HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/23/2003, A1-1 - 1997-99 FINANCIAL PLAN APPROVED 1997-98 BUDGET a
P .
K'
`t rv6♦.lif�y.
-;A, Luis r40bspoypryy
f ) Y
i
�.. `� -:�"��°��`a'�"",``�tiaa.-. ��#e"`*•T.s.�i++ '.,.-'.��+ tom.+ �'-.�t�i"Qa. ty;
a .y 37TH- t 1'-5?k
IT
v
_ S
' x AppendixA K v.1
s< SJu. 'ANT OPEA:ATINGy
.: PROG`RAM<CHANG�ES'�� �
-
� ,ff
I
.' IwO�rTr�n+..bsil4liY2.�'+'� riY"��' y�LLS.p.,,l�yly
F
Attachment 1
1997-99 Financial Plan
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
i
a
PROGRAM: Long-Range Planning
.j REQUEST TITLE: Conservation Element Update
Request Summary
Update the 1973 Conservation Element and 1981 Energy Element. The Conservation Element is now 24 years old and
outdated The Energy Conservation Element is now 16 years out of date. These elements.still have the status of adopted
components of the City's General Plan. By state law, all development in the City must be consistent with the policies
contained in these elements. The proposed update program would evaluate combining an update of these elements with the
adopted Open Space Element, creating one resources element and thus reducing redundancy among elements and making
for a better integrated General.Plan. The proposed update program will cost$74,000 for 1997-1999 budget cycle.
Key Objectives
■ Update two outdated el meats of the City's General Plan.
Reduced redundancy within the General Plan.
■ Improved awareness and protection of natural resources;
1
■ Identification of plant,animal,soil, mineral,and hydrologic resources in the City and its greenbelt;
■ Biological surveys and evaluations of habitat types in the city limits and the greenbelt by consultants trained in
biology,ecology,and planning,accompanied be recommendations for how the City" can best protect these resources
in the long-term. These biological surveys will provide additional detail and serve as a field check for resource
mapping being done for the City's GIS database by other parties;
i
■ Revised goals, policies, and programs to guide the City's actions affecting the use and preservation of natural
resources,including energy;
■ Adoption of more detailed natural resource protection policies to improve the City's efforts to preserve and enhance
plant and animal habitats in the City and the City's greenbelt.
Factors Driving the Request for Change
■ The 1973 Conservation Element and 1981 Energy Conservation Element are very much out of date. In addition,
many other General Plan Elements have been updated in the interim, addressing many of the topics addressed in
Conservation and Energy Conservation Elements. This has created redundancy within the General Plan making
use of the General Plan as a reference document more difficult.
■ Updating these elements was listed among the Council goals in the 1997 Council budget goal setting workshop,
but did not receive a high priority ranking. Updating these elements, however,was the highest rank6d priority of
the Planning Commission. It was suggested by the City's Environmental Quality Task Force(EQTF) in 1994 that
` the City to prepare resource protection plans.o An integrated resources element is the location for marry of the
resource protection policies envisioned by the EQTF.•
i•
Alternatives
■�; Staff preparation of the p p update without consultant services. Staff would prepare the update using available
resources. This would be problematic given that within the same period staff will be engaged with the specific
plans for the Margarita and Airport Areas,as well as other Long-Range Planning work program items.
■ As an interim step, review the existing outdated elements and take forward an amendment to the adopted elements
deleting the most outdated policies and programs.
n Defer the update to a subsequent budgeting period. The existing Conservation and Energy Conservation Elements
will remain outdated.
60 � ^�
Attachment 1
Cost Summary
The program anticipates consultant services to review existing general plan elements,inventory resources through research,
analysis, and surveys, prepare policy recommendations, prepare resource protection policy recommendations for plant,
animal, and aquatic ecosystems, recommend general plan format changes (if necessary), and provide assistance with
preparing environmental documentation and at public workshops or hearings. Other agencies have recently produced
energy elements, identifying energy conservation strategies,that will be very useful to the City's update and eliminate costs
associated with original work in this area. Staff resources to provide project management, prepare environmental
documentation,attend workshops and public hearings and prepare necessary adoption materials.
Consultant fees =$74,000
Implementation
■ Finalize the scope of work for the update.
■ Prepare and Issue a Request For Proposals.
■ Select the consultant-execute contract.
■ Provide the consultant with initial guidance and applicable information.
■ Meet with the consultant on a regular basis to discuss r ss and review work roducts.
■ Public workshop - present resource inventories, issue analysis , policy recommendations, resource planning
strategies.
■ Prepare draft update.
■ Prepare environmental evaluation/documentation.
■ Prepare staff reports and hold Planning Commission public hearings.
■ Prepare Council reports and hold Council hearings.
Success of the updates will be measurable over time in the quality and diversity of habitats in and around the City, improved
or protected water quality,reduced soil erosion, reduced flood hazards, and the wise use of resources available to the City.
1mTonservation Element SPDC
b
N
61
Attachment 1
council �• °�•
agenba REpoRt It.Numb.,
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Director o
Prepared By: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner C-f M
SUBJECT: Consultant services for updating the Conservation Element of the General Plan
CAO RECOMMENDATION
(1) Approve the recommended draft workscope; (2) authorize staff to solicit' consultant
proposals; and(3)authorize the CAO to contract for consultant services costing up to $74,000.
DISCUSSION
The Conservation Element is one of several sections of each city's general plan which is
required by State law. San Luis Obispo's Conservation Element dates from 1973. Since then,
there have been many changes to State planning laws and the details of the City's conservation
and planning efforts. Several of the topics covered in the 1973 Conservation Element are
covered more explicitly in documents adopted by the City more recently.
In response to goals set by the Council, the Community Development Department work
program calls for updating the Conservation Element during this budget cycle. Completing the
Conservation Element update will benefit from knowledge about wildlife habitats and ener
conservation that of be available from staff. act, as noted on page 4 of the attached
re uest for ro osals, wildlife and its habitat will be a primary focus of the stud . The
resu ting work will help advance the Council's go o crea mg a na resources inventory.
Consultant services are desirable for this project because Long-Range Planning Division staff
are busy with major tasks to implement the General Plan, including specific plans for
annexation areas and master plans for parts of the community. As a result the Citv budget
contains funds to hire a consultant to prepare the updat Staff recommends that the work
rp a e nergy Conservation Element (adopted in 1_981) and integrating the
contents of the Open Space Element (revised in 1994). a propose schedule calls for a draft
ead for ado tion by July 1999.
An early step in hiring consultants is to issue a request for proposals ("RFP,"draft attached). The
RFP explains why consultant services are desired, describes the intended product, rnd ou ines
the steps in evaluating and choosing a consultant. Consultants wanting to do the work then
submit proposals. Next, staff evaluates the proposals and either recommends a firm and an
agreement for Council approval or, as staff recommends in this case, contracts with the
consultant in accordance with previous Council authorization. If no acceptable proposals are
made at less than the cost limit, or if substantial changes to the workscope are proposed, staff
will bring this item back to the Council.
al ��
j
Attachment 1
Council Agenda Report-Conservation Element update consultant services
Page 2
CONCURRENCES
The City's Natural Resources Manager and other departments that are most affected by
conservation policies,Public Works and Utilities,have reviewed and concur with the RFP.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Council approved funding in the amount of$74,000 for consultant services in the 1997-99
Financial Plan.
ALTERNATIVES
Council may direct staff to revise the draft RFP, subject to State requirements, or may continue
action. There is no mandated deadline for the update.
Attachment:
Draft Request for Proposals -introduction, scope, and schedule portions
Council Reading File:
Draft Request for Proposals - full text
i
Attachment 1
�iii►►►IIIIII II►il city O�
san LUIS OBISPO
990 Palm Street a San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Notice Requesting Proposals for
CONSERVATION ELEMENT UPDATE
The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting proposals for an update of the General Plan
Conservation Element, which will include an updated Energy Conservation Element and be
integrated with the contents of the existing Open Space Element, pursuant to Specification No.
9221. All proposals must be received by the Community Development Department by 5:00 p.m.
on Friday, September 25, 1998, at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401.
Proposals received after that time will not be considered. To guard against premature opening,
each proposal shall be submitted to the Community Development Department in a sealed
envelope plainly marked with the proposal title, specification number, proposer name, and time
and date of the proposal opening.
A pre-proposal conference is not scheduled for this item. '
Additional information may be obtained by contacting Glen Matteson, Associate Planner, at
(805) 781-7165.
This is an excerpt of the request-for-proposal
package containing the introduction, workscope, and
schedule parts. The full text, including standard
procedural and insurance parts, is available in the
Council Reading File.
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including disabled persons in all of our services,programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. ^ e Le
l�"i1
Attachment 1
Specification No. 9221
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. Description of Work 2
Request for Services
Background
Schedule
Preliminary Workscope
B. General Terms and Conditions g
Proposal Requirements
Contract Award and Execution
Contract Performance
C. Special Terms and Conditions 12
Proposal Content and Evaluation
Ownership, Delivery and Presentation of Products
Attendance at Meetings and Hearings
D. Agreement 16
E. Insurance Requirements 18
F. Proposal Submittal Forms 20
Proposal Submittal Summary
References
Statement of Past Contract Disqualifications
-t-
Attachment f
Section A
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
'Y�. -.. ,�' .:. a r _ _ .. ._ t. a_. � ,:�.%n'$' ° ..�.I� w' ,.'¢k �w,.�. .,� ,� .�,:, :.,•:.� _ �.; F :iii-i,.
t�
Request for Services
The City of San Luis Obispo wants to hire a consultant to prepare an update of the General Plan
Conservation Element, which will include an updated Energy Conservation Element and be
integrated with the contents of the Open Space Element that was revised in 1994. The resulting
element must comply with State requirements for element content and address the topics identified in
the following preliminary workscope.
ac ground
San Luis Obispo's Conservation Element dates from 1973. Since then, there have been many
changes to State law and in the details of the City's conservation and planning efforts. In addition,
there is significant overlap among the topics the State requires be contained in the Conservation
Element and the Open Space Element. As a result, several of the topics covered in the 1973 I
Conservation Element are now covered more ex licitl in recent General Plan element updates and
other City documents, as noted in the attached preliminary workscope. hat as not changed is a `
strong citizen interest m protecting open land, clean air, and the other natural resources of the area. <
Conservation-related policies are found in several General Plan elements, so there is a need and an
opportunity to consolidate them, while updating the Conservation Element. In particular, the policy
content of the updated Open Space Element reflects much sincere effort on relevant issues by
advisory groups and concerned citizens, staff, and advisory bodies. These policies should be
reaffirmed and carried forward as they relate to Conservation Element. In addition, the format of
the Open Space Element is not as direct or easy to cite as other recent element updates. A new
element should be formatted in a way that is consistent with other recent element updates and be
e for the public and decision-makers to understand and use.
The City Council has authorized the requested work. Consultant services are desirable for this
project because Long-Range Planning Division staff are busy with major tasks to implement the
General Plan, including specific plans for annexation areas and master plans for parts of the
community. In addition, completing the desired updates will benefit from knowledge about wildlife
habitats and energy conservation that may not be available to staff. The update will be managed by
Long-Range Planning Division staff. It is expected that the outcome will benefit by the supplemental
expertise a consultant can bring to the update.
Schedule
The City intends to have a draft ready for adoption in July 1999. This requires that an administrative
draft be available by March 1999 and a public hearing draft by April 1999.
Preliminary Workscope
The scope of work will encompass the tasks necessary to update the City's General Plan
Conservation Element, which will include as an integral part an update of the Energy Conservation
Element and integration with the Open Space Element that was revised in 1994. The resulting
-2-
ftI ^g
Attachment 1
element must comply with State requirements for element content and address the topics identified in
the following preliminary workscope.
The update must address the following topics. Note that some topics may be dealt with simply by
referring to other sections of the General Plan or other documents, while other topics will require
detailed treatment within this element.
"R" means the topic is required by California Government Code 65302(d);
"P" means the topic is permitted to be covered by the Government Code;
"E" means the topic is covered by the existing Conservation Element, and so some part of the
new, integrated element should indicate the status of the topic if it is not included.
1. Water and its hydraulic force (R, E)
The City has adopted a Water and Wastewater Management Element. The water policies of this
element are repeated in the "Urban Water Management Plan" that is required by a different section
of State law. These documents adequately address the "conservation, development, and utilization"
of water by the City. Consistent with Open Space Element policies on creek protection, the City
does not contemplate using or permitting the use of the hydraulic force of any waterways within its
jurisdiction. The existing Energy Conservation Element refers to capturing some of theenergy of
water descending to the treatment plant from the Cuesta Tunnel, and having an energy-efficient
water delivery system. It will be sufficient to update those references.
2. Forests (R)
Removal of eucalyptus stands and regeneration of Monterey Pines and native oaks are concerns in
the region, though the City of San Luis Obispo does not expect to be seriously affected. Tree
removal for development sites; crops, and fire wood is an issue within the region. The City's
planning area does not contain forests in the usual meaning of the word. No commercial. timber
resources exist. However, the riparian and oak-woodland plant communities are often identified by
their tree members. The City expects to address conservation of tree-related assets under topic
headings of "wildlife" and "watershed protection."
3. Soils (R, E)
The Open Space Element contains a section on "agricultural lands." It will be sufficient to integrate
the existing material. The new element should include an 8.5" X 11" map showing soil
classifications within areas that are suitable for cultivation when the element is prepared.
4. Rivers and other waters (R)
Creeks, and Laguna Lake and other wetlands, are addressed by the Open Space Element. It will be.
sufficient to integrate the existing material.
5. Harbors (R)
No commercial or recreational harbors exist or are contemplated within the City's planning area.
-3-
- , Attachment 1
Recreational boating access at Laguna Lake is addressed by the Open Space Element, the Parks &
Recreation Element (1994), and the Laguna Lake Park Master Plan (1993).
6. Fisheries (R)
No commercial fisheries exist or are contemplated within the City's planning area. Some
recreational fishing occurs along the creeks and at Laguna Lake. The recent Federal listing of
steelhead highlights the importance of that species as a wildlife resource (see item #7 below).
7. Wildlife (R, E)
Wildlife and its habitat are expected to be the primary focus of the update. The Open Space Element
contains several policies concerning the categories of "sensitive habitats" and "unique resources," as
well as some specific habitat types. While biological survey work has been done for recent specific
plans and for individual project EIR's, little citywide survey work has been done and recorded since
the 1970's. Just before adoption of the 1994 updates, the City's ad-hoc, citizen advisory
Environmental Quality Task Force identified key habitat protection issues for locations in and near
the city. In the last year, the City has begun a natural resources inventory, under the direction of its
Natural Resources Manager and with the help of a technical advisory committee. Species lists have
been compiled and public informational brochures published (creeks), or drafted (birds), and others
are planned. Also, the San Luis Obispo County Land Conservancy has done survey work, focusing
on creeks. The Cal Poly Landscape Architecture Department has done some GIS mapping of
biological resources based on State data.
f The in task for the consultant will be to compile all existing habitat and species location
I' informamation' supplement it with field verification where that is judged to be necessary, and prepare
maps suitable for reference in evaluating proposed projects. It will not be adequate simply to
compile species lists showing what may occur within the San Luis Obispo area. In addition to small-
scale illustrative maps for the element itself, the information should be made accessible as ArcView
themes through the City's Geographic Information System. It is most important to have parcel-level
information for the area within the urban reserve line. The same type of information should be made
available for the designated greenbelt and the rest of the planning area, though a lower level of
precision in mapping is acceptable outside the urban reserve line. This work should be coordinated
with the City's Natural Resources Manager and the technical advisors and students who have been
working on habitat mapping.
The City intends also to-have tabular information on habitat types (and cultivated agricultural soils)
to show the context of the City's land use jurisdiction within the larger regional setting for habitat
conservation, and to track annual changes in the amounts of land in each category that are affected
by changed land-use designations, actual development, or protection through public ownership or
easements. Attribute tables composed through ArcView would be a useful format for this
information.
It is expected that the mapped and tabular information will need to include statements so users will
be aware of the limitations. These would include the date of any original survey work and the fact
that species may exist at locations in addition to those shown. At a minimum, the habitat mapping
should accurately and completely identify the following:
Wetlands ("jurisdictional" wetlands where projects would be subject to review by State or
Federal agencies)
-4- R1 -10
- Attachment 1
• Grasslands (as defined in the Open Space Element, based on native indicator species being
present)
• Oak woodland
• Riparian (as a general category)
• Riparian woodland (creeks with a mature tree canopy composed largely of native species)
• Riparian locations that are particularly important for steelhead, such as spawning gravels and
dry-season pools
• Serpentine seeps
• Chaparral (depending on the variation in species composition, one or more categories in the
group of chaparral and scrub communities may be appropriate)
8. Minerals (R, E)
Mineral or petroleum production is not a significant consideration within the City's jurisdiction:
Commercially valuable sand and gravel do not occur within the city, with the. possible exception of
some "red rock" deposits on the boundary between the Airport Area and the Margarita Area, which
are likely to be used in the development of those areas. In the past; clay was extracted for brick
production near Broad Street and Orcutt Road, stone was quarried from Bishop Peak, and cinnabar
(mercury ore) and magnesite were mined in some of the surrounding hills. These activities, even if
economically viable, would not be compatible with the current urban surroundings or the City's
policies for natural resources protection. More recently, the City was asked to consider, but did not
allow, petroleum exploration on land it owns in the Lopez Canyon area. It will be sufficient to note
these facts and integrate the material from the Open Space Element.
9. Other natural resources (R,E)
See following items.
10. Reclamation of land and waters (P)
"Reclamation" has typically been associated with making natural habitats that were valuable for
other purposes available for development, such as draining wetlands or damming and diverting
streams. The City does not intend to include reclamation activities in that sense. However, it may be
desirable to note aspects that reinforce conservation themes;
• "Reclaiming" wastewater by treating it and using it for nonpotable uses, thereby reducing the
amount of water needed from new potable sources, which is proposed;
• The Land Use Element's emphasis on using vacant land and making more intense use of
partly developed land within largely developed areas, rather than enlarging the urban area.
1.1. Prevention and control of the pollution of streams and other waters (P)
The Regional Water Quality Control Board has primary responsibility. The plan and regulatory
powers of this Board should be briefly described. The element should also refer to the City's
responsibilities, which are mainly:
• Operating the Water Reclamation Facility (sewage treatment plant, which will continue to
discharge to San Luis Obispo Creek) in compliance with permit requirements
-5- ^ '
A chment 1
• Limiting industrial waste discharges to the sewer system
• Conducting its own construction, repair, maintenance, and operations in ways that avoid water
pollution, and assuring that contractors carrying out such activities for the City or in city
streets do so as well (example: keeping concrete sawing residue from entering storm drains
and the creek; preventing chlorinated water from storage tanks from overflowing into
waterways)
• Reviewing development proposals and inspecting construction (example: parking lot drainage)
• Having the Fire Department, the City's hazardous materials agency, be the first response for
leaks and spills
• Providing public information, such as creek care guides and opportunities for motor oil
recycling
12. Regulation of the use of land in stream channels and other areas required for the accomplishment
of the conservation plan (P)
Overall land use policy is clearly the purview of the Land Use Element, and the existing Open Space
Element contains polices on keeping creek channels open. When the creek setback standards were
added to the Zoning Regulations, there was discussion of whether the City should have more
restrictions on activities within creeks, such as camping or vehicle use. The City recently adopted
rules for City-owned open space similar to the rules for City parks. The update should answer: Are
more explicit policies needed for such activities on privately owned land that is designated as open
space?
Removal of natural vegetation to accommodate agriculture has been a primary concern for the
County's Agriculture and Open Space Element (in preparation). The replacement of grasslands and
chaparral. with vineyards and subtropical orchards has been an issue in other coastal regions of
California. The City's Open Space Element addresses these topics to some extent. The update should
answer: Are more explicit policies or programs needed for San Luis Obispo?
13. Prevention, control, and correction of the erosion of soils, beaches, and shores (P,E)
Beach and shore erosion is not an issue. Most of the watershed is undeveloped and outside the City's
jurisdiction, where surface soil erosion is largely a result of grazing and road building practices. It
will be sufficient to integrate existing material from the Open Space Element, and to note overlap
with water quality goals.
14. Protection of watersheds (P,E)
It will be sufficient to integrate existing material from the Land Use Element and Open Space
Element into sections of the new element dealing with preventing erosion and protecting water
quality.
15. Location, quantity, and quality of rock, sand; and gravel resources (P)
See item #8 above.
r
-6-
Attachment t
16. Flood control (P)
The basic policies on flood control are in the Land Use Element, the Open Space Element, and the
separately adopted Flood Management Policy (1983), which is proposed to be revised based in part.
on work being done by Questa Consulting Engineers. It will be sufficient to integrate material from
the Open Space Element into the new element, with any elaborations that may be available and
appropriate from the Flood Management Policy update.
17. Energy (E)
The 1981 Energy Conservation Element is more explicit that the 1973 Conservation Element on this
topic, but the policies and programs need to be updated. The main issue is to what extent, if any,
should the City require or encourage projects to be more energy efficient than the State ("Title 24")
energy requirements. In particular, should solar water heating be prescribed for certain types of
projects? Also, the existing solar exposure standards were adopted where there was a desire to have
some standards, without changing the basic pattern of development allowed by the City's Zoning
Regulations and Subdivision Regulations. Are more effective or simpler standards available?
18. Materials
San Luis Obispo pioneered curb-side recycling in the 1970's. Since then, State involvement in waste
management, including hazardous wastes, and recycling has expanded substantially. The City has
responded in its own operations and through services provided,to the community. The City does not
want a solid waste and recycling section for its General Plan. However, citizens should be able to
find in the updated Conservation Element a concise discussion of the City's role in conserving
minerals and fibers (and indirectly, land,. water, and energy), and avoiding pollution through waste
reduction and recycling. The element should refer to plans on these topics that have been adopted by
the City and regional agencies.
19. Historic preservation (E)
The updated element will integrate material on cultural resources from the Open Space Element,
while assuring consistency with material contained in the Land Use Element, separately adopted
guidelines, and demolition regulations.
20. Air resources (E)
Air quality is now addressed by the Land Use Element and the Circulation Element, and by the
County Clean Air Plan. It will be sufficient to refer to these other documents..
21. Esthetics (E)
The 1973 element had sections on noise pollution, odor pollution, and visual pollution. The updated
element will integrate existing material on "scenic resources" contained in the Open Space Element,
while assuring consistency with material on views and urban design contained in the Land Use
Element and the Architectural Review Guidelines. Noise is now addressed in a separate element that
was updated in 1996. Odors are covered by the nuisance provisions of the Municipal Code and the
requirements of the Air Pollution Control District, and need not be addressed other than by
reference to these documents.
13
Attachment 1
f. References.
g. Background and experience of the spec fic individuals to be assigned to this project.
h. Cost.
Phase 2—Oral Interviews and Consultant Se ction
Finalist candidates will make an oral presents on to the review committee and answer questions
about their proposal. The purpose of this se and phase is two-fold: to clarify and resolve any
outstanding questions or issues about the p posal; and to evaluate the proposer's ability to
clearly and concisely present information or ly. As part of this second phase of the selection
process, finalist candidates will submit prop sed compensation costs for the work, including a
proposed payment schedule tied to acco lishing key project milestones or tasks. After
evaluating the proposals and discussing them further with the finalists or the tentatively selected
contractor,the City reserves the right to forth r negotiate the proposed workscope and/or method
and amount of compensation.
Contract award will be based on a combinatic n of factors that represent the best overall value for
completing the workscope as determined b the City, including: the written proposal criteria
described above; results of background and eference checks; results from the interviews and
presentations phase; and proposed compensat' n.
3. Proposal Review and Award Schedule. The following is an outline of the anticipated schedule
for proposal review and contract.award:
a. Issue RFP August 21, 1998
b. Receive proposals September 25, 1998
C. Complete proposal evaluation October 2, 1998
d. Conduct finalist interviews October 12 to 16, 1998
C. Finalize staff recommendation October 21, 1998
f. Execute contract November 2, 1998
g. Start work November 6, 1998
OWNERSHIP,DELIVERY AND PRETctor
I OF
WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC PRODUCT
1. Ownership of Materials. All gs, plan documents and other materials prepared
by or in possession of the Controf the work or services under these specifications
shall become the permanent propity,and shall be delivered to the City upon demand.
2. Release of Reports and Informn reports, information, data, or other material given
to, prepared by or assembled bctor as part of the work or services under these
specifications shall be the proped shall not be made available to any individual or
organization by the Contractor without the p 'or written approval of the City.
3. Copies of Reports and Information. If the City requests additional copies of reports; drawings,
specifications, or any other material in addition to what the Contractor is required to furnish in
limited quantities as part of the work or se ices under these specifications, the Contractor shall
provide such additional copies as are reques d, and City shall compensate the Contractor for the
costs of duplicating of such copies at the Co tractor's direct expense.
4. Required Deliverable Products. The Contr ctor will be required to provide:
-14-
Attachment I
City Council Meeting Page 7
Tuesday, August 18, 1998-7:00 p.m.
7. THURSDAY NIGHT RULES ®ULATIONS (File No.210-03)
Council considered clarifying language regarding solicitation of funds for merchandise by
not-for-profit groups at Thursday Night Activities(Farmers' Market).
Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney, summarized the agenda report.
Mayor Settle opened the meeting for public comment.
There were no speakers.
Mayor Settle returned discussion to the dais.
After discussion, moved by Smith/Romero to approve clarifying language; motion carried
(5-0).
B. ANNEXATION REQUEST (File No.208-03)
Council considered annexing part of the Margarita Area in response to land owners'request.
John Mandeville, Long Range Planning Manager, reviewed the request for annexation of the
DeBlauw and King portions of the Margarita area.
Mayor Settle opened the meeting for public comment.
Dave Watson, the property owners' representative, said both owners will to cover the fees
to move the annexation forward.
Mayor Settle returned discussion to the Council.
Moved by Williams/Smith to allow the requesting owners to proceed with annexation,
provided they pay the applicable processing fees; motion carried (4-1; Roalman voting no).
9. CONSULTANT SERVICES-CONSERVATION ELEMENT (File No.70406)
Council considered a Request for Proposals(RFP)and scope of work for consultant services
to update the Conservation Element of the General Plan.
John Mandeville, Long Range Planning Manager, briefly summarized the agenda report.
Mayor Settle opened the meeting for public comment.
No one came forward.
Mayor Settle returned discussion to the dais.
After discussion, moved by Romero/Williams to 1)approve the recommended draft
workscope; 2)authorize staff to solicit consultant proposals; and, 3)authorize the CAO to
contract for consultant services up to$74,000; motion carried (5-0).
Attachment 1
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on this
13th day of November 1998 by and between the CITY
OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as City, and JONES &
STOKES ASSOCIATES, INC., hereinafter referred to as Contractor.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, on August 21, 1998, City requested proposals for an update of the General
Plan Conservation Element per Specification No. 9221; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to said request, Contractor 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. City Specification No. 9221 and the
attached Contractor's "Scope of Work, Schedule, and Costs" as revised from the proposal dated
September 25, 1998, 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 Contractor shall receive therefor compensation in a total sum not
to exceed $73,959.00.
Attachmerit 1
Agreement for Conservation dement Update —
Page 2 of 3
4. CONTRACTOR'S OBLIGATIONS. For and in consideration of the payments
and agreements hereinbefore mentioned to be made and performed by City, Contractor agrees
with City to do everything required by this Agreement and the said specification.
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 Council of
the City.
6. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings
specifically incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between
the parties hereto. No oral agreement, understanding, or representation not reduced to writing and
specifically incorporated herein shall be of any force or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement,
understanding, or representation be binding upon the parties hereto.
7. NOTICE. All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States
mail, postage prepaid by registered or certified mail addressed as follows:
City City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Contractor Richard Rust
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
2600 V Street
Sacramento, CA 95818-1914
8. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both City and Contractor do
covenant that each individual executing this agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly.
authorized and empowered to execute Agreements for such party.
Attachment 1
Agreement for ConservationL.-ment Update
Page 3 of 3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed
the day and year first above written.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, A Municipal Corporation
BY L�1
City d imstrative Officer
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ty ttor ey
CON TRA R
By. -
ls ram Lang
anaging Princ pat
(print name and title)
�t ^ � g
Attachment 1
Scope of Work, Schedule, and Costs
Content
In Section A of the Request for Proposals (RFP), the City has provided a description of
work to be performed. This description includes the integration and update of the 21
Conse io me a u. ed b st�Iaw sired by the In
addition, our scope of work includes integratlon o the en Space Elemen , nergy
Conservation Element, and other appropriate conservation goals,policies, and programs found in
other elements of the current General Plan..g9LA4&u2dated Conservation/ ace Element,
we propose to wor vv1 a early in the design o e ement(see Task 1.1 mor e
group these topic areas into broader categories. A potential division of issues is shown in
Table 1.
Table 1. Potential Topic Groupings
Topic Group Topic Areas(by RFP Number)
Open Space — Open space preservation
— Outdoor recreation
— Agriculture
— Managed production of resources(includes 2. Forests and 8. Minerals)
Water Resources L Water and its hydraulic force
4. Rivers and other waters
11. Prevention and control of the pollution of streams and other waters
12. Regulation of the use of land in stream channels and other areas required for the
accomplishment of the conservation plan
14. Protection of watersheds
16. Flood control
Biological Resources 6. Fisheries
7. Wildlife
Geology; Soils,and 3. Soils
Mineral Resources 13. Prevention, control,and correction of the erosion of soils,beaches, and shores
15. Location, quantity,and quality of rock,sand,and gravel resources
Energy Resources 17. Energy
Air Resources 20. Air resources
Visual Resources 21. Aesthetics
Other Resources 5. Harbors
9. Other natural resources
10. Reclamation of land and waters
18. Materials
19. Historic preservation
Page 1 of 12
Attachment 1
Approach
In reviewing the topic areas and description of work provided by the City, the level of
effort needed to complete each topic area can be divided into the following:
■ Level 1. Integration
■ Level 2. Evaluation and Integration
® Level 3. Analysis, Evaluation, and Integration
Table 2 shows which topic areas were placed in each group, and the following paragraphs
provide a description of the level of effort proposed to complete each topic area as a component
of the Conservation/Open Space Element. Despite the differences in level of effort presented, all
topic areas will be prepared to be consistent with the community goals specified in the Land Use
Element and will be presented in a format consistent with the City's other General Plan elements.
a Current. For each topic area, existing data will be reviewed to determine the
relevance of the data given the existing environment. The preparation of an
integrated Conservation/Open Space Element will be built on current information
in order to support the policies and programs designed.
M Consistent. The updated Conservation/Open Space Element will be designed to
be internally consistent with existing goals, policies, and programs within the
City's General Plan. Where inconsistencies exist, the City will be provided with a
range of alternative approaches to resolve the inconsistency.
■ Consolidated. In order to design a General Plan element that is easy to S
understand, use and maintain, the Conservation/Open Space Element will have a !(
consolidated design. This design will group topic areas, consolidate policies and
programs related to the conservation of natural resources into one location, and
provide links to relevant policies in other elements. Our scope of work includes
consolidation of the existing Open Space and Energy Conservation Elements with
the components of the updated Conservation Ele e o foriew.Ai2gaglidated
erne In addition, we will a so review the entire
:Gene!rallan and identify goals, policies, and programs that e e te in the new Conservation/Open Space Eleme The goals, po tciesrogr_ i viewe ity to determine the location
in the General Plan best suited for these items.
Page 2 of 12
Attachment 1
Table 2.. Level of Effort Needed to Complete(by RFP Number)
Level 1. Integration
1. Water and its hydraulic force 14. Protection of watersheds
3. Soils 15. Location, quantity,and quality of rock,sand,and
4. Rivers and other waters gravel resources
5. Harbors 16. Flood control
8. Minerals 19. Historic preservation
13. Prevention,control,and correction of the erosion 20. Air resources
of soils,beaches,and shores
Level 2. Evaluation and Integration
2. Forests 12. Regulation of the use of land in stream channels
9. Other natural resources and other areas required for the accomplishment
10. Reclamation of land and waters of the conservation plan
11. Prevention and control of the pollution of streams 17. Energy
and other waters 18. Materials
21. Esthetics
Level 3. Analysis,Evaluation,and Integration
— Open Space Element components E!
6. Fisheries
Level 1. Integration
Topic areas covered under Level 1 are those where the City has existing policy statements,
data, and other relevant information that aresuitable for integration into the Conservation/Open
Space Element. For these topic areas, the focus of the work will be on collecting and
summarizing existing data and integrating existing policy.statements and programs from other
General Plan elements and.City policy documents.
Level 2.,Evaluation and Integration
The topic areas grouped into Level 2 will require additional evaluation and updating prior to
integration into the new consolidated Conservation/Open Space Element. Topics under this level
will bescrutinized further to determine if simpler and/or more effective policies and programs
(standards) can be developed. Policies and program will also be reviewed for compliance with
current laws and regulations in order to avoid conflicts. For many of these topics, the evaluation
of existing policies and programs will point to inadequacies that will need to be addressed in the
update.
Page 3 of 12
IA
C
Attachment 1
Level 3. Analysis, Evaluation, and Integration
In order to adequately plan for the protection and enhancement of biological resources,
including fisheries and terrestrial resources, a City-wide biological database needs to be prepared
that will document and describe the existing environment. This database can also be used to
support long-range decision making by providing a comprehensive source of information on
existing conditions.
Biological resources have been identified as the most important information needed to
develop a conservation element. The City's greenbelt and open space values, as characterized by
the Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo (Saving Special Places, 1995), can only be clearly
evaluated and a plan developed if the biological resources are known to the extent possible and
geographically identified. In 1995, The Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County
(Conservancy) explicitly addressed the need to identify and map habitats and plant communities.
As part of the Conservancy's conservation planning efforts for the Los OsosBaywood Park
community, Jones & Stokes Associates was commissioned to conduct the biological studies and
develop a geographic information system (GIS) map of plant communities.
To meet the information needs of the City, Jones &Stokes Associates staff will implement a
data collection, evaluation, and GIS mapping program within the City's urban limit line to the
extent feasible in the greenbelt area.
The information gathering program will include:
■ Coordinating with the City, County, Conservancy, California Polytechnic University
staff and students, and local environmental groups(e.g., California Native Plant
Society and Audubon Society) to gather existing biological resource information.
■ Coordinating with the California Natural Diversity Database to obtain the most recent
GIS coverage of rare plants, animals, and communities.
■ Conducting field investigations, where the City has obtained landowner permission,
to revisit known special-status species populations and determine their current
condition. Population sites that have recently been evaluated may not require
additional surveys.
■ Conducting field evaluations of known and potential wildlife habitat areas using
information from the City and the Conservancy, such as riparian, wetlands (including
seeps), grasslands, woodlands, and other habitats; and mapping their boundaries for
digitizing into GIS.
Special-Status Species. The information collected will be tabulated and specific GIS
mapped locations or areas of particular habitat will be attributed in the GIS database and
provided to the City as ArcView shapefiles. We will analyze the special-status species data,
Page 4 of 12
CA
attachment 1
including federal and state listed species (e.g., steelhead, red-legged frog), and identify areas
within the City's greenbelt area using the following geographic designations:
■ specific locations or mapped habitat areas known to have special-status species,
■ mapped areas that have a high potential to support special-status species based on
habitat and land use information, and
■ mapped areas that have a low or no potential to support special-status species based
on habitats or land use information.
Vegetation and Habitat Mapping. The City recognized that a range of habitats occur and
designated eight types in the RFP. Jones & Stokes Associates will, at a minimum, use the City's
designations. However,based on our experience in mapping plant communities and wildlife
habitats, we may ultimately describe and designate additional plant communities such as
serpentine, non-serpentine, and non-native grasslands. We also expect to characterize the various
riparian types recognized by the City in terms of hydrology (seasonal versus perennial),
dominant vegetation type, and to some extent habitat quality based on amount of vegetative
cover. This will.allow more accurate evaluations for potential wildlife and fisheries use and
planning.
A detailed vegetation map will be produced using the City's parcel-level GIS base map.
Plant communities will be mapped as polygons, with smaller sites (e:g., serpentine seeps)
mapped as points and attributes assigned to each polygon or point. The plant community
polygons will vary in size and shape and may encompass multiple parcels. Mapping of features
which cannot be determined from aerial photographs, published sources, or off-site observation
is subject to availability of property access. Some communities and habitats can be accurately
mapped from aerial photography. In some cases, such as serpentine grasslands, habitats can be
mapped from soils maps.
Riparian and Wetland Vegetation. The City has identified riparian and wetland habitats
as being very important for the long-term open space and greenbelt program. On Page 4 of the
RFP, under Wildlife, "jurisdictional"wetlands are referred to as subject to state or federal
review. It is important to note that legal definitions of wetlands differ significantly between the
state, which follows Department of Fish and Game [DFG] Codes (1600 series); and federal
agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS), which follow the Clean Water Act
(CWA) of 1984. In general, the use of the term "jurisdictional" wetlands has referred to the
federal definition (requiring the three wetland indicators of hydrology, hydric soils, and
vegetation), which is more narrowly defined than the state definition (which requires any two of
the three indicators). Currently, the Corps requires a field verifiable delineation to be conducted
for all waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Field verified wetland delineations are mapped
and documented precisely and a delineation is only valid for 2 years with the possibility of a
short extension. Furthermore, it is important to note that current definitions have not
Page 5 of 12
L - c
Attachment 1
continuously been recognized and that state and federal definitions could change during the 20-
year life of the conservation element.
Based on the information above, we propose identifying the differences in the wetland
definitions within the conservation element. We will map riparian areas and other wetlands
initially, based on the presence of wetland vegetation, and then identify either wetland hydrology
of creeks or other surface water. We will review the riparian and wetland habitat mapping and
compare it with the soil surveys that may provide information on the presence of hydric soils.
The final mapping will be provided to the City as an ArcView shapefile.
Wetland Regulation. Jones & Stokes Associates will specifically characterize and describe
areas within the.City's greenbelt based on the presence of riparian and other wetlands that fulfill
one or more of the definitions of wetlands. Our maps of these habitats will show polygons of
riparian and wetland areas and the GIS database will attribute the wetland polygons to the
definition they met. The conservation element will include a description of the state and federal
regulatory process needed to proceed on any development that might impact wetlands. We will
specify areas where a field verifiable jurisdictional wetlands delineation will be required prior to
applying for a wetland fill permit under CWA. This will provide the City and its property
owners with a succinct process to follow. In the event definitions of wetlands change during the
life of the Conservation/Open Space Element, a minor amendment can be made and the GIS map
database attributes updated.
Work Tasks
In order to complete the proposed Conservation Element update, we have divided the scope
of work into four phases as detailed below.
Phase 1. Program Initiation
The purpose of this phase is to lay a solid program foundation for use in the preparation of
the Constrvation/Open Space Element. During this phase, our team will work with City staff to
ensure that all resources required for the completion of the update are available, and to finalize
the structure.
Task 1.1 Kick-Off Meeting. At the outset of the project, we will meet with City
staff to review the contract and work program, refine task descriptions,
establish working procedures, review the project schedule, and identify
and collect relevant reports and materials. We will also tour the City with
staff to identify key planning issues and opportunities. Following this
meeting, an annotated outline will be provided to the City for review.
Page 6 of 12
anal;? ent 1
Task 1.2 Base Maps. Jones & Stokes Associates will utilize the parcel-based GIS
data currently maintained by the City as the basis for all GIS data
generated by this project. Using GIS data provided by the City, Jones &
Stokes Associates will prepare a base map and template for the graphics to
be used in this element. All GIS data prepared for this contract will be
provided to the City in an ArcView shapefile format.
Phase 2. Administrative Draft Element
During this phase, Jones & Stokes Associates team will collect and review existing
documents and data, conduct specified field work for biological resources, coordinate with
appropriate City staff and state/federal regulators, and conduct public workshops on the element
update.
Task 2.1 Collection of Existing Data. Jones & Stokes Associates and Crawford,
Multari, and Clark will collect the existing literature and data needed to
describe existing conditions and evaluate and update the element
components. Sources of data will include the City;regional, state, and
federal agencies; organizations; consultants working on projects within the
planning area;California Polytechnic University; and other publicly
available resources.
Task 2.2 Staff Coordination. Jones & Stokes Associates and Crawford, Multari,
and Clark will coordinate with appropriate City departments to help
identify issues and opportunities that should be addressed in the updated
element.
Task 2.3 Agency Coordination. Jones & Stokes Associates will coordinate with
state and federal regulators in order to identify issues and opportunities
that should be addressed in the updated element.
Task 2.4 Field Data Collection. Under this scope of work, Jones & Stokes
Associates will send a botanist and wildlife specialist to the planning area
to assess habitats within the planning area. See"Level 3. Analysis,
Evaluation, and Integration"presented earlier in this scope of work for
details.
lip "11,00 1 11
Task 2.5 Public Workshops. In order to gain additional understanding of the
resources within the planning area and the concerns held by the public,
Jones & Stokes Associates will conduct two public workshops. One
workshop would be held on the same day as the meeting of the City's
Natural Resources Advisory Group.
Page 7 of 12
Attachment 1
Phase 3. Draft Element
During this phase, the Jones & Stokes Associates team will prepare an administrative draft
and draft Conservation/Open Space Element. in general, each topic group (defined in Table 1)
will begin with a summary of existing conditions, followed by a presentation of the goals,
policies, and programs proposed as part of the element.
Task 3.1 Administrative Draft Element. Based on input from the public, City
staff, and other involved agencies, the Jones & Stokes Associates team
will prepare an administrative draft of the Conservation/Open Space
Element. Five copies of the administrative draft element will be provided
to the City for staff review and comment.
Task 3.2 Public Hearing Draft Element. Our project manager will meet with City
staff to review comments and requested changes to the administrative draft
element. Based on the comments received, the Jones & Stokes Associates
team will revise the element as appropriate and submit one camera-ready
copy of the public hearing draft element for the City's reproduction and
distribution.
(Task 3.3 Planning Commission Hearings. Jones & Stokes Associates project
manager will attend up to two hearings before the Planning Commission
to present the draft element and respond to any questions that arise during
the hearing.
Task 3.4 Draft Element. Following direction provided by the Planning
Commission, our team will revise the public hearing draft
Conservation/Open Space Element as appropriate and provide the City
with one camera-ready copy of the draft element for the City's
reproduction and distribution.
Task 3.5 City Council Hearings. Our project manager will attend up to two
hearings before the City Council to present the draft element and respond
to any questions that arise during the hearing.
Phase 4. Final Documents
During this phase, a final element will be prepared, based on direction from the City
Council.
Task 4.1 Final Conservation/Open Space Element. Following direction provided
by the City Council, the Jones & Stokes Associates team will revise the
draft Conservation/Open Space Element as appropriate and provide the.
Page 8of12
%attachment 1
City with one camera-ready copy of the final element for the City's
reproduction and distribution.
Schedule
Table 3 shows the schedule that Jones & Stokes Associates is proposing to follow. As
shown in Table 3, we will complete the project one month earlier than requested by the City in
order to provide schedule flexibility to coordinate with City workloads and/or scheduling
hearings.
Table 3. Schedule for City of San Luis Obispo Conservation Element Update
Duration of Phases
Phase and Task Descriptions and Task Completion
Dates
Phase 1. Program Initiation November 6, 1998-
December 11, 1998
Task 1.1 Kick-off Meeting November 13, 1998
Task 1.2.Base Maps December 11, 1998
Phase 2. Administrative Draft Element December 11, 1998-
February 5, 1999
Task 2.1 Collection of Existing Data December 11, 1998
Task 2.2 Field Data Collection January 15, 1999
Task 2.3 Public Workshop February 5, 1999
Phase 3. Draft Element February 5, 1999-
May
, 1999-
May 21, 1999
Task 3.1 Administrative Draft Element March 5, 1999
Task 3:2 Public Hearing Draft Element March 26, 1999
Task 3.3 Planning Commission Hearing April 16, 1999
Task 3.4 Draft Element April 30, 1999
Task 3.5 City Council Hearing May 21, 1999
Phase 4. Final Documents June 4, 1999
Task 4.1 Final Conservation/Open Space Element June 4, 1999
Page 9 of 12
Attachment f
Cost Estimate
Table 4 presents the estimated team budget for the Conservation/Open Space Element update.
The budget includes personnel costs and direct and indirect expenses necessary to complete the
work program presented, including attendance at the workshops and hearings specified in this
scope of work. For purposes of preparing this cost estimate,we have assumed three meetings
with City staff(Task 1.1, one on the day of Task 2.5, and one to be determined). Additional
meetings can be added on a time-and-materials basis using the fee schedule shown in Table 5.
Expectations About City's Role
This scope of work contains the resources needed to prepare a complete update of the City's
Conservation/Open Space Element. During the preparation of this element, we expect the City's
help in providing copies of relevant City documents, reviewing and commenting on work
products, and scheduling and arranging public workshops and hearings on the element.
Page 10 of 12
� � Ob
Attachment 1
o MEN
I d
..........
Z
q w q
LOi I
.......... ........................................
co
12
I
..............
LL
Ti
o
It
VU
9 pui -V;. l�: 21 m
1A
p
9 m 63
Page I 1 of 12
Attachment 1
Table 5. Fee Schedule
Labor Classifications Per Hour
Principal $125.00
Associate Principal 108.00-115.00
Senior Environmental Scientist/Engineer/Planner 103.00-115.00
Environmental Scientist/Engineer/Planner 95.00
Contracts Manager 85.00
Environmental Specialist IV 83.00
Environmental Specialist III 73.00
Environmental Specialist If 63.00
Publications Specialist 49.00-59.00
Graphic Artist 54.00
Environmental Specialist 1 52.00
Editor 47.00
Word Processing Operator 43.00
Technician/Trainee 42.00
Administrative Technician 40.00
Intern 32.00
Clerical Assistant 31.00
Testimony as expert witness at court trials,administrative hearings,and depositions will
be billed at 150%of the above rates.
Other Direct Expenses
Microcomputer Time $12.00/hour
Computer mapping and image editing work station time(GIS,CAD) 16.00/hour
Blueprints/Color prints 1.00-8.00/page
Computer plotter(variable by paper type) 1.50-4.00/linear foot
Computer communications time 30.00/hour
Report reproduction,photocopying 0.08/page
Automobile mileage at current IRS rate or 0.315/mile
A general and administrative charge of 9.5%will be applied to all other direct costs,
inclusive of subcontractor charges.
Per diem is charged at$1 13.00/day. A lodging surcharge may apply in high rate areas.
Prompt Payment. Jones&Stokes Associates'clients may reduce any current invoice by
I%of the billed amount if payment is made within 10 business days of receipt of said
invoice.
Delinquent Accounts. Interest is charged at 1.5%per month for accounts delinquent over
60 days. This is an annual percentage rate(APR)of 19.6%.
Page 12 of 12
(V 1 �JIJ
Mike Draze - note 12-28.doc ��, Page 1
ull councit notes
DATE: January 2,2002
i
TO: City Council
FROM: Ken Hampian
"Off Peak" Energy Savings: The Utilities Department completed the seventh year of
the "off-peak" operation of the Water Treatment Plant and associated pump stations in
an ongoing effort to minimize costs to our water customers. The program requires the
plant to be operated between 6 p.m. and noon each day between May 1s1 and October
3151 each year. Energy costs during the period from noon to 6 p.m. are much higher
than the other times of the day. In light of the "successful" energy deregulation scheme,
this year's savings are nearly 50% greater than anticipated. This year's savings were
estimated to be $140,918 and total savings over the past seven years have been
estimated at$751,720.
The work schedules associated with operation during the off peak period are very
difficult for staff to adjust to and requires operation throughout the evening and early
morning hours. I would again like to commend the water treatment plant staff for their
ongoing efforts to minimize expenses.
Conservation Element Uodate: The Conservation Element of the City's General Plan
dates from 1973. In 1999, work began to update the element and consolidate all policies
dealing with conservation of natural and cultural resources, including those now located.
in the Open Space Element, the Energy Conservation Element, the Land Use Element,
and other elements. A consultant firm was contracted to help. During 2001, staff
decided to take over the effort, due to the consultant's shortcomings in responsiveness
and quality.
Planning staff has completed a new draft "Resource Conservation Element," which has
undergone one round of review by City departments. Staff intends to provide the draft to
members of the Natural Resources Inventory Group, which had been involved in earlier
work, for review and comment before general distribution. The refined information on
plant communities and sensitive species is already in use as the City conducts project
and environmental review. Some information originally prepared for the update, such as
species of local concern, has been incorporated into the City Natural Resources
Program Web page.
In adopting the update, key issues will be protection of prime agricultural land, such as
the Dalidio area, and avoiding significant impacts while obtaining supplemental water
supplies, such as Salinas Reservoir expansion. The Planning Commission and the City
Council will hold public hearings before a new element is adopted. Those hearings are
anticipated to be scheduled for spring and summer of 2002. For more information,
contact Glen Matteson in Long-range Planning (ext. 165).
Attachment 1
Element Updates
The City did not adopt any element updates in 1998. However, substantial work was done on
updating and combining the Safety Element and the Seismic Safety Element. This work was art
of a cooperative effort involvin the County and most of the cities within the Coun Also, the
City started work on updating the onservation lement an consolidating policies on
conservation that are found in all the other elements, including Land Use, Open Space, and
Energy Conservation.
Population Trends
The California Department of Finance estimated that there were 42,670 city residents on January
1, 1998. This was a two percent increase over the previous year, but also only a two percent
increase from the 1990 census. According to the State estimates, a decline in average household
size has approximately offset increases in the number of dwellings since 1990. The next
comprehensive look at population will be the U.S. Census in 2000.
Development
Taken as a whole, the General Plan says housing construction should occur not much faster or
slower than one percent per year on average, that it should include a variety of housing types, and
that it should include dwellings affordable to low- and moderate-income residents. Table 3-A
summarizes residential construction since 1994. "Market Rate" refers to dwellings with no price
limits or direct subsidies, while "Below Market" refers to dwellings that do have a price limit or
subsidy intended to make them more affordable to low-income or moderate-income residents.
The table reflects only construction within the city limits.
Residential building has occurred faster as interest rates have declined and as demand has been
stimulated by additional employment and economic activity. Even so, annual increases in the
number of dwellings have remained below one percent.
Table 3-A
1995 - 1998 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Net Change Due to Completed Construction
(number of dwellings)
Single Family Multifamily Total Annual Growth Rate
Year Market Rate Below Market Market Rate Below Market for year for 3 years
1995 32 0 14 20 66 0.36% 0.34%
1996 53 0 31 0 84 0.45% 0.51%
1997 118 0 16 0 134 0.72% 0.56%
1998 130 0 4 0 1340.72% 0.67%
Cencral Phin ;1nnual (lclmri 199 2 Cit% of tiara Luis Oh'slw
1 v I ^CJS
' I
City of San Luis Obispo ? General Plan Annual Repo 1999
Element Updates
The City did not adopt any element updates in 1999. Work continued on updating and combining
the Safety Element and the Seismic Safety Element. This work was part of a cooperative effort
involving the Count mo f t s within the Coun Also, the City did substantial
work on updating the Conservation Element and consolidating policies on conservation that are
found in all the other elements.including Land Ilse, Open Space, and Energy Conservation.
Population Trends
The California Department of Finance estimated that there were 42,863 city residents on January
1, 1999. This was an increase of 1.6 percent over the previous year, but only a two-percent
increase from the 1990 census. The City has begun to prepare for the next comprehensive look at
population, the U.S. Census in 2000.
Development Rates
Taken as a whole, the General Plan says housing construction should occur not much faster or
slower than one percent per year on average, that it should include a variety of housing types, and
that it should include. dwellings affordable to low- and moderate-income residents. Table 3-A
summarizes residential construction since 1994. "Market Rate" refers to dwellings with no price
limits or direct subsidies, while "Below Market" refers to dwellings that do have a price limit or
subsidy intended to make them more affordable to low-income or moderate-income residents.
The table reflects only construction within the city limits. Annual increases in the number of
dwellings have remained below one percent.
Table 3-A
1995 - 1999 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Net Change Due to Completed Construction
(number of dwellings)
Single Family Multifamily Total Annual Growth Rate
Year Market Rate Below Market Market Rate Below Market for the year for 3 years
1995 32 0 14 20 66 0.36% 0.34%
1996 53 0 31 0 84 0.45% 0.51%
1997 118 0 16 0 134 0.72% 0.56%
1998 130 0 4 0 134 0.72% 0.67%
1999 57 4 10 0 71 0.38% 0.61%
Notes:
For 1999 and later, classification as to single family or multifamily may differ from previous years,to conform to
State and Federal housing-type definitions. _
ng l4 dwellings, mostly single-family, were annexed as part
Not reflected in these numbers, in 1999,&Yt dkisti
of the Fuller Road Area.
H -33
catv 0� ;ar) lui: c�ta;pc• 5
e:nca:.�1 hLvI wMnaal utP01 . '000
�rti3C;fIment 1
Table 1
General Plan Elements
Element Required or Date of Adoption Comment
tional -Or Revision
Land Use Re uired 1994
HousingR ufred 1994 Update to start in 2001.
en S ace Re uired 1994
Circulation Re uired 1494 Includes "Scenic Roadways."
Noise Required 1996
Conservation Re uired 1973 Update combining these topics
Ener Conservation Optional 1091 with O n Space is in progress.
Safety Required 2000 Includes former Seismic S ety
Element..
Parks &Recreation tional 1995 Update is in progress.
Water&Wastewater Optional 1996 State law requires an "Urban Water
Management Management Plan,"but it need not
be part of the general plan.
Element Updates
The City adopted a revised Safety Element in 2000, updating and combining the Safety Element
and the Seismic Safety Element that were first adopted in the 1970's. This work was part of a
cooperative effort involving the County and most of the cities within the County. The Safety
Element deals with hazards from floods, fires, earthquakes, landslides, radiation, hazardous
materials, airport.operations, and unstable trees.
The scheduled update of the Conservation Element was delayed due to staff and consultant
efforts being directed to other long-range planning activities. The Conservation Element update
is proposed to include consolidating policies on conservation that are found in all the other
elements jticluding Land Use, Open Space, Housing, and Energy Conservation.
Amendments
During 2000, the City approved the amendments listed in Table 2. Since the 1994 updates, there
have been no major citywide changes nor overall patterns among the individual changes that
suggest a comprehensive re-evaluation of goals or policies is necessary at this time. This was the
first year since the 1994 Land Use Element update that there were no amendments to the Land
Use Map. The Council considered a Circulation Element amendment that would have routed a
future extension of Prado Road to the north of Industrial Way and provided a continuation into
the Sacramento Drive area or possibly to Johnson Avenue through the Orcutt Area. While the
new, northern intersection at Broad Street was supported, the approved amendment did not show
an extension beyond Broad Street (map, page 20). The debate focused on continuity of traffic
flow versus neighborhood character, and relationship to parks and open space areas.
(tel " 314
�.\il t.Ul� �)l�talh) q 11C.R.\1, 1)1.\11 .Ulllll.tl Rt}lilt L)
Ail Ment 1
Introduction
The General Plan provides a comprehensive, long-range vision focusing on preserving
community resources and meeting community needs. The General Plan provides a basis for
rational decision-making regarding the City's long-term physical development. The General Plan
is adopted and amended by the City Council, after considering recommendations by citizens,
appointed advisory bodies, other agencies, and City staff.
Each year, the City publishes an Annual Report on the status of its General Plan and actions.
taken to implement it during the year just ended. This report is to help citizens and City officials
understand recent decisions involving the General Plan. It fulfills the requirements of state law,
and the General Plan itself, which call for an annual report. The Community Development
Department provides a separate Annual Report on all of its activities, emphasizing statistics on
planning and building applications, public meetings, and code enforcement.
Administration of the General Plan
General Plan Status
State law requires each city and county to adopt a general plan that addresses seven topics.
Additional topics may be included. Each topic may be addressed in a separately published
document, or topics may be combined. The published sections of the General Plan are called
"elements." Table I shows the status of the City's General Plan elements. The City maintains a
General Plan Digest that makes all policies and programs available in one document.
State law says the General Plan should be kept current. This is done through comprehensive
updates, and through amendments. Updates for an element are usually undertaken at least Five
years apart. They look at underlying conditions and preferences. Amendments are typically
smaller in scope and involve changing one part in a way that fits with the overall framework.
Consideration of amendments is triggered by private applications or by direction from the City
Council. Changes to the General Plan require hearings by the Planning Commission and by the
City Council. The type of notice provided for the hearings depends on the type of proposed
change, but always includes a descriptive item on the meeting agenda, which is published in the
newspaper. The City's Web site and public access television channel provide additional
information.
Element Updates
The City adopted a revised Parks and Recreation Element in 2001, updating programs and
priorities.
The scheduled update of the Conservation Element was delayed, with staff taking over task
previously assigned to a consultant. The Conservation Element update is proposed to include
consolidating policies on conservation that are found in all the other elements,. including Land
Use Open Space, Housing, and Energy Conservation.
FNl '��
CI IN 01� sAn 1 L I I S 0IkIS1)0 5 (it:I)CPAl I)IAI) AnnuAl tat:p0 F
�
a I�ac
Table 1
General Plan Elements
Element Required or Date of Adoption Comment
Optional or Major Revision
Land Use Required 1994
Housing Required 1994 Update to be considered in 2003..
Open Space Required 1994
Circulation Required 1994 Includes "Scenic Roadways."
Noise Required 1996 _ 'u—
Conservation Required 1973 Update combining these topics
Energy Conservation Optional 1981 with Open Space is i ro ess.
Safety Required 2000 Inc u owner Seismic Safety
Element.
Parks & Recreation Optional 2001
Water& Wastewater Optional 1996 State law requires an "Urban Water
Management Management Plan,"but it need not
be part of the general plan.
Amendments
During 2001, the City approved the amendments listed in Table 2. Some substantial changes
were made to implement the Mid-Higuera Enhancement Plan. Other amendments were relatively
small-scale changes to the Land Use Element map to accommodate specific types of uses that
would not otherwise be allowed, and to achieve greater consistency between the text and the
map. Since the 1994 updates, there have been no major citywide changes or overall patterns
among the individual changes that suggest a comprehensive re-evaluation of goals or policies is
necessary at this time.
Table 2
General Plan Amendments in 2001
Type Location or Subject Change Area Initiated by; comment
acres
Land Use Mid-Higuera area(see Med-high to High Dens Resid'I. 6.4 City; to implement Mid-
Element map page 20) Serv. & Man. To Gen'1 Retail 19 Higuera Enhancement Plan.
Public to Park 4
Public, Serv. & Man. to Tourist 13
Serv. & Manuf. to Open Space 1.5
Land Use EI Capitan Way Medium-density Residential to 0.2 Applicant; to accommodate
Element map Services & Manufacturing mixed-use project.
Land Use South Higuera Street Services & Manufacturing to 10 Applicant; to accommodate
Element map at Suburban Road Neighborhood Commercial more retail uses.
Land Use Railroad at Santa Services &Manufacturing to 3.3 City; to accommodate
Element map Barbara Avenue Public transit facility and railroad
museum.
Land Use Woodland Drive area Delete specific plan area symbol 158 City; to clarify that a
Element map development plan or
specific plan could a I .
ATTACHMENT 2