general funds that are recommended ($19,000) are already budgeted. The use of the reserve was discussed by staff only in relation to the alternative of the City fronting the entire cost of the specific plan. 4. Total Cost. The article correctly identifies the total cost of the special plan ranging from $4507000 to $545,000. Incorrectly, however, it states that the Council would like the airport property owners to pay '/z of that cost. In actuality, the Council has been desirous of cost-sharing for only the Airport Area component of the cost, which is estimated to be $390,000 to $485,000. Please contact staff if you have any questions concerning the above information. F UNCIL CDD DIR O eFIN DIR AO ❑ FIRE CHIEF ORNEY PWDIR RKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF MTTEAM ❑ C DIR ® EADFILE 12 UTIL DIR ❑ PERS DIR sw�KG,�J .T,ddoglllLE ME :" rIG AGENDA f DATE. —i/_97 ITEM #. MEMORANDUM DATE: March 6, 1997 TO: City Council FROM: John Dunn, CAO SUBJECT: AIRPORT AREA ANNEXATION SCHEDULE Attached is an estimated schedule for the completion of the Airport Area Specific Plan and annexation. The chart reflects a"best case scenario", with a notation that the process could take up to one year longer, depending upon a number of variables. Therefore, our best estimate is that the prerequisite work and annexation will be completed within a 2-3 year time frame. This schedule is also being provided to LAFCo and the Board of Supervisors, at their request. Cc: Board of Supervisors Paul Hood,LAFCo COUNCIL CDD DIR rf.AO FIN DIR Qr O ❑ FIRE CHIEF �11TORNEY Mr'PW DIR CLERKARIO ❑ POUCE CHF O MOMTTEAM p REC DIR ❑ FILE W9ML DIR I ❑ PERS DIR_ _ N� 6 '•� aunt' < < § S x -3j LL o o ƒ Z S ° ° Z n # § < < r 2 o 0 O � 2 .w co CO I 0 2 \ m O ~ 06 z z \ 3 0 o k 2 � n o ; Q 03 « c S � 2 m - 2 2 q < < CL 2 k 0 \ . w - ƒ f� . @a % k/ o ' - ; ` E ) \ \ { § 0 E . 2 2 � § 01 K ) k k � } \ & k / § / % E ; ] w I - *r-E CD ■ 2 K ƒ 0 k � k k 2 § 7 / \ k ° 3 \ CM ® ) 2 § Co e � E w § ƒ 0 = c 2 \ % : - a 7 7 7 7 5 7 - ° 2 7 < o 03 cm ° k c c 0 c u ' ` 2 ' o 0 = 7 - f E % . t k k k 7 \ § $ i 0 \ k § / � \ � ` \ a 3 0 = E © _ - 3 J 2 2 12 k a / k f tm { a / �� RW • . f $ � ' § [ , o § D - � Q � .0 o ] k s E 5 2 2 E ' Q e a 0 LL r ] \ 0 ; < I I < ƒ E I x K § § j v 5 k 0 a. w a CO 0 a § I u . § 70 : Ju�a�u ,✓cam f�:d��� MEETING Aur.NDA DATE JILL ITEM # � ::.,:..:::::.r.::. .,:t.i:cy....}}i::tt^'.v.n...,.r..:i}:.n.::n•:.•.:;.}::i:{:<:';,n,:i;::3::::::::::............r.:.J..;.<.>t:.c::..:s.t:<.:.:+..x,L:;;.>i::J.::n.�::r:�: .:::.:r; #:. ....,:.,:.... .......,....... .. .:...:..:.�:-<::..�:........ ..:....:...::.:..»}:.i:.;v:::::.:n..:r,:... aii..•»...::.>:.::::e;:;;: '..is,.t Ji::.:.;..;.: ..t:. Ys+.. ,.,J:..t:,.:::::.::::::::..::::::: :..t.:::.:`::::;;;»:{::{::{;'k:':.":.'::i'k„ .:ri:::f.:::::.:... ::.K/:'t:i�':'t't::::::�:.:;•J ................ ..v........v...... ..:.,... .........nn......,......en..nn........:,np:.v::..»..:.v:,,,..v:n:}:3•;i;i;'......: ..,... ..J:, ,il,'::>{i:f3}k3<{�.�Y j�n::::'.':::::::<{fitly:?: n ,...r.:i't..nv f,v v,».:i}}},»».:,., n.. ..n»:»:•••• ....,..:{. .. ..... March 4, 1997 ,' - 2-COUNCIL C9DD DIR O�CAO FIN DIR TO: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer . CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF �/1TfORNEY e'pw DIR Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Officer Q"CLERWORIG ❑ POUCE CHF ❑ MGM`r TEAM ❑ REC DIR FROM: John Moss, Utilities Direct o D FILE �UTIL DIR Gary Henderson, Water Di ' ion Manager �� '�' ❑ PERS D R SUBJECT: Water Policies Relative to the Airport Area A( v �'1�f4rJ�U/��Ci Per your request, this memorandum has been prepared to briefly address some of the areas of concern which were raised in your discussions with Supervisor Pinard relative to water policies and the Airport Area. I have attached several staff reports which discuss in detail the basis for water impact fees and other related policies. Provided below is a brief response to the concerns in a question and answer format. 1. Question: Are all the costs for the Nacimiento Project paid for by the Airport Area property owners? Answer: No. Only the portion of water that is necessary to serve the Airport Area would be recovered through water impact fees. A significant portion of the water that the City has requested from the Nacimiento Project is for existing development and residents. This is due to adopted City policies relative to the need for an additional 2,000 acre-feet for a reliability reserve and 500 acre-feet to offset losses due to siltation at our two reservoirs. This is covered in more detail in the attached staff report dated July 20, 1994. 2. Question: Are the City and CSA 22 both requesting water to serve the Airport Area? Answer: No. The City has reduced our requested entitlement from the Nacimiento Project by the amount of water that the City would need to serve the area covered by CSA 22 which is within the Airport Area. CSA 22 has requested an entitlement from the Nacimiento Project to provide water for this area. 3. Question: With the modification of the policy for reserving water for intensification and infill, will this result in the City exceeding the safe annual yield again? Answer: No. The City policies will not allow development beyond the water supplies available to the City. If the City does not acquire any additional supplies in the future, a portion of the potential development within the existing City limits and in the new annexation areas would not be allowed to occur. The City is pursuing the Water Reuse, Water Policies Relative to the Airport Area Page Two Nacimiento and Salinas Reservoir Expansion Projects to meet the future water needs of the City at full build-out. The Water Reuse Project is expected to be the first water supply project to add additional water supplies to the City. Construction of the Reuse Project is anticipated to occur in spring of 1998. Based on current City policies, once construction is initiated there would be an additional 600 acre-feet of water available for development and the other 600 acre-feet would be allocated to the reliability reserve. Since there are growth limitations in the General Plan, it is not anticipated that development (within the existing City limits as of July of 1994) will be impacted by the modification to the policy for reserve of water for intensification and infill. Per Supervisor Pinard's request, I have attached a copy of the staff reports from Match 12, 1996 and July 2, 1996 which discussed and modified the policy relative to reserve of water for intensification and infill within the existing City limits as of July 1994. As you are aware, Council directed staff to bring these policies back to the Council for reconsideration. Since these policies are included as the Water Element to the General Plan, the policies were first discussed before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission's recommendations are included in the July 2, 1996 staff report. I hope this answers the questions posed by Supervisor Pinard. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please contact John Moss or Gary Henderson. Attachments: 1. 7/20/94 Council Agenda Report (Urban Water Management Plan) 2. 11/15/94 Council Agenda Report (Urban Water Management Plan) 3. 3/12/96 Council Agenda Report (Water Management Element) 4. 7/2/96 Council Agenda Report (Water Management Element) 5. Minutes from 3/12/96 City Council Meeting 6. Minutes from 7/2/96 City Council Meeting AIRPORT OPERATIONS AND ANNEXATION FACT SHEET. . .. v ..:. .. :.: :.. vix,+. ., .,MNws:� .:n . '. nv�i:: ._,:,uvw in{..�rv^:::i•^;.^w.�:^. }`,S.Y::'iY..�Vin: :x :.:.i:4:4".riii :.:.,Y.iw"rn4::: ...Y:i:O .v. .w"'�S w.>,.'.'.e.. :x•r�. .a::,wa. ;.. ,.w.,,.?R, o oNH;.<5?>i?s%,.xc....r.@".,."Cc."C,'at:.y�'.'.'�a..:..t'�G�..,.:::.:::r:. t.:::: x,.: .:::. �4:::: :::.b::.:• :;::F:::. ::':.`,:Y,n�^�,:,�:.'.�.":�i� Ry :..a � .: ,�,.:�s>'Y� a�. ..$ :.:. a : <3:?%:§':a:: ?O': a 4u.Fx. � s; :.,wsyi.: ri: :z^sx� ic•.'s ;..:cs::£so..:•crc. n ::......:. w.,...ai.: � vii. c o•:4r ...: t>.�f• ,%tt, -. •.... v:,iw;csr::wo-;:Y'i;::::ix�,:.:::su:O.cY.�.sx�scsx@:i.*.'9:iso:iGv:<>.'aika;c?,'+udi::.�dvxaw`xs:Lr::::aw;oEx,`t..;�.o.,ou:.:u;:.'.:ss:�:w..::..:,..�..ws..., `�' Annexing the Airport into the City has been a part of the City's and the County's planning for years. 2. County operations and property within the city limits are not subject to City regulations when used by the County. 3. The City has no interest in - and no authority to - assume control of Airport operations should the Airport be annexed to the City. The County will maintain control over the Airport and its operations, just as it does with other County facilities now in the City such as the Courthouse, the Social Services Center, and the County Hospital. County residents' political representation in what happens at the Airport will not be affected by annexation. 4. Land uses around the Airport are primarily determined by the County Airport Land Use Plan. The County adopts and maintains that plan, even if the Airport is located within the city -limits. The current Airport Land Use Plan was adopted in 1973. This County plan establishes the safety zones around the Airport and what uses can be located in them. This will be unchanged by annexation. 5. City and County land use plans must comply with the County Airport Land Use Plan. 6. The City's annexation plan includes the Airport as a means to also annex several existing industrial properties south of the Airport. The governing body that approves annexations (the Local Agency Formation Commission) requires annexations to be contiguous and prohibits "unincorporated islands". The City cannot annex property south of the Airport unless it also annexes the Airport. 7. The City's land use plan for the area around the Airport is based on drawing a line (the City's urban reserve line) around existing industrial areas and having those areas develop within the City. Land outside the urban reserve line is to remain at its current level of use - primarily rural. The County- not the Ci tv - recently added another 300 acres of industrial zoning around the Airport. 8. The Airport Area is developing now under County jurisdiction. Annexation does not make the difference between development or no development. For example, in the last five years, about 400,000 square feet of additional floor area have been either constructed or approved by the County in the Airport Area. 9. The County's own Fiscal Analysis for the San Luis Obispo Area Plan Update (done in November 1996) states on page 10: "Annexation of the Airport Area has the most positive affect on net County revenues for the planning area". The fiscal study points out that by the year 2005, the "Annexation'in Five Years" option will produce $3.5 million net revenues annually for the County, exceeding any other option by $2.5 million net revenues annually. On the other hand, the "Continuing Recent Trends" option is expected "to decline eventually to a deficit situation (for the County) in the planning area". 10. The March 11 decision before the City Council is not about whether or not to annex the Airport into the City. That issue will be studied as a part of the planning the City Council is being asked to authorized. A decision on annexation is probably two to three years away. ATTACER-= 8 •4sed mg ui uoy.exauue ao; Zz-yo nq ui papni:)ui uaaq;ou ane4 sayaadoad as94u s.40swadnsp paeog ng ,fq pauoz rt)}ua:)aa K-padoad 1B4snpui p samB 00£ pue poda!y 4uno0 a g Suppe 4o uoquap!suo:) sapnl:)ul 4�14m `eaay uo.4exauuy:aodaly 944.4o3 (sueld a94seyl ap!m-X4u a3440 pue) ueld oy.uads a ao4 d3-8 a.4ap!suo:) 111m ry.0 944 L661 ii 43aeyi uO 'uO4Bx9uue eaae POd.4le aLg...noge `saaumo /Caado.Ad 944 pue X4p 944 uaam}aq .4ou `4p a4} pue /4uno3 a4l uaampq juauaaa.& leuuo4 ou si 9.4941 •pa.4ldxa se4 uo4B:)Lldde si41 LL6Y •ueld OL6tuads auuaw pue uealn a .40-4 dab a aaeda.id o} papa.4!p _4e4s !O ea.4y :aod.4►y 9443o uo exauue .+off o0jy o4 pa:4luagns /(lleuuo-4 uoyeolldde rf�i0 �6T •41,19ua313 asp pue1 a44 ui alnpa4os pue uoq.exauuy ea.4y :).4od.4id ao3 ueld ler daouoi a44 uie4aa 04 Z-£ sa}on luunoO 4!:) at} W194eu gin vimp90 Opp a A ea.4y:pod.4ly a44jo uoyexauue ao3 uois!noad 4no4W SuloSuo sl sswoad 94epdn Zuauaaj3 asp puej 41D 176 61 AatuLung •K.4an!l3p aaZem 944.40.4 Ked ll!m zZ-vo u!44!m saaumo X4.4adoad 941 •aa4eM olualLuueN 30 43aj a-ue 006 pue a34eM W45Jo 4184 a -DE OOOi p9n.4asa.4 ZZ -VS -D •,<lddns/aowas aazem ao4 }pea4uoo pue aan►lap o4 s.4aMod Zz-ySO pawe.48 oOjy-! 1661 2upas •ln}ssaomsun a.Aam a4l 4}!m suo!4e4a3N '£661 ul s4u3ua3a.42e le.mpnoad alge4dame 3nlosa.4 pue uo.4exauue.4o sansst ssn:)sip o4 KlJoam -!q 49ua uae34 uo4e4oSau y •pasoddo osle luunoO 4!O a44 4:)►4m `a:)yuas Aazem/Caan!lap .40 apniDui oZ saamod sZZ-Vo puedxa o4 s2uuea4 p134 (uo!sslu tuO:) 1,104911 aoj eaay 1eOO-1) ONY1 '103A113p as.jem.4o.4.sZdLua:}e lie pasoddo Kl}ueuuepe l!:)unoO /41:) 941 •.4apm 041,191LUDEN ao3 U04M!ldde up pue uo4eOolie aapm apzs a `Xllerq.uana pue eaae ao!naas.4apm sa!}!' le:) of uo4.eO!ldde s.4aumo K-pado.Ad mg pa4.4oddns s.Aosuuadns.4o paeog •eaae pod.4!e 944 04 aaZem 3o ttaan!!ap 944.404 suo!4e!40gau 2UiO2uo ul aSeSua saaumo X-aadoad tr6 - _77-66-1 •rC}uofeW 44mo12-ou 04 44moa$-awls Luo.4 sa2ue4:) luunoO 4!O uo awdaa le:)4!10d 0 11e3 •ploy uo 3.uaLudolan3p;sow - 44mOJ2 }ueduaea jo anj s34!unLuLuo:; OZ 8u4e1a.4 saAR94!uI loa4uo0 44mO.Ag .9. pue Qv. saanseayl a.4am iolleq a4z u0 0661 86i -4uno0 pue 4!0 mg uaam}aq :poj}a zu!of a se -sI3 pue ueld DtguadS3o 2u!ssaOo.4d pue uo4e.4edaad aoj pa4!o!los aaamslesodoad a61- Ile n •Po}}a ueld 0Lg!:)ads ag 4}!m p.4enuo.4 anoua o4 pue swawmoo asp pue-1 an.padsaa a!a41 ozu! Ueld idaouo0 eaay;.4od.4!y a43, a}eaodao:)ui ol lenoadde ane8 saos!naadnS -40 paeog ic4unoO a4Z pue 1!OunoO A!0 0-15 a4l 4408 696t ?ULnuBI79961 i3qtu3:)3cl •ea.4e a4z ao4 saipn4s Suluueld uo Z861 83u!s 000`00£$ uet4 a.4ow pled ane4 s.4aumo K-.4adoad at1 •s334 Su!uueld a(4.4d.4o3 aapao u! sanlasuia44 xe4 um saaumo Aaadoad 944 4014"' Kg al3!4an a s! �u}s!p 4uaLussasse situ •eaay;aoda!y a g.4o Suluueld i% ZZ-ysO pazea-m saoswadng jo paeog Tr paaAse saaumo AAadoad 24Z pue sp261 24 u! LAmOJ2 leu.431Uuao).401 eaae aaoda!E 3Ll1 Jo asn 944 paaaoddns LRoq 4p mg pue X4uno:) a41 Wautdolmap le!4uaplsw io4 a4updoadde se eaae e}ue2.4eyq 943 pue uo!suedxa ssau!snq ao3 aOeld a�eudoadde a4� se paL,y�uap► sem eaae aaod.4►e 941 s�O - V043 u04ex3uu'r e3ay:POCU1y 844-40 "oZs!H aR.n d too D Z7 Z7 ❑ C7 � M ❑ r w m tb t!j ❑ C D Z Z t7 Z D m X m D v) ❑ Z s AIRPORT SPECIFIC PLAN CAO's INTRODUCTORY COMMENT Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council: It is my pleasure to introduce the subject of tonight's City Council meeting to you. The issue before you tonight, despite the length of the staff report, is really quite straightforward. It is whether the City should proceed with the specific plan for the airport area.. This, as you are well aware, is our established precondition for the subsequent consideration of the annexation of the airport area. The issue of the annexation of the airport area is not the real issue before you tonight. You have previously spoken to that issue, both in the adoption of the City's Land Use Element on August 23, 1994, and in your follow-up action of December 122 1995. Mr. Hampian, in his remarks following mine, will detail the Council's actions at their December 12, 1995 meeting. Tonight's proposals are a direct ._E w�Ja follow-up te4heee earlier actions. The overall issue of the annexation of the airport area has been under discussion for at least the last twenty years. The previous Land Use Element, adopted in 1977, established the urban reserve line concept for the area, in about the same place as it is located today. The policy regarding the urban reserve line, then as today, was that it would provide a limit to potential urban development. The 1994 addition to the concept was to set forth the urban land uses of Business Park, Services and Manufacturing and Industrial, and designate them in the Land Use map.. The mechanism for allowing the extension of services and development was to be spelled out, and the Specific Plan was to serve as that mechanism, with annexation expected in 1995. The specific plan and annexation have also been among the Council's Major City Goals over the last several years. For example, the completion of an Airport Area Specific Plan was a major city Goal in the 1991-93 Financial Plan. If the City Council approves going ahead with the specific plan tonight, it will be approximately two to three years before the City would be in a position to annex the airport area, with the Specific Plan studies and the environmental analysis taking at least eighteen months to complete. During this time, we will continue to expeditiously work on the other issues relevant to the ultimate annexation, with water supply being one such issue. The issues being discussed tonight are true to the policy and plans of the City of San Luis Obispo. In our lives, when all else fails, we return to the instruction book. In our life as a community, what we believe our future should be is set forth in the City's adopted General Plan, the most critical element of which is the Land Use Element. In the LUE, the urban reserve line is drawn as the southern boundary of the airport area, and the airport area is listed as a principal expansion area. Section 1. 13.2 of the Land Use Element, Annexation Purpose and Timing, states in part, "Areas within the urban reserve line which are to be developed with urban uses should be annexed before urban development occurs." As the staff report documents, considerable urban -type development has already taken place within this area, under the County's jurisdiction. While the question is not the direct subject of tonight's meeting, I'd like to speak to "why should the City annex the Airport area? The answer to this question is critical .OA O.L,c mow', to the future well-being of the community and this area. The major reason to annex this area is that it is the City's long-term plan and consistent with City policy to do so. But that assertion poses another question, "But why should this be the City's plan?" 1. Perhaps the essential reason is that the City and the County have approved essentially urban -type uses for this area. Many of us believe the City is the more appropriate body to plan, control and regulate the uses within an area essentially shown in both agency's plans as a modern industrial park. 2. Additionally, as County officials freely admit, it is not the County's usual function to install infrastructure for urban -type development. The current situation in Los Osos is one demonstration of that point. The City has Public Works and Utility Departments whose primary task is to plan, design and build urban infrastructure. It is, in fact, the water system, sewer system, road and transportation system, and storm drainage system which are the heart and backbone of the proposed specific plan. To say that the City would do a better job of this than the County is not to be critical of our sister public agency; it is to recognize that the city is in the business of serving City residents and urban -type development, and that the County serves a complex dual role as the State's arm in health and welfare matters, and serves the rural and unincorporated areas of the County. Our roles and functions are different, and we, and they, should continue to do what each of us does best. The bottom line is that if this area develops in the County, and proper infrastructure is not developed, then City officials of the future will have to deal with the problems of this area such as inadequate provision for storm drainage, inadequate roadways, and packaged water treatment plants. 3. The. City two years ago, and as a result of Council goal setting, established two important new programs, Natural Resources Protection and Economic Development. While there are many aspects of a comprehensive economic development program, to strengthen and diversify the local economy, and to create quality jobs are the two basics. Well-planned industrial development is the key to the creation of well -paying jobs. 4. The City now has much stronger policies and programs in place relative to open space and natural resource protection. Open space dedications or fees shall be a part of our Airport Area strategy. Major areas of open space and resource enhancement are envisioned to be integrated within the area. The ultimate annexation of the airport area is more than a nice thing to do; it is a critical element in our City's future economy and job creation, the City will control the development in the area, we will provide for necessary infrastructure, and in doing so will help preserve a balanced quality of life for our community. Over a period of time, we have heard comments to the effect that, "the City is dust as well off to let the area develop in the County" or a variation, "the City is better off if the area develops in the County." I believe these statements, though well-intentioned, are simply not correct. The major reason we are considering annexing the Airport Area is a planning reason, that this area should be in the City in the future and that the City is the best agency to plan and regulate the development, and provide the necessary infrastructure. . Granted, the adopted land use plan for the area, for both the City and the County, are essentially the same. One could also argue that the County has made a valiant attempt over the last few years to upgrade their development standards, so the differences in this realm aren't as significant as they once were. So, what is the real difference between the approach of the two agencies towards this area. It is, in one word, infrastructure. Each development that is now being approved in the County by the County is "on its own" to provide for water for consumption, water for fire protection, and septic tanks and leach fields to handle the waste. There is no overall infrastructure plan, and there is less -than -full consideration of off-site impacts. If the present pace and type of development currently happening in the County is projected into.the future, it can safely be said that there will come a time when the lack of an overall approach — to sewer treatment, to road network development, and to storm drainage — will cause problems within this area. These problems will impact upon the City and cause the City to spend major dollars to address problems which we did not cause. Even now, there are storm drainage problems in a portion of the Airport Area which impact on "downstream" City development, and the City is powerless to do anything about it but to appeal to County Engineering. In this particular instance, because of the cost involved, County Engineering hasn't been able to address the problem. The modem history of California is replete with cities annexing properties which have previously developed in the County. My two former cities, Sunnyyale and Monterey, faced this problem and have spent millions of dollars to bring these previously developed areas up to modern standards. So, what is the City talking about tonight. We are talking about the planning and design of future infrastructure so that present problems are addressed and future problems are avoided. In this way, the City of the future will not be burdened by yesterday's lack of planning and action. That is why the City should provide proper infrastructure for this area and why, from a future planning perspective, annexation makes sense, and ignoring what is really happening in the areae ie sense Tonight's action is a necessary step in the City proactively moving towards the annexation of the airport area. The airport area, annexed and planned and developed correctly, would mean well laid out and attractive development, would provide for the augmentation of our economic development objectives, would provide for the necessary infrastructure to properly serve the area, and would prevent some downstream problems that would be the inevitable consequence of creatingXa major industrial area in the County adjacent to a long-established City. The County has made it clear that this area will develop. The City must now decide whether to provide the necessary leadership and take control of the urban development long envisioned for the area, or to be a bystander as that development happens.at our doorstep. The future is no long a question of whether or not the area is to develop. It is about what character the development will have, and whether the City. will shape that character to meet the needs and goals the City has set for itself in the future. In closing this introduction, I would like to state my appreciation to the members of the Airport Area Staff Team. They have worked long and hard. Mr. Hampian will present the results of their work effort. After Ken's Presentation What is imperative is that we come out of tonight's City Council meeting with a clear direction for the future. The recommended direction is that we proceed on the preparation of the specific plan, which would set forth the necessary infrastructure and a methodology for property owners to pay for the infrastructure, whether through an assessment district or through development fees. The de facto alternative is not to proceed with the annexation, since the Specific Plan is an established precondition for annexation. The other necessity is to approve an interim annexation plan. The alternative to this is not to allow those few annexation requests with pending applications and which meet our established criteria. The staff views tonight's actions as among the most important decisions this City Council will be called upon to make. There will be few other decisions with such potential impact on the future of the City of San Luis Obispo. Thank you. COUNCIL READING FILE MARCH 11, 1997 COUNCIL HEARING AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AND ANNEXATION '\��h ��;v:t\Y„c��>:`�\v:b .L�6^�;\ :\v�:,•�:�'.`:':vh�:;:.`.'�tiA �\.oa.: s��`e cw^7bv\w^::��.: �: .�:\\`�.. .: \,w: ` \.° � `3. �v.'v\`�iv��vft#av,:avt:�a\nuaa\`�; �tiaa.3.;Cb:•xxwifw:.:o-.O:�o'F:e>:e\�i'k:.'::�E\tE..a�\v`'�ta'^ aav\tit.1a4::aw"\at' h�.'vv\A'vc: CONTENTS: 1. December 12"H1995 Council Agenda Report and Council Action . 2. Request for Proposals for Airport Area Specific Plan, EIR, and Related Master Plans s• »:ts •; '?; 3:i:A% �s°"rrr��a� s ':ss %sc#s sxrt'yts#;vssy:.::'::,:,N: 's% • : t r t ,'gs s� %ss s: ;:s.:.3t ss'tsa..z% W� w#�'t,'s.s%sok:'.'s's'`s suy.>` £t�sG' ' a`'%stss��s'rs,�.��,r`,i':ss3''ss, ,;r. �z Oxt Request for Proposals for Airport Area Specific Plan, EIR,'and Related Master Plans »:ss �i'�ts%:s%':'s:sr,Hs�H^b°xj:�?ssss>��N�s��'o%�sNisrr';iirs`•:'>�:'�ssi�%��a£::rts�.�'s`;�"s,•,;:s'r�-a.:':. %sss:'tEs:tt�.s;sstr :. , „ r, ss: : ::. :. » :. . s�s;;t,::,s;;:;;: s:: > ,:.::s :::: » ,s sss; iws's.s: t t • � s city of sAn lois oaspo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 NOTICE REQUESTING PROPOSALS FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND RELATED FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING Specification No. 97-38 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA The City of San Luis Obispo seeks to hire a consultant to prepare a specific plan for the "Airport Area" and to prepare related facilities master plans for water, wastewater, and storm drainage. A preliminary work scope has been prepared describing the City's expectations for consultant services. If your firm wishes to submit a proposal for this work, fifteen copies of the proposal must be received by the Finance Department no later than 3 p.m. on May 15th, 1997. Proposals received after said time will not be considered. To guard against premature opening, each proposal shall be submitted to the Department of Finance in a sealed envelope plainly marked with the proposal title, specification number, proposer name, and time and date of proposed opening. Proposals must be delivered or mailed (not faxed) to: City of San Luis Obispo Department of Finance 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 A pre -proposal meeting will be held at the City/County Library conference room on April 3rd at 3:00 p.m. to answer questions that prospective proposers may have regarding this Request for Proposals. Attendance at this conference is at your discretion. For additional information, contact John Mandeville at 805 781-7187 or Glen Matteson at 781- 7165. The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. l� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. C. PRELIMINARY WORK SCOPE AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND RELATED FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING CONTENTS: A - General Background B - Preliminary Work Scope C - General Terms and Conditions D - Special Terms and Conditions E - City Consultant Services Agreement Form F - City Insurance Requirements for Consultant Services G - Interim Airport Area Annexation Financing Plan AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND RELATED FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING A: GENERAL BACKGROUND Area and Location As used in this context, "Airport Area" refers to a planning area which is outside the city limits but within the urban reserve fine, as shown in the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan. The existing city -limits encompass slightly more than nine square miles. The Airport Area consists of about 1,100 acres south of San Luis Obispo, generally extending from Broad Street (State Route 227) on the east to South 9guera Street on the west (vicinity map attached). The Airport Area is bordered by other distinct areas of the City, including the Margarita and Edna Islay areas. These areas will share certain components of infrastructure with the Airport Area, as will the entire City when water and wastewater systems are analyzed. The boundaries of the consultant's analysis will vary, based on the particular planning topic requested. The Airport Area will be the focus of some of the planning requested, and the catalyst for other planning that goes beyond the boundaries of the Airport Area itself. The Airport Area is nearly level, sloping gradually toward to the southwest, with some broad, ,- shallow mounds and depressions. Freshwater marshes exist in some of the low lying places. Several tributaries to San Luis Obispo Creek flow through the area. The County airport facility is located in the southeast part of the area. Over one-third of the area is a former Unocal petroleum tank farm, from which the east -west road through the middle of the area takes it name. Excluding the former tank farm, about one-third of the area has been developed to some extent. Many of the parcels with some development also contain vacant or cultivated land. A wide range of storage, manufacturing, recycling, service, sales, and office uses have been developed. With the exception of the County -operated airport, which receives City utility services, development is supported by on-site groundwater wells and by on-site, percolation -type wastewater disposal. Storm drainage is retained on-site by recent developments. Project Background General For most of this century, much of what is now the Airport Area was grazing land and field crops. The Unocal tank farm, which exploded and burned in 1926, was rebuilt and used into the early 1990's. The tanks have now been removed. The airport has grown from a small general aviation field to the principal commercial airport for the county. Available land and relatively low development costs have attracted many urban type uses, at first those needing a lot of space but minimal services, and recently more intensive uses. The City proposed annexation of nearly all the area in the early 1970's, but the property owners were not supportive. Between 1977 and 1994, the City's General Plan said the area should be A-1 C used for agriculture and those uses needing a lot of space but minimal services. It did not support annexation. Property owner interests in annexation has changed since 1977. When the City updated its General Plan land use policies in 1994 it supported annexation of the area. The new land use plan included low intensity recreational uses for most of the Unocal property and fully served urban uses, including business parks, for the rest of the area. Specific Plan Background The City's General Plan says that before all or part of the Airport Area is annexed, a specific plan must be adopted. The City has initiated annexation of the whole area, but has requested that its annexation application at the Local Agency Formation Commission remain pending until a specific plan for the area is completed. The City has received inquiries from several property owners concerning individual annexations, and has adopted a strategy to allow limited annexations provided property owners agree to participate in the specific plan process and in the eventual construction of area -wide improvements. The City, the County, and an association of property owners represented by a local consulting firm, jointly began work on a specific plan in the early 1980's. The intent of that specific planning effort was to guide further development to be more consistent with City and County goals, regardless of which agency had jurisdiction. Providing adequate utilities, drainage, roads, and design standards were key issues. The initial work lead to a concept land use plan that was the basis for the land use map adopted by the City when it updated its General Plan Land Use Element in 1994. The cost of preparing a specific plan has been a significant stumbling block in the way of its completion. The City Council recently approved an approach to completing the specific plan that results in a planning process which utilizes General Plan land designations and zoning standards to the maximum extent possible as a means to focus additional planning on topics not adequately addressed in existing plans. Staff will prepare the portions of the specific plan addressed by existing plans, policies, and regulations while a consultant prepares those portions of the specific plan which require new analysis and recommendations. In this way the costs of completing the specific plan are expected to be less than starting a comprehensive new effort. Recent County Actions The City of San Luis Obispo prides itself in its quality of life. The primary constituents of that quality of He are the City's rural surroundings, the character of its urban areas, and the high level of services available to its residents. Principle concerns regarding development of the Airport Area have been preventing sprawl by protecting rural and open lands beyond the defined Airport Area, protecting natural resources and habitat within the areas generally designated for development, and providing the high level of services and design associated with the types of development desired by the City. Late in 1996, the County adopted an update of its general plan for the San Luis Obispo area. That update, over the City's objections, showed additional land outside the City's defined Airport Area for commercial and industrial uses. This additional area raises new questions regarding the A-2 control of sprawl and the availability of services for urban development. These issues will need to be addressed through the analysis of alternatives in the environmental review process. Relationship to Areas Outside the Airport Area General As noted above, the boundaries of the areas that will be the subject of analysis will vary, based on the particular planning topics described in the scope of work. The Airport Area will be the focus of some of the planning requested, and the catalyst for other planning that goes beyond the boundaries of the Airport Area itself. Water and Sewer Service For water and sewer services, this RFP is seeking facilities planning, which will include an engineering analysis of facilities needed to serve all future expansion areas included in the General Plan, identify existing system deficiencies, and guide implementation of recommended improvements. This work has been approved by the City Council and is being included with this specific plan RFP because of the strong relationship to the Airport Area specific plan requirements. Drainage and Circulation Drainage and circulation planning will encompass the Airport Area and areas of the City related to it by these facilities. The public facilities financing plan will apply to the facilities determined necessary by the planning process and will distribute facilities construction costs among the areas that benefit from the facilities. The scopes of work that follow describe the planning needed in more detail. The attached location map shows the Airport Area and the areas adjacent to it. Margarita Area The most significant area related to but not a part of the Airport Area specific plan is the Margarita Area. This area of about 430 acres extends from the northern boundary of the Airport Area to the ridge of the South Street Hills (attached vicinity map). Prior to the City's 1994 Land Use Element update, the Margarita Area was generally considered a part of the greater Airport Area. The Land Use Element update established different policies for these two areas, making them more distinct from one another with regard to annexation pre -requisites. This area is planned for hillside and flood -plain open space, a neotraditional residential neighborhood, and a business park. It is currently outside the city limits and is mainly used as grazing land. Similar to the Airport Area, a specific plan is required before this area can be annexed. The City initiated annexation of the Margarita Area as a part of the annexation application that included the Airport Area. A draft specific plan was partially completed for this area by a local consulting firm under contract to the property owners, but was not completed due to lack of funding support from all of the involved property owners. This draft specific plan is now being completed by City staff and one of the property owners. Additional infrastructure planning for this area is still needed and is being worked on by one of the property owners independent of the Airport Area specific plan. The Margarita Area shares water, sewer, circulation, drainage, utility, A-3 and open -space corridor concerns with the Airport Area. The Margarita Area will need to be analyzed as a part of the planning that needs to be done for the Airport Area, but much of the data and information for this area will already be prepared. It is expected that combining the environmental analysis of the Airport Area and the Margarita Area will be the most efficient means of meeting CEQA requirements for both areas. Edna Islay Area The Edna Islay Area is located to the east of the Airport Area. A specific plan has been adopted for this area. Most of this area has been annexed to the City, however the western portion of the Edna Islay Area, known as the Secondary Planning Area, is still unincorporated. The City Council has directed that this area be annexed to the City. This area shares arterial access, sewer, and drainage infrastructure with the Airport Area. A-4 AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND RELATED FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING B: PRELIMINARY WORK SCOPE OVERVIEW In cooperation with City staff, the consultant will prepare the following documents: • A specific plan for the Airport Area • A city-wide Water Master Plan • A city-wide Wastewater Master Plan • A Master Storm Drainage Plan • A Public Facilities Financing Plan • An environmental impact report The specific plan tasks shall include preparing a draft specific plan that can be recommended to the Planning Commission and the City Council for adoption. The specific plan will comply with the minimum required contents for specific plan stated in California Government Code Section 65451. City staff will prepare the specific plan chapters on land use and open space protection as described in GC 65451(a)(1) and (3). The consultant's planning will focus on water delivery, wastewater, drainage, circulation, public facilities financing, and urban design. All of these topics shall be addressed by the specific plan as they pertain to the Airport Area. The Water and Wastewater Master Plans, as well as the Master Storm Drainage Plan are necessary to prepare the Airport Area specific plan. Information from these plans will be incorporated into the Airport Area specific plan. Separate stand alone documents for these subjects should also be prepared as their scope will go beyond the boundaries of the Airport Area. The draft environmental impact report (EIR) shall be prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines. Following public hearings and direction by the City Council, the consultant will prepare a final EIR including comments and responses, and a document reflecting the adopted Specific Plan. The EIR will be an integral part of the specific planning process rather than be an after -the -plan exercise. The environmental evaluation should start early enough in the process to enable environmental considerations to influence decisions regarding preferred alternatives for land use distribution, circulation, and infrastructure. A analysis of the EIR's project alternatives that allows for a detailed comparison of infrastructure capacities, design of facilities, public services and costs is a required component of this project. For this reason, engineering and fiscal work should consider project alternatives early in the process, and environmental evaluation of infrastructure layout should occur during the planning process. In their proposals, prospective consultants may recommend changes to the details of the following -- work items based on their experience and independent judgment. The final work scope will be subject to City approval and will be an attachment to the consultant services agreement. The consultant shall confer with staff to discuss the accomplishment of milestones and drafts of completed work. At the final draft stage of the plans being prepared, the consultant will provide a presentation of the plan to the City Council, at the direction of the City's Project Manager. PRODUCT FORMAT The requested plans will be published as: • 8.5" X 11" paper documents • Printed both sides • Binding to be decided (plastic comb anticipated) • Use of color minimized (to enable legible black and white. photocopying) • Use of oversize (fold -out) pages minimized The documents will be written in a simple, direct style, and will be grammatically correct. Units of measure will be metric, with English equivalents in parentheses. The consultant will provide: • One camera-ready original of a draft Water Master Plan; • One camera-ready original of a draft Wastewater Master Plan; • One camera-ready original of a draft Master Storm Drainage Plan; • Fifteen copies of an administrative draft Specific Plan for review and direction by City staff, prior to publication of a public review draft; • Five copies of an administrative draft environmental impact report for review and direction by City staff, prior to publication of a public review draft; • One camera-ready original of the draft Specific Plan for public review and hearings; • One camera-ready original of a public review draft environmental impact report; • One camera-ready original of the adopted Specific Plan; • One camera-ready original of a final environmental impact report; • One computer file (3.5" disc) in Microsoft Word (version 7.0) or a compatible file format, for each of the adopted plans. WORK ITEMS - 1. LAND USE The land use designations and standards of the specific plan will be consistent with the adopted Land Use Element of the City's General Plan (see also the discussion of alternatives under the "EIR" heading below.) City staff will prepare the draft chapters on land use, development standards, and open space protection described in GC 65451(a)(1) and (3). This information will be supplemented by the urban design plan prepared by the consultant. The consultant will integrate all information and format the text and prepare graphics for consistency with the rest of the specific plan. City land use plans and data will be an important factor in consultants planning and will be provided to the consultant at the beginning of the project. �� r ♦ r�.r::a�x:.�'c�;;•:�:\::`>c: \;:+t.�..�yca y .;.y`o,..<oa;;.}i :Cv 'vin\N^.`:t :h\: `. i^k\:i � i\. \}v"�}..p•�:'�.t »?M:�nU:J:v'•\:.4�N �. � �. :. �l\ \\\1` \\ \' \+... \ `\`t wl�v :a� AS.+uv`¢.wm. ��:E:sU`�.�.muU�`a:'a•A.uw�.a"'�::at:aavx^uay.+am`iw+Ra�.`sx�^Uaav � +i `u.'k.�b.� ui.\w."`•3n+of.:.ow�Yc: �:CR,Aae�l''A�'�` `v�`o�:1� .wa�av�}�A'v�+'3�\"��aiutCuu 2. INFRASTRUCTURE The consultant will prepare infrastructure plans capable of economically supporting the planned land uses and of being integrated with existing and planned City infrastructure outside the specific plan area. Infrastructure planning should be coordinated with the environmental analysis as described in the OVERVIEW and in Part 5 of this workscope. The following infrastructure components shall be addressed: 2.1 Water Distribution The City of San Luis Obispo is interested in developing a Water Master Plan to identify facilities necessary to serve new annexation areas, address existing system deficiencies, and provide recommendations in other areas relative to city-wide water system facilities and overall operations. The goal is to review the raw water delivery systems, water treatment plant facilities and water distribution system and provide recommendations for improved operations, elimination of identified deficiencies, and identification of facilities necessary to serve the City as a whole, as well as future annexation areas per the City's adopted General Plan. The document will provide a long range plan to guide implementation of recommended improvements and expansion of services to future annexation areas. Section I below provides additional information relative to the scope of work for this study. Section II provides an overview of the City's current water related facilities and Section III provides a listing of past reports and studies which are available for review at the Utilities Department Office at 955 Morro Street. I. Scope of Work The following sections identify general areas of the water system that must be included in the plan. Based on the evaluation and identified areas for improvements, the Consultant shall provide recommendations, cost estimates and a long range implementation plan for all areas identified below. The implementation plan shall identify additional studies (if necessary), design, and construction activities. The consultant shall work closely with Water Division staff in identifying issues and deficiencies, and in developing solutions and alternatives. A Raw Water Conveyance Facilities Evaluate existing raw water conveyance facilities from Salinas Reservoir and Whale Rock Reservoir and provide recommendations for operational and infrastructure improvements. The Salinas Reservoir conveyance facilities were constructed in 1941. The facilities are owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and operated by the County of San Luis Obispo. The City of San Luis Obispo pays all costs associated with operations, maintenance and capital improvements. Existing operations shall be reviewed and recommendations provided for enhanced efficiency and cost saving measures. Several years ago, the County initiated an interior inspection of the pipeline (see reference in Section M) which provided a detailed review of all pipe and joints along the 9 mile pipeline. This information shall be reviewed and the additional facilities related to the conveyance facilities (pump stations, standpipes, etc.) shall be evaluated and all deficiencies noted. Recommended improvements, cost estimates, and phasing plans shall be developed. The Whale Rock conveyance facilities were constructed in 1961 and a major upgrade to the two pump stations were completed in 1993. The consultant shall review existing operations and provide recommendations for improvements and cost saving measures. B. Water Treatment Plant The Consultant shall review and evaluate the existing operations at the water treatment plant and provide recommendations for improved operations and efficiency. The Consultant shall evaluate the ability of the treatment plant to meet future water demands at full build -out based on the City's adopted General Plan. Areas to be included are: water quality constraints, treatment plant process limitations and improvements, treated water storage, and pumping capacity limitations. Cost estimates and phasing recommendations shall be developed. C. Distribution Facilities The Consultant shall develop a computer model of the City's water system using Cybemet Version 2.16 software. The model shall be developed for the City's entire water system to provide the ability to model the main pipelines and components of the system. The model shall be in sufficient detail to analyze the options available to correct existing system deficiencies and areas for improvement as well as the new facilities necessary to serve the annexation areas. MW l The Consultant shall evaluate and recommend appropriate design assumptions relative to the City's water supply system. Areas to be addressed include fire flow requirements, water demand projections, hydrant spacing, and storage capacity. The water system shall be evaluated to insure adequate storage capacity, water pressures, fire flows, etc. Recommended system improvements shall be provided, along with cost estimates and suggested phasing strategies. The City of San Luis Obispo's General Plan identifies a number of areas which are planned for future annexation into the City such as the Airport Area, Froom Ranch, Dalidio property, etc.. The facilities necessary to serve the annexation areas shall be evaluated and preliminary design developed for the areas. This design shall include all new facilities (pipelines, tanks, etc.) and upgrades to existing facilities necessary to serve the areas. The overall goal will be to provide a water facilities plan which can guide development as it occurs in the future. The Consultant shall develop recommendations for phasing construction of new infrastructure necessary to serve the expansion areas. Review existing policies relative to oversizing of facilities such as waterlines. Provide recommendations for policy revisions or alternative approaches. An additional area of concern in the Airport Area relates to the petroleum byproducts soil contamination near the Unocal facilities. The issues relative to increased costs associated with hazardous materials, placement of new facilities, and other special precautions shall be addressed. The Consultant shall provide recommendations for typical replacement schedules for pipelines, pump stations, storage tanks, etc. Options for rehabilitation of existing facilities shall be addressed and recommendations provided. The City's existing aboveground facilities shall be surveyed and recommended replacement schedules developed for each location. An evaluation of various water meter remote reading systems shall be provided and implementation alternatives prepared. Recommendations shall be provided and a cost/benefit analysis prepared for each alternative. D. Final Water Facilities Master Plan Report The consultant shall finalize and present all information requested in this scope of work in a bound report, with copies in a digital form compatible with City systems that will comprise the completed Water Facilities Master Plan. H. Current Facilities Description A Water Sources The City of San Luis Obispo currently utilizes water from three sources of supply. The vast majority of the water necessary to meet the water demands of the community comes from two surface water reservoirs: Salinas (Santa Margarita Lake) and Whale Rock Reservoirs. A small amount of local groundwater is also utilized to meet daily demands. Groundwater currently represents approximately 5 ME percent of the total annual water supply for the City of San Luis Obispo. The City s water demand in 1996 was approximately 6,300 acre-feet per year. The City is also currently pursuing three additional supplemental water supply projects to meet the future water demands of the community. These are the Water Reuse Project, Nacimiento Pipeline Project, and the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project. B. Water Treatment Facilities The existing water treatment plant is located on Stenner Creek Road, northwest of the Cal Poly campus. The facility was originally constructed in 1964 to provide treatment of surface water from Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs. The plant was originally designed to treat up to eight million gallons per day (mgd). In 1977, the plant was upgraded to provide 11.5 mgd of treatment capacity but actually treated up to 12 mgd for limited periods during peak water demands. A major upgrade to the treatment plant was completed in January 1995. The upgraded facility utilizes ozone as the primary disinfectant instead of chlorine. The water treatment plant is a conventional plant that includes coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, filtration, and disinfection. The upgrade project increased the capacity of the plant from 11.5 mgd to 16.0 mgd. This was accomplished through increased filter efficiency and the ability to bypass the sedimentation process (ie. direct filtration) for water delivered from Whale Rock Reservoir. C. Distribution Facilities The water distribution system delivers potable water from the water treatment plant and wells to customers and fire hydrants via three storage reservoirs, six pump stations, nine water tanks, and approximately 150 miles of water mains. It is unlikely this basic distribution pattern will change, since the water treatment plant will continue to be the principal source of treated water for the City. There are approximately 150 miles of water distribution pipelines throughout the City. The engineering estimate for the life expectancy of these facilities is 50 years. Complete replacement within the term of He expectancy would require that the City replace an average of 2% of the system infrastructure each year. Pressure Zones The water delivered from the treatment plant is split into two main distribution networks.. About 52% flows into the City by gravity and the other 48% is pumped to a storage reservoir at a higher elevation and then flows into the various service areas by gravity and through pressure reducing valves (PRV's). The most apparent strain is in the pumped delivery system. Since electrical power for pumping water is a major expense, a goal is to develop a system which minimizes pumping. The goal of the water supply system is to deliver water at pressures between 40 pounds per square inch and 80 pounds per square inch at the customer's meter without using a pressure reducing valve on the pipe connecting the water main to the meter. This pressure range will meet the needs of most irrigation MMS sprinklers and other uses, and provide adequate pressure for fire sprinkler systems. Pressure zones are established in the distribution system to maintain these pressure ranges. The City currently has 15 pressure zones divided between the gravity and pumped delivery systems. The City of San Luis Obispo requires all new buildings, including residential, to install fire sprinkler systems. These systems have been designed based on 90% of the available pressure in the area Due to these design constraints, significant changes to pressure zones in the future may not be acceptable. Also, due to the age of the infrastructure throughout the system, minor increases in pressure have caused numerous waterline breaks in the past. Water Storage Facilities Water storage facilities are necessary to provide water during peak demand periods and emergency situations such as fires. The City has twelve water storage facilities, seven of which are steel storage tanks ranging in size from .04 to 4 million gallons, one .35 million gallon buried concrete tank, three concrete facilities with a capacity of .03 to 7.5 million gallons, and one hydropneumatic station. The total maximum storage capacity is 24.6 million gallons. Water Transmission System Parts of the City's water transmission system are over 100 years old. Most of the pipes are made of cast iron. Other pipes are made of asbestos cement (located primarily in the Laguna Lake area), or, since the mid -1970's, PVC. Water pipes serve two basic functions. The larger pipes or transmission mains move large volumes of water from one portion of the City to another. They range in size from 12 inches to 30 inches. The smaller pipes or distribution mains are to distribute water within a local area and deliver it to each property in the City. They range in size from 2 inches (in the older portions of the City) to 12 inches. The current minimum City standard is 8 inches for distribution mains. Water from the water treatment plant in Stenner Canyon is transported through a 30 inch transmission line 3,500 feet to the transfer pumps (located on Stenner Canyon Road). The transfer pumps take approximately 48% of the water, increase the pressure, and then provide water to Stenner Canyon Reservoir, Cal Poly, and other portions of the City, generally north and east of the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. From the transfer pumps, there are two 24 inch transmission lines that move water about one mile to the city limits. One pipe is the high pressure line from the transfer pumps and the other pipe has lower pressure supplied directly from the water treatment plant's clear well. Fire Protection Svstem Fire protection is one of the most important services the City provides to its residents. The fire protection system is a network of 1,661 public hydrants and 160 private hydrants. The Las Pilitas fire in 1985 nearly exceeded the City's capability to supply sufficient water for fire suppression. The Johnson Avenue and Orcutt Road areas are the weakest areas for emergency water supply, because less than 3.5% of the total storage is in this area and our delivery from the distribution system is limited to about 2,000 gallons a minute. The alternatives for improving this situation are to increase the water _J storage capacity in that area or increase the capacity of the transmission delivery system. Lim -- Fire flows can now be met in all of the other gravity zones. There are local distribution problems within all zones that will be remedied by removal of deteriorated and undersized pipes as part of the ongoing capital replacement program. Ill. Previous Reports and Studies 1. Whale Rock Pump Stations Preliminary Design of Upgrade and Expansion, Leedshill-Herkenho$ November 1989. 2. Preliminary Draft Report Basis of Design for Whale Rock Pump Stations, Leedshill-Herkenhofly August 1990. .3. Operation and Maintenance Manuals for Whale Rock Upgrade of Existing Pump Facilities, Volumes I - IV, August 1993. 4. Water Treatment Plant Modifications and Ozone Pilot Study Technical Memorandum: Raw Water Characteristics & Treatment Objectives, Black & Veatch, October 1989. 5. Water Treatment Plant Modifications and Ozone Pilot Study Technical Memorandum: Plant Hydraulics, Black & Veatch, December 1989. 6. Water Treatment Plant Modifications & Ozone Pilot Study Final Report, Black & Veatch, June - 1990. 7. Water Management Plan, Public Works Department, April 1989. 8. Urban Water Management Plan, City of San Luis Obispo, December 1990, 9. Urban Water Management Plan, Utilities Department, November 1994. 10. Operation and Maintenance Manual for Stenner Canyon Hydroelectric Plant, Public Services, November 1984. 11. Municipal Water Distribution System Improvements Preliminary Engineering Information, City Water Department, February 1974. 12. City of San Luis Obispo Water Supply Study, Engineering - Science, Inc., April 1977. 13. Hathway Pump Station Evaluation, Boyle Engineering, May 23, 1990. 14. Downtown Water System Model Calibration - Draft Report, Boyle Engineering, August 1, 1990. 15. Foothill / Reservoir No. 1 Zone Analysis, Boyle Engineering, March 28, 1991. LOW 16. Groundwater Utilization Assessment, Boyle Engineering, July 1991. 17. Preliminary Specific Plan Analysis for the San Luis Obispo County Airport Area Specific Plan, Willdan Associates, April 1988. 2.2 Wastewater The City of San Luis Obispo is interested in developing a Wastewater Master Plan to identify facilities necessary to serve new annexation areas, improve existing system deficiencies and provide recommendations in other areas relative to city-wide wastewater system facilities and overall operations. The goal is to review wastewater treatment facilities and the wastewater collection system and provide recommendations for improved operations, elimination of identified deficiencies and identification of facilities necessary to serve the City as a whole as well as firture annexation areas per the City's adopted General Plan. The document will provide a long range plan to guide implementation of recommended improvements and expansion of services to future annexation areas. Section I below provides additional information relative to the scope of work for this study. Section II provides an overview of the City's current wastewater related facilities and Section III provides a listing of past reports and studies which are available for review at the Utilities office at 955 Morro Street. I. Scope of Work The following sections identify general areas of the wastewater system that must be included in the plan. Based on the evaluation and identified areas for improvements, the consultant shall provide recommendations, cost estimates and a long range implementation plan for all areas identified below. The implementation plan shall identify additional studies (if necessary), design and construction activities. The consultant shall work closely with Wastewater Division staff in identifying issues and deficiencies, and in developing solutions and alternatives. A. Water Reclamation Facility The consultant shall review and evaluate the existing operations at the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) and provide recommendations for improved operations and efficiency. The Consultant shall evaluate the ability of the WRF to meet future wastewater demands at full build -out based on the City's adopted General Plan. Areas to be included are: water quality constraints and treatment process limitations and improvements. Cost estimates and phasing recommendations shall be developed. B. Collection System The Consultant shall evaluate and recommend appropriate design assumptions relative to the City's wastewater collection system. Areas to be addressed include, sewer main and trunk line capacity projections and lift station capacities. MW The wastewater collection system shall be evaluated to insure adequate sewer main and trunk line - capacities and lift station capacities. Recommended system improvements shall be provided, along with cost estimates and suggested phasing strategies. The City of San Luis Obispo's General Plan identifies a number of areas which are planned for future annexation in the City such as the Airport Area, Froom Ranch, Dalidio property, etc... The facilities necessary to serve the annexation areas shall be evaluated and preliminary design developed for the areas. The design shall include all new facilities (pipeline, lift stations, etc.) and upgrades to existing facilities necessary to serve the areas. The overall goal will be to provide a wastewater facilities plan which can guide development as it occurs in the future. The Consultant shall develop recommendations for phasing construction of new infrastructure necessary to serve the expansion areas, review existing policies relative to oversizing of facilities such as sewer mains and lift stations, and provide recommendations for policy revisions or alternative approaches. An additional area of concern in the Airport Area relates to petroleum soil contamination near the Unocal facilities. The issues relative to increased costs associated with hazardous materials, placement of new facilities and other special precautions shall be addressed. The Consultant shall provide recommendations for typical replacement schedules for pipelines, lift stations, etc.. Options for rehabilitation of existing facilities shall be addressed and recommendations provided. An evaluation of the City's approach to handling I/I related problems and issues shall be provided and implementation alternatives prepared. Recommendations shall be provided and a cost/benefit analysis prepared for each alternative. D. Final Wastewater Facilities Master Plan Report The consultant shall finalize and present all information requested in this scope of work in a bound report, with copies in a digital form compatible with City systems that will comprise the completed Wastewater Facilities Master Plan. H. Current Facilities Description. A. Wastewater Treatment Facilities. The City's Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) is located at the Southern portion of the City on Prado Road. Originally built in the 1920's the WRF completed its latest upgrade in 1994. The upgraded facility is a tertiary plant that includes clarification, biofiltration, activated sludge/nitrification, final clarification, filtration, cooling, chlorination and dechlorination. Currently ADWF is 4.5 MGD with capacity at 5.1 MGD. Peak wet weather flow design was increased to 22 MGD. FR 10 B. Collection System The wastewater collection system collects and conveys wastewater from customers via 130 miles of sewer mains. The system has eight pump stations, 17 siphons, several large trunk lines and one large diameter interceptor. Lift Stations The City has eight lift stations. The stations are all Smith and Loveless underground dry well models with pump capacities ranging from 260 gpm to 1800 gpm. Several of the stations experience operational difficulties due to level control problems, I/I or capacity. Collection System Facilities Portions of the collection system are almost 100 years old and are made up of a variety of materials including terra cota, vitrified clay pipe (VCP), asbestos cement, cast iron, PVC, and steel. Pipe sizes range from 6 inches to 48 inches, with the majority of the system being 6" VCP. The current minimum standard is 8 inches for sewer mains. Much of the collection system was constructed before 1960 and consists of VCP with mortared joints. This older portion of the system has settled, cracked and/or has serious root intrusion which has allowed significant I/I into the system. A recent basin investigation has also pinpointed older inferior private sewer laterals as a significant source of the UI. In 1990 the City installed an interceptor he that conveys the large UI flows to the WRF eliminating overflows in the City. The Utilities department is also proposing a voluntary private sewer lateral rehabilitation program to assist residents who would like to replace their old inferior sewer laterals. This program along with mainline replacement is hoped to gradually control M. III. Previous Reports and Studies Master Water and Sewage Plan, CDM Inc., December 1972. 2. Sewer System Study for Southerly Portion of City Planning Area, Jenks & Adamson, 1975 3. Wastewater Management Plan, CH2M Hill, September 1986. 4. Major Infiltration/Mow Source Detection Study, C112M Hill, September 1986. 5. Letter Report I/I Evaluation Plan, Brown & Caldwell, December 1986. 6. 1/1 Study - Flow Graphs, Brown & Caldwell, December 1986 - March 1987. 7. Wastewater Management Plan & Executive Study, Brown and Caldwell, October 1987. Im 8. Lateral Investigation & Rehabilitation Report, Brown & Caldwell, September 1988. 9. WWTP Upgrade & Sewer Line Replacements Final Report, Brown & Caldwell, March 1990. 10. Results of Site Assessment - Unocal Pipeline Proposed Tank Farm Road Sewer Line, Unocal Corp - ERS, September 1996. I L Preliminary Specific Plan Analysis for the San Luis Obispo County Airport Area Specific Plan, Willdan Associates, April 1988. 2.3 Master Storm Drainage Plan for the Airport Area L Reconnaissance and Data Collection The Consultant shall perform field reconnaissance of the area of study and acquire and review available information, including, but not limited to: • 1988 Willdan Associates, Preliminary Specific Plan Analysis for the San Luis Obispo County Airport Area Specific Plan • 1986 Wallace & Assoc., "Master Storm Drain Plan for Airport Area" • 1974 Zone 9 Flood Management Study - Nolte and Assoc. • Edna Islay Area Specific Plan - Drainage Section • 1983 Flood Management Policy - City of San Luis Obispo • Draft Margarita Area Specific Plan • SLO General Plan - Land Use and Circulation Elements • Current City Storm Drainage Design Guidelines Current SLO County Storm Drainage Design Guidelines • Existing Electronic GIS files of study area - including aerial photography and digitized contours • FEMA FIRM panels for Applicable Areas within the City of San Luis Obispo and San Luis Obispo County • Existing rainfall data as compiled by SLO County and/or California Department of Natural Resources • Any documentation available from the "in progress" Flood Management and Natural Resources Study • USGS Quad Sheets These documents, as well as other documents deemed important by the City of San Luis Obispo, will be reviewed prior to and/or as a part of performing subsequent tasks outlined in this Scope of Work. 12 IL Design Philosophy It shall be the goal of the Storm Drainage Master Plan to limit flows from the total development scenario to those flows expected from the undeveloped scenario. In order to achieve that goal, the consultant will need to consider the use of master/regional storm drainage detention facilities, on-site detention facilities or a combination of both. It is the City's desire that master storm drainage detention facilities be favored in order to allow full development of lands within the Specific Plan area without any necessity to construct any mitigation facilities within San Luis Obispo Creek. It is noted that some areas already developed have on-site detention facilities. The consultant shall take special care to identify riparian areas impacted by any proposed facilities and identify mitigation measures to enhance and/or recreate additional such amenities. 1IL Hydrologic Analysis The Consultant will formulate a hydrologic model of the watershed and sub -basins impacting and comprising the Airport Area Specific Plan study area. The consultant shall, after calibrating the model, model the 10 -year, 25 year and 100 -year events for flows into San Luis Obispo Creek as a pre-existing totally undeveloped basin. The model shall then be run again assuming full development, as described in the Airport Area Specific Plan and the City of San Luis Obispo Land Use Element/General Plan, for the same 10 -year, 25 year and 100 -year events. It will be the consultant's task to design and create an implementation plan for a drainage system which will allow for the abandonment of those on-site facilities upon, and only upon, annexation to the City. Likewise the consultant shall study the effects upon the Creek of the delay in time of concentration of flood flows from the study area, due to proposed and existing detention basins, upon flows volumes in the creek. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' HEC -1 watershed model (or equal) will be used to simulate flow rates and volumes that would occur at appropriate nodal points of concentration during a 10 -year, 25 year and a 100 -year storm event. Based upon a review of available information and field reconnaissance, existing watershed and sub -basin boundaries will be developed by Consultant. Subsequent preliminary assumptions regarding alignment and types of drainage infrastructure components (i.e., channels and storm drains) will be superimposed onto the overall watershed information and preliminary routing assumptions shall be developed. Precipitation data and distributions available from the California Department of Water Resources for the City of San Luis Obispo shall be used in the modeling effort. Impervious cover and lag time assumptions shall conform with values inherent to the land uses represented on the Draft Airport Area Specific Plan and surrounding land uses as identified by the Land Use Element of the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan. . Based upon initial sets of assumptions, the HEC -1 watershed model will be formulated and subsequently modified as refinement of the drainage infrastructure occurs through the performance of subsequent work tasks. Should a need for one or more regional stormwater 13 detention facilities become apparent during refinement of the drainage infrastructure design, the HEC -1 model will be modified to include routing of flood flows through these facilities. The HEC -1 model will ultimately be finalized by the Consultant to reflect final components of the Storm Drainage Master Plan. In determining the basin and sub -basins within the area under study, the consultant shall set flight panels according to the City's coordinate grid system, capture the area by digital aerial orthophotography(black and white — pixel 0.28m or less), plot contours to 0.5M (accuracy: 0.2M) via a digital elevation model, plot a planametric view and reproduce those results on CD at a scale of 1:500 to match City grid (approximately 22 tiles). Of the flight panels, at least two shall be of USGS accuracy and tie to the City's coordinate system and at least one shall be located on either a horizontal or vertical City grid line. Data for these points shall be given in both horizontal and vertical measurements. After establishing base and supplemental horizontal control for the area the Consultant shall revise existing City street center line data for the area to first order accuracy. Consultant shall revise existing City parcel line data from existing survey data available and from information available from the aerial photographs. All information developed shall be made available in AutoCad drawing file format. For areas outside of the Specific Plan area, existing aerial photography shall be acceptable to the City however the consultant may wish to propose additional work in order to achieve consistent or more accurate results. Consultant shall provide in the cost estimate the additional cost of providing digital orthophotography in color. IV. Hydraulic Analysis As infrastructure proposals become more refined, the Consultant will verify the effectiveness of the proposed overall drainage infrastructure components utilizing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' HECRAS (ITEC -2) model for proposed channels, the Kentucky Pipe model for proposed storm drains and the HEC -1 model for regional stormwater detention basins. If hydraulic analyses performed indicate a need to adjust the hydrologic model or drainage infrastructure components, these adjustments will be made and re -tested until the desired hydraulic criteria and compatibility with hydrologic assumptions are achieved. V Drainage Infrastructure The primary elements comprising the stormwater runoff conveyance system for the City under buildout conditions will be formulated by the Consultant. The completed drainage infrastructure plan shall include the alignment and sizes of proposed channels(new or existing - natural or manmade), storm drains, and regional stormwater detention basins, including data such as: flowline elevations, flow volumes, shear forces and sediment loads at selected key locations and preliminary slopes where appropriate. All data must be calculated and submitted in a metric format. All mapping produced must be in a digital format acceptable to the City and a copy of the final documentation shall be included as a part of the final report. It is expected that an initial layout for the proposed drainage infrastructure will be formulated at the early stages of Storm 10 14 Drainage Master Plan preparation. However, it is anticipated that the proposed drainage infrastructure will frequently be refined in conjunction with: • the refinement of hydrologic and hydraulic information • the addressing of other concerns identified through coordination with the City of San Luis Obispo and other interested parties. As part of the refinement process, evaluations of the relative cost effectiveness for channels versus storm drains, and the possible need for regional stormwater detention, will be performed. The recommended drainage infrastructure shall also consider future opportunities for retrofitting of existing structures/basins or the placement of proposed basins to meet Best Management Practices (BMPs) to improve water quality associated with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program, in anticipation that the City eventually fall under its jurisdiction. VI. Righ"f--Way Assessments The Consultant will perform preliminary assessments of the right-of-way needed to accommodate drainage infrastructure proposals, utilizing information presented on available assessor's record maps as supplemented by the City of San Luis Obispo. Consultant should recommend right of way or easement bands along natural waterways to allow maintenance access. VII. Design Guidelines The Consultant will prepare guidelines for the hydraulic function and aesthetic treatment of channels, storm drains, drainage crossings and detention basins as a part of preparing the Storm Drainage Master Plan. These guidelines will be discussed and documented, but will also be graphically represented using cross-sections, sketches, charts and other demonstrative techniques. These design guidelines should be coordinated with the urban design plan described in part 4 of the work items to be completed. VIII. Phasing Concepts General discussions and recommendations will be provided by the Consultant to address priorities and phasing of infrastructure improvements to conform with and accommodate the needs of land development activities as they occur. These recommendations will be based upon flood control impacts and needs, costs effectiveness and requirements for providing capacity for future infrastructure. 15 DIG Operation and Maintenance Issues Consultant shall recommend how ownership and maintenance of various components of the drainage system shall be accomplished. Consultant shall propose a maintenance program and recommend a financing system to provide for ongoing system maintenance. K Cost Estimates The Consultant will provide construction cost estimates for each component of the recommended drainage infrastructure, and these costs will be subtotaled for each primary drainage conveyance system serving large portions of the Airport Area Specific Plan area. Costs shall not only be categorized by facilities which benefit sub zones but also by those which benefit future areas not within the Specific Plan area and those which benefit existing developed areas. The City of San Luis Obispo will provide the Consultant with unit costs for right-of-way for various land use areas. Construction costs will be represented in current dollars, with general recommendations being provided to convert values to future dollars. The consultant's phased implementation plan (mentioned elsewhere) shall identify the cost's associated with that plan and recommend an appropriate financing program . XI Final Storm Drainage Master Plan Report The Consultant shall finalize and present all of the information performed as a part of this Scope of Work in a bound report, with copies in a digital form compatible with City systems that will comprise the completed Storm Drainage Master Plan for the Airport Area. 2.4 Transportation I. Review all existing documentation: A. General Plan Circulation Element B. Bicycle Transportation Plan C. Traffic impact studies for: 1. Prado Road Project 2. Prado Road Interchange PSR 3. Marigold Project 4. others as identified D. General Plan Land Use Element Land Use Element E. Preliminary Specific Plan Analysis for the San Luis Obispo County Airport Area Specific Plan, Willdan Associates, April 1988. F. Draft Master Plan for County Airport. In Progress II. Investigate soils of the area and determine type and structural strength. In Wi (— III. Capacity Analysis For the years 2005 and 2020, analyze the traffic impacts and improvements needed for peak p.m. traffic at the following locations assuming a linear growth pattern between 1997 and 2020 which yields full buildout of the airport area and the rest of the City's General Plan by the year 2020. A. Intersection of Tank Farm Road and Higuera B. Intersection of Tank Farm Road and Broad C. Intersection of Tank Farm Road and Santa Fe D. Intersection of Higuera Street and Prado Road E. Intersection of Tank Farm Road and Long Street F. Intersection of Higuera Street and Surburban Road G. Interchange of Los Osos Valley Road and Hwy 101 H. Interchange of planned Prado Road and Hwy 101 I. Broad Street corridor from Orcutt Road to 4km south of Buckley Road J. Higuera Street corridor from Hwy 101 to Prado Road K. Tank Farm Road Corridor from Broad Street to Higuera Street IV Alternatives Analysis Review and provide recommendations of ways to increase circulation/transportation capacity without increasing right-of-way requirements:. A. increased use of transit B. increased use of tdm/tsm C. use of roundabouts in lieu of traditional traffic signals D. realignment of Prado Road and/or Tank Farm Road to provide freeway to Broad Street accessibility for the benefit of existing traffic, that generated by Airport Area traffic and that generated from other areas within the City designated for future growth E. others as identified. V. Hazardous Materials Avoidance Review all documentation available related to Unocal hazardous materials and pollution in the Airport area; wetland habitat; its impacts on constructibility and cost impacts to construction. Recommend alternatives that provide for connections between Broad and Higuera Streets in a manner that optimizes cost effectiveness and environmental protection. VI standards Recommend standards for adoption detailing optimum: A. driveway spacing along roadways (e.g. 100m)and from intersections (e.g. 15m) B. distance between signals (e.g. 400m) 17 C. breaks in median islands which would allow left turn movements (e.g. 200m) �D. widths of medians E. appropriate forms of landscaping for medians islands F. street lighting standards for industrial and commercial areas G. the use of shared driveways H. width of driveways and structural design of.driveways I. design elements of sidewalks - their preferred width and intersection design with both corners and driveways to meet current ADA design standards I parkway width, landscaping, and design elements K. appropriate TI and R values for roadway design purposes L. structural design of roadways VII. Alternative Paving Materials Review and recommend alternate forms of roadway construction including the use of concrete brick, concrete, rubberized asphalt, reuse of existing materials(cold mix recycle), etc. Provide a recommended material and design based upon benefit/cost ratio including factors such as pavement life, maintenance impacts as well as original cost. 18 VIII. Graphics and Drawings Prepare City Standard Drawings for adoption of new standards which are a result of this study. IX Construction Cost Estimates Provide construction cost estimates to accomplish all recommended improvements for the two time periods studied. Include right-of-way acquisition, preliminary design, environmental review, hazardous mitigation, design, and actual construction plus contingencies. X. Implementation Strategies Recommend an implementation strategy based upon priorities of safety and traffic capacity to guide staff in the gradual construction of the improvements needed for the two time frames identified. .\0.: .:>mn 1. n\YA^^n.YM^M�?,:M??•v.++?'M:":^',^.v??�N:,N,�4i??:.?::\?:???iv,.x?????:^?W:?:4,,??+\l`(;?^\:\.?\�h\.?y0?\\;Cil.^:C'.y:p,\: .\,'J?.;:+ vti �. .n... , \^t.�,\,`.;J;>\k.;`\\;`:ADO.?` ;�\��.. v.hn.A\xc. a: x.? vn..,�:.y..^.�..:\a:t.t.C.e:,.: �.nv:?n ..a,\i.'.?.+hA,�2L'��.k C... ?^�\..f: v.\'bl \n\n. xn..\ \ ?: ?::::.i::iC.:::\???4:i�;v?ii)C?i:;}.?i'Ti:"?N:'n^.V.:.?g'! :.:.:':�.{:'A:.{:'%..- lh,.:... {... •�+ vw k,\n,.., \+n..a.. ).+'C+...\. .: .?.?x:;o+x•.e., ne;:?;,^^;•.`^.:t�k`S .\+\ t.:,\�a^R`a`;;•`.a?::cr:`o;::;,: \\ \.>..:: ::""�iS::+:$>4A:i.:O.'d:i.Ak>..,+�+.+.:..:..f.(;:;::.:.ftii.::5.'S<+.:L.t\,..ti:;SGV.a+4.\\\:.:J��v�'�„'•.A.'a 3. PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN It is the City's policy that new development pay its fair share of the cost of constructing the facilities necessary to serve it. As such, a critical component of this specific plan will be a clear and "doable" strategy for funding the needed infrastructure improvements in the airport area. The financing plan must be specific enough that it can provide a meaningful implementation tool upon specific plan adoption; major fee or assessment issues can not be deferred to some future date.. The resulting plan should give policy -makers and landowners a sound basis for understanding the costs of the project, the allocation of costs to various properties, and the best financing mechanism. I. Scope of Work The plan should cover the following key areas: Water, sewer, circulation and drainage improvement costs; and open space in -lieu fees. ■ Allocation of improvement costs between currently developed and undeveloped property. ® Allocation of costs among land uses (residential, commercial, office, industrial). ® Basis for allocating costs (such as per unit, per acre, per square foot, per equivalent dwelling unit). ® Phasing of improvements and absorption rates: what is the relationship between when and where the improvements will be needed, and when and where properties are likely to be developed? ■ Best funding methods (such as direct developer responsibility, impact fees, assessment district). IM 19 II. Preferred Sub -Contractor In October of 1993, the City entered into an agreement with Angus McDonald & Associates to prepare a fiscal impact analysis (phase 1 work) and a public facilities financing plan (phase 2 work) for the proposed airport area annexation. Phase 1 work was completed in February of 1994; however, phase 2 work has not been initiated, and is now included as an integral part of this larger, more comprehensive workscope. Because of their previous work on this project, and their understanding of the policy and fiscal issues surrounding this annexation area, we would prefer that Angus McDonald & Associates be part of the team that prepares the financing plan. They can be contacted as follows: Angus McDonald & Associates 1950 Addison Street Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 548-5831 However, we do not want to create arbitrary partnerships that will not work. As such, it is not required that Angus McDonald & Associates be part of this work; but if they are not part of your proposed team, your proposal should clearly discuss why you did not include them, and how you will bring a comparable level of understanding and expertise to this project. III. Other City Advisors The City's financial advisor for project financing is Evensen Dodge and our bond counsel is Jones, Hall, Hill & White. We expect that they will be part of any financing team that may be required to implement any debt financing component of the public facilities financing plan. They will be available for assistance during this project if needed. Contacts are: Evensen Dodge Timothy Schaefer, Senior Vice President 2750 BelU76wer Boulevard, Suite 201 Long Beach, CA 90815 (310) 429-2121 IV. Work Completed To Date Jones Hall Hill & White Charles Adams, Vice President 4 Embareadero Center, Suite 1950 San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 391-5780 As part of an interim airport annexation strategy, the City has completed some initial work in preparing a financing plan. This interim financing plan identifies (but does not resolve) a number of key methodological issues, and is provided in Section G of this RFP. B- 20 4. Urban Design The consultant will prepare urban design guidelines for the purpose of creating a cohesive character within the Airport Area. These guidelines should also lead to an integration of the character of the Airport Area with the overall character of the City. The consultant will identify key elements of the City's natural and built environments that are essential to the character of San Luis Obispo. The Consultant should refer to the City's General Plan (especially the Land Use, Open Space and Circulation Elements) for guidance. A locally focused visual preference survey, or other similar methodology, is also recommended. These elements of character will be translated into a general set of guidelines for architecture and landscaping. The guidelines should create a palette of imagery and materials that can be used by property owners, the City, and developers as structures and landscaping are added or modified. The urban design guidelines will work in concert with otherwise applicable standards and guidelines contained in the City's General Plan, Architectural Review Guidelines, Zoning Regulations, Subdivision Regulations, and other design related documents. As with other City specific plans, this specific plan would not need to repeat all the details of citywide standards, but would instead emphasize modifications or additions to existing standards that should be in. effect in the specific plan area. Main topics are anticipated to be: • Character of appearance from public streets, particularly the roads which are entries to San Luis Obispo from the surrounding rural area. Specific guidelines for roadway condors may include guidelines for architectural treatments and materials, landscaping, and paving materials*. • Median landscaping • parkway width, landscaping, and design elements • street lighting standards for industrial and commercial -areas • Sense of connection with natural features, including views of distant hills and mountains, and the creeks and wetlands within the area • Visual compatibility among the sites which have been, and are likely to be, developed for different types of uses at different times * (These guidelines should be coordinated with Part 2.4, Section VI. of this workscope.) The consultant shall present the recommended guidelines to the City's Architectural Review Commission for comments and recommendations prior to incorporating them into the draft specific plan. 21 *'man'•„%,{?u:.{_•.,`..,`;0;,';K}\\inx;h'C;:\.\"nty.;::>v,.•.•,,,v�+a`:.,"'t\'<4"aN\,*'�.:�i:'K.:�.'t,`..S`x;.`, ;hC,:,,v, •n�`,.n"yS�:+�':. v .s.. ,�'„; 3.v; ��"a°\\•:,t J:.� `•` �.i,`.tiC.::..pt::.'.:::;`.`•.C)"....':..:<:p.::o:.:•vJ::,,::.e.,.:�5'`:.:��:ka?:x: 171 MOM \Rht�•�kQ M.. ::x:oa aw'�r:;�� .u;\.y`, ;•..:`h :...:T, u.`.3:oky.<•,�k'.t: ?,J.»;uy2.,::;.J.,:.,:. Lw ;:;r:;y::: :2;:,•'::::::>:..;;,::':y."ka^? :•�t:.:;.}.:" :.� \:: '•'"u'"o"7aAvw��w\,aavvati'w�J,�a�9.a:�'aA:S..Za:..aako4:3a"w\ta+:,cka::;a..'s:a.:::;.•:::;:.:;::.::s:::a:;:;ao: aaa;;:a;.::'owk\a::a\xvwwJ>:oC:A*t:M 5. Environmental Impact Report The consultant will prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines. The consultant will be expected to make a recommendation on the scope and focus of the EIR after conferring with affected agencies and reviewing previously prepared material. A program level EIR was prepared for the for the City's 1994 Land Use and Circulation Elements Update. The Preliminary Specific Plan Analysis prepared in 1988 by Willdan Associates also contained an analysis of environmental issues in the Airport and Margarita Areas. The specific plan will go into a greater level of detail with regard to certain planning topics. Therefore it is likely that some impacts and mitigations not previously discussed in the EIR for the City's 1994 Land Use and Circulation Elements Update will need to be discussed. The City anticipates that each topic in the standard CEQA checklist will need to be addressed in some way, even if only to explain why there is no need for further study or concern. As discussed in the Background discussion, a specific plan for the Margarita Area adjacent to the northern boundary of the Airport Area will be completed at about the same time as the specific plan for the Airport Area specific plan. These two plans will share many public facilities and will be related to one another by cumulative impacts. It is expected that combining the environmental analysis for these two specific plans will be the most efficient means of meeting CEQA requirements for both areas. It has not yet been determined if one EIR for each specific plan or a joint EIR for both specific plans would be the best approach. The consultant should make a recommendation regarding the best format. The EIR format and deliverables will be as described above for the Specific Plan. The alternatives analyzed should be analyzed in an appropriate level of detail to allow a comparison of infrastructure systems that would be necessary to serve alternative designs. These alternatives follow from the alternatives analyses requested for the scope of work for the requested transportation planning (2.4.IV.) and the CEQA guidelines. The EIR should evaluate the following alternatives: • No Project - Development under existing County policies and standards. This alternative will include two options. One will assume that imported water and centralized wastewater treatment will not be available independently from the City. The other will assume that area - wide water and sewer will be provided by a special district independently from the City. • Land Use and Circulation Design Alternatives - Substantial differences in the patterns of land use, circulation features, or both, which would avoid or minimize adverse impacts, including aircraft hazard, traffic congestion, energy consumption, disruption of natural drainage or wetlands, and disruption or dispersion of any soil or groundwater contaminants that are now largely confined. The City expects that these alternatives will have about the same overall 10 22 development capacities as the adopted General Plan, but that the location of major features will be different. • Alternatives Capable of Eliminating or Reducing One or More Adverse Impacts - One or more of the alternatives should consider a change in land use or that reduces the potential adverse impacts of the project. • Expanded Urban Reserve Alternative - At least one alternative should evaluate an expansion of the City's urban reserve line to encompass the areas recently designated by the County for commercial or industrial use outside the currently defined Airport Area. The City will provide all notices associated with the EIR. Meeting Attendance The City expects the consultant to attend the following public meetings: • Community Workshop - near the beginning of the preparation work, to introduce this latest effort to area property owners, other citizens, and public officials from various agencies who may be interested; • Planning Commission hearing after the draft EIR and Specific Plan have been available for public review (probably two sessions) • City Council hearing (probably two sessions) II 23 SCHEDULE The following tentative schedule has been established. Item i Target Date Preproposal Conference ..__.._........_..........................................................,... April 3, 1997........................................................_.................__..._._. Proposal Deadlines ': May 15, 1997 ,........................................................................................ Execute consultant services contract ............................... . .. consultant services Ju.Y/.August....................................................... ......... _.......... . Communityworkshop_.__.........-• 1997 _............................................... Administrative draft Specific Plan ...................................................................................................._ ......................................................................................................................... € November 1997 .............................................................................................................................................................. Administrative draft EIR .............._......................_......... December 1997 ....................................---•-----.............................................--------................................................. Public review draft ­Specific Plan .February.. 1998.................................................................................... Publicreview draft EIR........................................................... ..Februar.'..1998...................................................................._..... _.__. _..... March 1998 .......................................... of EIR comment period.................................................'..April ..................... _. ...-. . . ......................•---•--..............................._.-•---.._............._............................... 1998...................................................................:................._. a ...... Reponse to EIR comments ........................... May 1998 -----........................................................ Planrun Commission recommendation ................................................................ .......... July 1998.........................................................._................._. Adoption by City Council September 1998 I� 24 AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND RELATED FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING C: GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS Requirement to Meet All Provisions. Each party submitting a proposal shall meet all of the terms and conditions of the Request for Proposals (RFP) package. By submitting a proposal, the Consultant acknowledges agreement with and acceptance of all provisions of the RFP specifications. 2. Proposal Submittal. Each proposal must be submitted in the form described in this RFP, and be accompanied by any other required submittals or supplemental materials. Proposal documents shall be enclosed in an envelope which shall be sealed and addressed to the Finance Department, City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401. In order to guard against premature opening, the proposal envelope should be clearly labeled with the RFP title, name of Consultant, specification number, and date and time of proposal opening. No FAX submittals will be accepted. 3. Proposal Withdrawal and Opening. A Consultant may withdraw its proposal, without prejudice, prior to the time specified for the proposal opening, by submitting a written request to the Director of Finance for its withdrawal, in which event the proposal will be returned to the Consultant unopened. No proposal received after the time specified or at any place other than that stated in the "Notice Requesting Proposals" will be considered. All proposals will be opened and declared publicly. Consultants or their representatives are invited to be present at the opening of the proposals. 4. Submittal of One Proposal Only. No individual or business entity of any kind shall be allowed to make or file, or to have a financial interested in, more than one proposal, except an alternative proposal when specifically requested by the City. However, an individual or business entity which has submitted a sub -proposal to a Consultant submitting a -proposal, or who has quoted prices on materials to such Consultant, is not thereby disqualified from submitting a sub -proposal or from quoting prices to other Consultants submitting proposals. 5. Communications. All timely requests for information submitted in writing will receive a written response from the City. Telephone communications with City staff are not encouraged, but will be permitted. However, any such oral communication shall not be binding on the City. AGREEMENT AWARD AND EXECUTION 6. Proposal Retention and Award. The City reserves the right to retain all proposals for a period of 60 days for examination and comparison. The City also reserves the right to waive non -substantial irregularities in any proposal, to reject any or all proposals, to reject or delete one part of a proposal and accept the other, except to the extent that proposals are qualified by specific limitations, and to make award to the most qualified responsive Consultant as the C-1 interest of the City may require. See the Special Terms and Conditions for any other proposal evaluation and award criteria. 7. Competency and Responsibility of Consultant. The City reserves full discretion to determine the competence and responsibility, professionally and financially, of Consultants. Consultants will provide, in a timely manner, any and all information which the City deems necessary to make such a decision. 8. Agreement Requirement. The Consultant to whom award is made shall execute a written contract with the City within ten (10) calendar days after notice of the award has been sent by mail to it at the address given in its proposal. The contract shall be made in the form adopted by the City and incorporated in These specifications. 9. Failure to Accept Agreement. The following will occur if the Consultant to whom the award is made fails to enter into the contract: the award will be annulled; any bid security will be forfeited in accordance with the Special Terms and Conditions if a Consultant's bond or security is required; and an award may be made to the next qualified, responsive Consultant who shall fulfill every stipulation as if it were the party to whom the first award was made. 10. Insurance Requirements. The Consultant shall provide proof of insurance in the form, coverages, and amounts specified in Section F of these specifications within 10 (ten) calendar days after notice of contract award as a precondition to contract execution. 11. Business Tax. The Consultant must have a valid City of San Luis Obispo business tax certificate prior to execution of the contract. Additional information regarding the City's business tax program may be obtained by calling 805 781-7134, CONTRACT PERFORMANCE 12. Ability to Perform. The Consultant warrants that it possesses, or has arranged through subcontracts, all capital and other equipment, labor, materials, and licenses necessary to carry out and complete the work hereunder in compliance with any and all federal, state, county, city, and special district laws, ordinances, and regulations. 13. Laws to be Observed. The Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of and shall observe and comply with all applicable state and federal laws and county and City of San Luis Obispo ordinances, regulations and adopted codes during its performance of the work. 14. Payment of Taxes. The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes which the Consultant is required to pay. 15. Permits and Licenses. The Consultant shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices necessary. 16. Safety Provisions. The Consultant shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to safety established by OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety. C-2 17. Public and Employee Safety. Whenever the Consultant's operations create a condition hazardous to the public or City employees, it shall, at its expense and without cost to the City, - . furnish, erect and maintain such fences, temporary railings, barricades, lights, signs and other devices and take such other protective measures as are necessary to prevent accidents or damage or injury to the public and employees. 18. Preservation of City Property. The Consultant shall provide and install suitable safeguards, approved by the City, to protect City property from injury or damage. If City property is injured or damaged as a result of the Consultant's operations, it shall be replaced or restored at the Consultant's expense. The facilities shall be replaced or restored to a condition as good as when the Consultant began work. 19. Immigration Act of 1986. The Consultant warrants on behalf of itself and all sub -consultants engaged for the performance of this work that only persons authorized to work in the United States pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and other applicable laws shall be employed in the performance of the work hereunder. 20. Consultant Non -Discrimination. In the performance of this work, the Consultant agrees that it will not engage in, nor permit such sub -consultants as it may employ, to engage in discrimination in employment of persons because of age, race, color, sex, national origin or ancestry, sexual orientation, or religion of such persons. 21. Work Delays. Should the Consultant be obstructed or delayed in the work required to be done hereunder by changes in the work or by any default, act, or omission of the City, or by strikes, fire, earthquake, or any other Act of God, or by the inability to obtain materials, equipment, or labor due to federal government restrictions arising out of defense or war programs, then the time of completion may, at the City's sole option, be extended for such periods as may be agreed upon by the City and the Consultant. In the event that there is insufficient time to grant such extensions prior to the completion date of the contract, the City may, at the time of acceptance of the work, waive liquidated damages which may have accrued for failure to complete on time, due to any of the above, after hearing evidence as to the reasons for such delay, and making a finding as to the causes of same. 22. Payment Terms. The City's payment terms are 30 days from the receipt of an original invoice and acceptance by the City of the materials, supplies, equipment, or services provided by the Consultant (Net 30). 23. Inspection. The Consultant shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity for City to ascertain that the services of the Consultant are being performed in accordance with the requirements and intentions of this contract. All work done and all materials furnished, if any, shall be subject to the City's inspection and approval. The inspection of such work shall not relieve Consultant of any of its obligations to fulfill its contract requirements. 24. Audit. The City shall have the option of inspecting and/or auditing all records and other written materials used by Consultant in preparing its invoices to City as a condition precedent to any payment to Consultant. C-3 25. Interests of Consultant. The Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall not acquire any interest direct or indirect or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the work hereunder. The Consultant further covenants that, in the performance of this work, no sub -consultant or person having such an interest shall be employed. The Consultant certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest in performing this work is an officer or employee of the City. It is hereby expressly agreed that, in the performance of the work hereunder, the Consultant shall at all times be deemed an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the City. 26. Hold Harmless and Indemnification. The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold the City and its agents, officers and employees harmless from and against any and all claims asserted or liability established for damages or injuries to any person or property, including injury to the Consultant's employees, agents or officers which arise from or are connected with or are caused or claimed to be caused by the acts or omissions of the Consultant, and its agents, officers or employees; in performing the work or services herein, and all expenses of investigating and defending against same; provided, however, that the Consultant's duty to indemnify and hold harmless shall not include any claims or liability arising from the established sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its agents, officers or employees. 27. Agreement Assignment. The Consultant shall not assign, transfer, convey or otherwise dispose of the contract, or its right, title or interest, or its power to execute such a contract to any individual or business entity of any kind without the previous written consent of the City. �.. 28. Termination. X during the tern of the contract, the City determines that the Consultant is not faithfully abiding by any tern or condition contained herein the City may notify the Consultant in writing of such defect or failure to perform; which notice must given the Consultant a 10 (ten) calendar day notice of time thereafter in which to perform said work or cure the deficiency. If the Consultant has not performed the work or cured the deficiency within the ten days specified in the notice, such shall constitute a breach of the contract and the City may terminate the contract immediately by written notice to the Consultant to said effect. Thereafter, neither party shall have any further duties, obligations, responsibilities, or rights under the contract except, however, any and all obligations of the Consultant's surety shall remain in full force and effect, and shall not be extinguished, reduced, or in any manner waived by the termination thereof. In said event, the Consultant shall be entitled to the reasonable value of its services performed from the beginning date in which the breach occurs up to the day it received the City's Notice of Termination minus any offset from such payment representing the City's damages from such breach. "Reasonable value" includes fees or charges for goods or services as of the last milestone or task satisfactorily delivered or completed by the Consultant as may be set forth in the Agreement payment schedule; compensation for any other work, services or good performed or provided by the Consultant shall be based solely on the City's assessment of the value of the work -in -progress in completing the overall workscope. The City reserves the right to delay any such payment until completion or confirmed abandonment of the project, as may be determined in the City's sole discretion so as to permit a full and complete accounting of costs. In no event, however, shall the Consultant be entitled to receive in excess of the compensation quoted in its proposal. C-4 AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND RELATED FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING D: SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. Project Management. The proposal must identify a project manager who will oversee all work to be done throughout the duration of this program. The project manager appointed at the beginning of the project should remain with the project throughout until its completion. Project Manager must have an established record for completing projects on time and within budget. The Project Manager will be the liaison between Consultant and City staff, Commissions and with staffs of other involved agencies. 2. Information Provided by City. The City will provide a copy of documents previously prepared as part of the specific planning effort for the Airport Area; relevant General Plan elements and City code chapters; the rough draft Margarita Area Specific Plan. The City will make available geographic information system (GIS) files containing currently available information for the area, and suitable for the Consultant to compose and base map and plan exhibit maps Also, the City shall provide to the Consultant copies of any other maps, plans, record drawings and survey notes in it's possession which are applicable to the project. The City does not guarantee the accuracy of the maps, plans, record drawings and survey notes; therefore, it is the responsibility of the Consultant for field checking and verifying information prior to use. 3. Insurance Requirements. Refer to Section F for insurance requirements for Consultants. Consultant shall provide documentation of insurance presently carried by Consultant. Consultant shall provide a cost estimate to increase limits should the Consultants present insurance coverage fall short of that required per Section F. 4. Proposal Content. The proposal must include the following information in the order listed: Oualifications a. Experience in performing similar work; b. At least three references from previous clients; c. Resumes of the project manager and individuals who would be assigned to this project; d. A statement and explanation of any previous disqualifications or removals from government projects; e. Standard hourly billing rates for staff. NOTE: Please submit qualifications of sub -consultants if any are to be used. D-1 Plan of Work f. A straightforward and concise statement of how the contract work would be performed. Include a breakdown of the tasks to be performed, estimated person -hours and cost for each task. g. Any deviations from the description of work included in this RFP. h. Tentative schedule for completing the work. Show estimated weeks for each task. Include estimated time for City review and response time. i. Services or data assumed by you to be provided by the City or others (not in this contract). j. Any other information that would assist us in making this contract award decision. Insurance k. Provide documentation of current insurance coverage. 1. Provide an estimate of cost to increase existing insurance coverage if required to comply with Section F. 5. Proposal Length and Copies to be Submitted. Proposals shall be kept to a minimum necessary to address the requirements of this RFP. Fifteen copies of the proposal must be submitted. The submission of costly bindings, plastic covers, and color illustrations is discouraged. 6. Proposal Evaluation and Consultant Selection. A group of finalist candidates (generally the top 3 to 5 proposers) will be selected for follow-up interviews and presentations based on the following criteria as evidenced in their written proposals. Consultant proposals will be evaluated by a review committee using a two-phase selection process as follows: a. Understanding of the work required by the City, b. Quality and responsiveness of proposal; c. Demonstrated competence and professional qualifications necessary for satisfactory performance of the work required by the City (including); d. Recent experience in successfully performing similar services; e. Proposed approach in completing the work, f. References; g. Background and related experience of the specific individuals to be assigned to this project. Presentations/Interviews and Consultant Selection Finalist candidates will be required to make an oral presentation to the review committee and answer questions about their proposal. The purpose of this phase is two -fold: to clarify and resolve any outstanding questions or issues about the proposal; and to evaluate the proposer's ability to clarify and concisely present information orally. As part of this second phase of the selection process, finalist candidates will submit proposed compensation costs for the work, including a proposed payment schedule tied to the completion of key project milestones or tasks. Contract award will be based on a combination of factors that represent the best overall value for completing the workscope as determined by the City, including the written proposal D-2 criteria noted above, results of background and reference checks; results from the interviews and presentations phase; and proposed compensation. After evaluating the proposals and discussion then further with the finalists or the tentatively selected contractor, the City reserves the right to further negotiate the proposed workscope and/or method and amount of compensation. 7. Ownership of Materials. All original drawings, plan documents and other materials prepared by or in possession of the Consultant as part of the work or services under these specifications shall become the permanent property of the City, and shall be delivered to the City upon demand. 8. Release of Reports and Information. Any reports, information, data, or other material given to, prepared by or assembled by the Consultant as part of the work or services under these specifications shall be the property of City and shall not be made available to any individual or organization by the Consultant without the prior written approval of the City. 9. Copies of Reports and Information. If the City requests additional copies of reports, drawings, specifications, or any other material in addition to what the Consultant is required to famish in limited quantities as part of the work or services under these specifications, the Consultant shall provide such additional copies as are requested, and. City shall compensate the Consultant for the costs of duplicating of such copies at the Consultant's direct expense. 10. Questions. Questions or information concerning this project may be directed to John Mandeville, Long -Range Planning Manager or Glen Matteson, Associate Planner, City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401; 805 781-7170. D-3 AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND RELATED FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING E: SAMPLE FORM OF AGREEMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on this day of , by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as City, and [ ], hereinafter referred to as Contractor. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, on [ ], City requested proposals for the preparation of the Airport Area Specific Plan, related master plans and Environmental Impact Report per specification no. 97-38; and WHEREAS, pursuant to said request, Consultant submitted a proposal which was accepted by City for said services. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations, and covenants hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date this Agreement is made and entered, as first written above, until acceptance or completion of said services. 2. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. Citv Request for Prouosals dated January 1997 and Consultant's proposal dated [ ], are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement. 3. CITY'S OBLIGATIONS. For providing services as specified in this Agreement, City will pay and Consultant shall receive therefor: [... ] 4. CONSULTANT'S OBLIGATIONS. For and in consideration of the payments and agreements to be made and performed by City, Consultant agrees with City to do everything required by this Agreement and the said specifications. 5. AMENDMENTS. Any amendment, modification, or variation from the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the City Administrative Officer of the City. 6. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings specifically incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties hereto. No oral agreement, understanding, or representation not reduced to writing and E-1 specifically incorporated herein shall be of any force or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement, �- understanding, or representation be binding upon the parties hereto. 7. NOTICE. All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail, postage prepaid by registered or certified mail addressed as follows: City City Clerk City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 Consultant [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] 8. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both City and Consultant do covenant that each individual executing this agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to execute Agreements for such party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and year first above written. ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, City Attorney CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, A Municipal Corporation By: Allen Settle, Mayor CONSULTANT E-2 AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND RELATED FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING F: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: Consultant Services The Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents; representatives, employees, or sub -consultants. Minimum Scope of Insurance Coverage shall be at least as broad as: 1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001). 2. Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). 3. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. 4. Errors and Omissions Liability insurance as appropriate to the consultant's profession. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: 1. General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. 2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. 3. Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease. 4. Errors and Omissions Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence. Deductibles and Self -Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies ate to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: 1. The City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, official, employees, agents or volunteers. 2. For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary i� insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any F-1 insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents �.' or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 3. Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers. 4. The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. 5. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A: VII. Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish the City with a certificate of insurance showing maintenance of the required insurance coverage. Original endorsements effecting general liability and automobile liability coverage required by this clause must also be provided. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. aasp-rtp F-2