HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-20-2016 Agenda Packet
Tuesday, September 20, 2016
4:30 PM
REGULAR MEETING
Council Chamber
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo Page 1
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Jan Marx
ROLL CALL: Council Members John Ashbaugh, Carlyn Christianson, Dan
Rivoire, Vice Mayor Dan Carpenter, and Mayor Jan Marx
BUSINESS ITEMS
1. SLO TRANSIT 2016-2021 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN (GRIGSBY /
ANGUIANO – 60 MINUTES)
Recommendation
As recommended by the Mass Transportation Committee and the Planning Commission,
adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, adopting the 2016-17 Short Range Transit Plan.”
ADJOURN TO REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2016 TO BEGIN AT 6:00
P.M.
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda September 20, 2016 Page 2
6:00 PM
REGULAR MEETING
Council Chamber
990 Palm Street
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Jan Marx
ROLL CALL: Council Members John Ashbaugh, Carlyn Christianson, Dan
Rivoire, Vice Mayor Dan Carpenter, and Mayor Jan Marx
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Rivoire
INTRODUCTIONS
2. MATT HORN - PUBLIC WORKS DEPUTY DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER
(GRIGSBY – 5 MINUTES)
PRESENTATIONS
3. PROCLAMATION - MONDAY CLUB OF SAN LUIS OBISPO HISTORIC
REGISTRY (MARX – 5 MINUTES)
Presentation of a Proclamation to the Monday Club of San Luis Obispo, acknowledging the
Monday Club for their placement on the National Registry of Historic Places.
4. PROCLAMATION - FIRE PREVENTION WEEK (MARX / OLSON – 5 MINUTES)
Presentation of a Proclamation to Garret Olson, Fire Chief, declaring October 2 - 18, 2016
as "Fire Prevention Week."
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA (not to exceed 15
minutes total)
The Council welcomes your input. You may address the Council by completing a speaker slip
and giving it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. At this time, you may address the Council
on items that are not on the agenda. Time limit is three minutes. State law does not allow the
Council to discuss or take action on issues not on the agenda, except that members of the
Council or staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons
exercising their public testimony rights (gov. Code sec. 54954.2). Staff may be asked to
follow up on such items.
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda September 20, 2016 Page 3
CONSENT AGENDA
A member of the public may request the Council to pull an item for discussion. Pulled items
shall be heard at the close of the Consent Agenda unless a majority of the Council chooses
another time. The public may comment on any and all items on the Consent Agenda within the
three minute time limit.
5. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
Recommendation
Waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.
6. LABORATORY ANALYSES SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR 2017-
2022, SPECIFICATION NO. 91492 (MATTINGLY / FAIRCHILD)
Recommendation
1. Approve the release of a request for proposal for 2017-2022 Water and Wastewater
Laboratory Analyses Services; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to award and execute a five-year contract if the lowest
responsible proposer does not exceed $300,000.
7. CONTRACT WITH KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES FOR PURCHASE OF
PARK+ PROGRAM (A PARKING DEMAND MODELING PLATFORM) (GRIGSBY
/ BOCHUM / LEE)
Recommendation
Authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute a contract with Kimley-Horn and
Associates for the purchase of the Park+ Program for Parking Supply and Demand Modeling
not to exceed $100,000.
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda September 20, 2016 Page 4
BUSINESS ITEMS
8. LAGUNA LAKE DREDGING AND SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PROJECT -
PREFERRED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE SELECTION (JOHNSON / HILL – 90
MINUTES)
Recommendation
Receive and file the Preliminary Dredging Report (the “PDR”) prepared by MNS Engineers,
Inc. and, as further described in the PDR, direct staff to proceed with further analysis and
further recommendations related to the following preferred project alternative:
1. Use of hydraulic or cyclonic dredging equipment as the dredging technology; and
2. Removal of 50,000 cubic yards of sediment from the Laguna Lake as the dredging
project option; and
3. Mechanical dewatering at Laguna Lake Park as the dewatering location and method;
and
4. Off-site disposal at Cold Canyon Landfill as the sediment deposition location and
facility; and
5. Creek bank restoration and installation of a sediment basin at Laguna Lake Golf
Course along Prefumo Creek, as well as shoreline restoration at the lake itself, as
short-term sediment management strategies.
COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
(Not to exceed 15 minutes) Council Members report on conferences or other City activities.
Time limit—3 minutes each.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(Not to exceed 15 minutes) At this time, any Council Member or the City Manager may ask a
question for clarification, make an announcement, or report briefly on his or her activities. In
addition, subject to Council Policies and Procedures, they may provide a reference to staff or
other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the Council at a
subsequent meeting concerning any matter, or take action to direct staff to place a matter of
business on a future agenda. (Gov. Code Sec. 54954.2)
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda September 20, 2016 Page 5
ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 6:00 p.m.,
in the Council Chamber, respectively, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
LISTENING ASSISTIVE DEVICES are available for the hearing impaired--please see City Clerk.
The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the
public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to
persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or
accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City
Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7107.
City Council regular meetings are televised live on Charter Channel 20. Agenda related
writings or documents provided to the Cit y Council are available for public inspection in the
City Clerk’s Office located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California during normal
business hours, and on the City’s website www.slocity.org. Persons with questions concerning
any agenda item may call the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100.
Page intentionally left
blank.
Meeting Date: 9/20/2016
FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Gamaliel Anguiano, Transit Manager
SUBJECT: SLO TRANSIT 2016-2021 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Mass Transportation Committee and the Planning Commission:
Adopt resolution approving the 2016 Short Range Transit Plan, with modifications as
recommended by the Mass Transportation Committee on July 13th, 2016 and the Planning
Commission on August 24th, 2016.
DISCUSSION
A Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) is intended to provide a general business plan to guide the
transit organization’s development over the coming five years. The SRTP includes analysis of
four key areas: 1) transit demographics based on surveys and ridership counts, 2) review of the
current organization’s effectiveness and efficiencies, 3) identification of opportunities for
improvement and 4) comparison with similar “peer” systems.
This analysis produced a wide range of options for additional public input and comment. The
analysis and public comment helped shape the final and most feasible recommendations.
Additionally, the resulting SRTP provides guidance for improved operational, capital and
institutional plans, including an implementation plan for the recommended changes.
The current SRTP was adopted in 2009 and is now beyond its five year planning horizon. Few of
the recommended changes from the last plan were implemented, largely a result of the financial
recession slowdown of development activity. In spite of this, the SLO Transit system continues
to see ridership gains and, as a result, new operational challenges to meet these demands.
The 2016-21 SRTP is aimed at addressing these challenges and to help ensure that local public
transit remains relevant to the community’s development and social service needs. Furthermore,
this SRTP plan has been prepared jointly and in parallel with the San Luis Obispo Regional
Transit Authority (RTA) SRTP to identify means to best coordinate the two services. Moreover,
an adopted SRTP is a requirement to be eligible for certain funding sources and enables the
pursuit of other local, state and federal grants. Finally, the City’s Circulation Element also
requires that the City adopt a SRTP every five years.
Background
Utilizing state grant funds and a joint RFP process with RTA, LSC Transportation Consultants
Inc. was awarded the contract to conduct the independent third-party analysis for the
development of the SRTP. Commencing in February of 2015, staff has worked with LSC to
1
Packet Pg. 6
provide institutional data and background information. This information included current
routes/schedules, ridership counts, financial expenditures, operational knowledge, etc. for the
initiation of the draft SRTP. Over the course of 16 months a total of eight Working Papers,
specific to different parts of the comprehensive analysis (e.g. current operations, public input,
recommended changes, peer analysis, operational, capital, financial needs, etc.) were created and
made available for public review. The compilation of these Working Papers make up the
recommended draft of the SRTP. Throughout the process a number of remote and in -person
stake-holder interviews, public input and comment periods/opportunities have been afforded, and
which help shape the final product. These are summarized below:
1. Feb 27, 2015 – SRTP Kick-of Meeting with Transit Providers (SLO Transit & RTA)
2. Mar, 2015 – Online Rider Surveys (30-days)
3. Mar, 2015 – Driver/Contractor Interviews
4. Mar 3-5, 2015 – Onboard Rider Surveys
5. July 14, 2015 – Stake-Holder Interviews (SLOCOG, MTC, CalPoly, etc.)
6. July 15, 2015 – Joint MTC/RTAC Meeting
7. Dec 4, 2015 – MTC Special Meeting
8. Jan 13, 2016 – Joint MTC/RTAC Meeting
9. Apr 5, 2016 –Public Meeting, Recommended Changes
10. Apr thru May 2016 – 30 Day Public Comment Period
11. May 11, 2016 – MTC Review of Public Comment
12. June 15, 2016 – MTC Special Meeting
13. July 13, 2016 – MTC Meeting, Recommendation for Adoption
14. July 13, 2016 – Planning Commission, Initial Presentation
15. Aug 24, 2016 - Planning Commission, Final Action
16. Sept 20, 2016 – City Council
Public Desired Service Improvements
It is worth noting that during the Public Perception surveys conducted in 2015, SLO Transit
received high marks from the community. Out of the 1,573 collected surveys, SLO Transit
received a combined 96% “Good” or “Excellent” rating in “Overall Service Quality” by the
public. The current success of the program is also further highlighted when it was demonstrated
that SLO Transit was outperforming most of its peers, during the peer-system-analysis, in a
number of key performance indicators.
However, the 2016 increase in ridership levels has strained the overall transit system in trying to
keep up with ridership levels. In the transit system’s current form, it will be unable to support
both new riders and support city growth indefinitely. Furthermore, when the public was asked:
“What could SLO Transit do better?” the following themes appeared.
1. Later evening service throughout the academic school year
2. Later evening service throughout summer periods
3. Later weekend service in general
1
Packet Pg. 7
Service Change Recommendations
A major goal of the SRTP alternatives was to maximize service in order to meet desired service
improvements. This is accomplished by focusing service on higher yielding ridership corridors
and streamlining the overall system. Careful consideration was given to appropriately move
service off of neighborhood streets and onto arterial roadways to improve the safety and on -time
performance of the system. Great efforts were made to minimize what is perceived as “loss of
service” and only done so if meaningful gains, system wide, could be accomplished by doing so.
The existing route structure will be streamlined to enhance service quality along key travel
corridors, provide meaningful new connections, and improve service safety and efficiency.
Overall, the route network will be reconfigured into a series of four basic bi-directional routes,
serving different quadrants of the City and with better integration at the Transit Center. In
addition, it is recommended that the routes be identified with a simpler nomenclature, with “A”
and “B” designations to differentiate travel direction. The “A” (i.e. Route 1A, 2A, etc.) routes
will operate in clockwise direction while the “B” (i.e. Route 1B, 2B, etc.) routes will provide the
counterclockwise bidirectional service, see Figure 36, Page 140 of the 2016-21 SRTP:
Routes 1 and 3 will continue to focus and serve the Southeast quadrant of the city but will
be streamlined and revised to create new complementing Routes 1A and 1B. Route 1A
will serve Johnson, Laurel and Broad St. in a clockwise direction approximately every 45
minutes using a single bus. Route 1B will provide the counterclockwise service with an
additional extension to the Marigold Center and French Park Neighborhood with one bus
in each direction. Although the Plan recommends reducing Route 3 service east of the
UPRR Bridge due to low ridership, development of the Righetti Ranch is scheduled to
begin shortly and new housing will be constructed on the north side of Tank Farm Road
within the next 12-24 months. Since implementation of the SRTP changes will occur no
sooner than summer of 2017 it is unlikely the service reductions would take place and
then be reestablished when the development is occupied. Staff will make final
recommendation on this service change as part of the 2017 implementation plan.
Route 2 will be expanded to further serve the Southwest quadrant of the City.
Enhancements to this route include additional meaningful service from S. Higuera St.,
over the new LOVR interchange bridge, to the Jr. High School along the LOVR
commercial corridor and down Madonna Road with bidirectional service (Route 2A and
2B).
Routes 4 and 5 will be streamlined serve the Western quadrant of the City in a newly
renumbered Route 3A (clockwise) and 3B (counterclockwise). Service between
downtown and Cal Poly will be shifted from Grand Avenue to California Boulevard
(replaced with 4A/4B enhancements). Los Osos Valley Road east of Madonna Road will
be eliminated (replaced with 2A/2B). Overall, this will reduce service frequency in the
low-ridership areas on the western side of the system, free up two buses for use in higher
ridership areas, and improve on-time performance.
Routes 6A and 6B will be consolidated and configured into a bi-directional loop serving
Cal Poly and downtown, renumbered as 4A (clockwise) and 4B (counterclockwise).
1
Packet Pg. 8
During peak daytime periods in the school year, two buses will be operated in each
direction. This strategy will improve connections between the Foothill/Highland corridor
and downtown (and connecting bus services). It will also result in a simpler route
structure that is easier for passengers to understand.
All routes will enhance use of the Transit Center for easier system-wide connections.
This route plan (absent the expansion of hours of service) will increase the annual number of
runs by 6 percent of the existing total, increase the vehicle-hours of service by 9 percent, and
only increases vehicle-miles of service by 0.5 percent. At full implementation, two additional
buses will be operated at peak. The plan focuses transit resources on areas with the greatest
ridership potential; and, specifically;
1. Provides new cross-town travel options between the Madonna Road corridor and the
South Higuera corridor
2. Improves on-time performance by building more layover time into the routes
3. Increases service frequency in the key neighborhoods near the Cal Poly campus and
to/from downtown
4. 4 Provides service to new neighborhoods and employment opportunities
5. Provides flexibility to expand services in the future to serve new developments, such as
Righetti Ranch and the Margarita Area Specific Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3) (General Rule Exemption), § 15262 (Feasibility and Planning
Studies) and/ or § 15276(A) (Transportation Improvement and Congestion Management
Programs).
FISCAL IMPACT
It is important to note that the SRTP is a planning lev el document and does not in and of itself
commit the City to implementation of the service recommendations. The SRTP is a fiscally
constrained document and adoption of the plan in no way commits the Council or the City to
implementation of the service recommendations contained in the plan nor does it imply that the
Council endorses all of these recommendations or plan content. The recommendations contained
in this document are the consultant’s professional judgment in addressing the data, field
observations and overall system analysis and the outcomes for changing service.
The SLO Transit is an Enterprise fund that fully funds the operations using a combination of
local generated fares, state and federal grants. There is no General Fund contribution to SLO
Transit Enterprise fund. Full implementation of the five year recommendations of the SRTP will
be dependent on the Enterprise Fund’s ability to meet revenue requirements from these sources.
While the plan does create some operational efficiencies and related cost savings these savings
are reinvested in service needs. Additionally, in order to create expanded operating hours of
service, as identified by the public, a fare increase may need to be considered at some point over
the course of this plan’s five-year planning horizon in order to achieve full implementation and
1
Packet Pg. 9
keep up with escalating costs.
The FY 2016-17 Transit Budget includes $100,000 to assist in preparing for service changes that
could result from adoption of the SRTP. Staff will provide further information and final
recommendations for SRTP implementation as part of the FY 17-18 Financial Plan process.
Should sufficient revenue sources be available for full implementation, this plan will increase
annual operating costs by 6.8 percent. Besides the prior identified funding sources, there also is
a potential for new revenues from a new countywide Measure J transportation self-help tax
which is set for the November ballot. These revenues are not included in this plan and would not
supplant exiting funding sources. If passed, this new revenue would most likely be focused on
expanding evening service. Capital costs over the plan period exceed the current forecasted
5307 funds by $5.6 Million, which will require new funding. SLO Transit will also monitor
financial conditions to assess future need for fare modifications.
CONCURRENCES
1. Mass Transit Advisory Committee (7/13/16)
2. Planning Commission (8/24/16)
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council could deny the plan in its entirety. This is not recommended as the proposed
plan is aligned with several General Plan policies and enhances services to transit users.
2. Approve but modify the SRTP with additional direction to staff.
3. Delay adoption of SRTP with direction for staff to prepare any additional analysis or service
alternatives.
Attachments:
a - Resolution - Short Term Transit Plan
b - Aug 24, 2016 Planning Commission - Initial Environmental Review
c - Council Reading File - SLO Transit Final SRTP
1
Packet Pg. 10
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. XXXXX (2016 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE 2016-21 SHORT RANGE
TRANSIT PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo, California operates San Luis Obispo Transit, a
public transit service; and
WHEREAS, the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments requires transit operators to
prepare a Short Range Transit Plan every five years to be included in the regional transportation
plan; and
WHEREAS, the Mass Transportation Committee conducted a hearing and received public
testimony on July 13th, 2016 and recommended approval of the Short Range Transit Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a hearing and received public testimony
on August 24th, 2016 and recommended approval of the Short Range Transit Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a hearing on September 20th, 2016 and has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and
action, the records of the Mass Transportation Committee hearing and action and the evaluation
and recommendation of staff: and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed Short Range Transit Plan is
consistent with the policies of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has developed a Short Range Transit Plan to
review it public transit service, and to make recommendation for service improvements; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, who operates SLO Transit, as follows:
Section 1. Approval. The City hereby adopts the Short Range Transit Plan dated August
10, 2016 as recommended by the Mass Transportation and Planning Commission.
Section 2. Constraints. That the SRTP is a fiscally constrained document and that adoption
of the plan in no way commits the Council or the City to implementation of the service
recommendations contained in the plan nor does it imply that the Council endorses all of these
recommendations or plan content. The recommendations contained in this document are the
consultant’s professional judgment in addressing the data, field observations and overall system
analysis and the outcomes for changing service.
Section 3. Environmental Review. The Council hereby finds and concludes that the project
is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
§ 15061(b)(3) (General Rule Exemption), § 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies) and/ or §
1.a
Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: a - Resolution - Short Term Transit Plan (1323 : SLO Transit 2016-2021 Short Range Transit Plan)
Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 2
15276(A) (Transportation Improvement and Congestion Management Programs) and hereby
directs staff to file a Notice of Exemption consistent herewith because the project is largely a
planning and feasibility study that specifies route changes and refinements along existing corridors
that will reduce transportation and reduce congestion and that proposed improvements are largely
programmatic in nature and there is not specificity to determine that any impacts will occur and
therefore falls within the General Rule CEQA exception.
Upon motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________, 2016.
_____________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
_____________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
1.a
Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: a - Resolution - Short Term Transit Plan (1323 : SLO Transit 2016-2021 Short Range Transit Plan)
1
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
USE-OTHER-3400-2016
August 24th, 2016
1. Project Title:
2016-2021 Short Range Transit Plan, For SLO Transit
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
Public Works Dept.
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Gamaliel Anguiano, Transit Manager
805-781-7121
4. Project Location:
Citywide
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
Public Works Dept.
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Project Representative Name and Address:
Gamaliel Anguiano, Transit Manager
805-781-7121
6. General Plan Designation:
N/A
1.b
Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: b - Aug 24, 2016 Planning Commission - Initial Environmental Review (1323 : SLO Transit 2016-2021 Short Range Transit Plan)
2
7. Zoning:
N/A
8. Description of the Project:
This document presents a five-year (2016-2021) Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) developed for
the City of San Luis Obispo’s public transit program, SLO Transit. An SRTP is intended to
provide a detailed business plan to guide the transit organization over the coming five years. It
includes a review of demographics and its transit needs, a series of surveys and ridership counts
conducted for all SLO Transit services, a review of the effectiveness and efficiency of existing
services, a review of similar systems, analysis of a wide range of options, and the results of
public input processes. The resulting SRTP provides operational, capital and institutional plans,
including an implementation plan. This SRTP plan has been prepared jointly with the
development of a parallel SRTP for the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (RTA)
program, in order to identify means to best coordinate the two services.
The proposed update to the SRTP will not result in any new significant environmental impacts
consistent with the analysis contained in the environmental document prepared for the SRTP in
2003 (ER 101-03; Attached). All potentially significant effects of the SRTP update were analyzed
adequately as having a Negative Declaration.
9. Setting and Surrounding Land Uses:
City limits of San Luis Obispo and CalPoly University
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
Adoption of the SRTP
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.):
None
1.b
Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: b - Aug 24, 2016 Planning Commission - Initial Environmental Review (1323 : SLO Transit 2016-2021 Short Range Transit Plan)
3
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Population / Housing
Agriculture Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Public Services
Air Quality
Hydrology / Water Quality
Recreation
Biological Resources
Land Use / Planning
Transportation / Traffic
Cultural Resources
Mineral Resources
Utilities / Service Systems
Geology / Soils
Noise
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
FISH AND GAME FEES
X
The Department of Fish and Wildlife has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect determination
request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife, or habitat (see
attached determination).
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Wildlife fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code. This initial study has
been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State
agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
1.b
Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: b - Aug 24, 2016 Planning Commission - Initial Environmental Review (1323 : SLO Transit 2016-2021 Short Range Transit Plan)
4
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
X
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made,
by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant” impact(s) or “potentially
significant unless mitigated” impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
Tyler Corey, Principal Planner For: Michael Codron
Print Name Community Development Director
1.b
Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: b - Aug 24, 2016 Planning Commission - Initial Environmental Review (1323 : SLO Transit 2016-2021 Short Range Transit Plan)
5
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like
the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors
to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there
are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact."
The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level (mitigation measures from Section 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross-
referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has b een
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe
the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
addressed site-specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts
(e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where
appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion.
8. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
1.b
Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: b - Aug 24, 2016 Planning Commission - Initial Environmental Review (1323 : SLO Transit 2016-2021 Short Range Transit Plan)
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
6
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,5,
24, 31
--X--
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic
buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
5, 11,
31
--X--
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings?
1,11,
31
--X--
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
10,11,
17, 31
--X--
Evaluation
The applicant proposes consolidating, migrating, adding and removing bus routes to align with ridership demands along
existing and identified appropriate service corridors.
Conclusion: No Impact
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
1, 19,
31
--X--
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract?
1, 12,
31
--X--
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural use?
18
--X--
Evaluation
No agricultural resources associated with this project.
Conclusion: No Impact
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or
air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
9, 21,
13, 31
--X--
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
9, 20,
21,
13, 31
--X--
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
9, 20,
21,
13, 31
--X--
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
9, 21,
13, 31
--X--
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
9, 21,
13, 31
--X--
Evaluation
1.b
Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: b - Aug 24, 2016 Planning Commission - Initial Environmental Review (1323 : SLO Transit 2016-2021 Short Range Transit Plan)
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
7
Public Transportation is generally viewed as an air quality impact mitigation tool, typically offsetting immersion from expanded
service with increased ridership. The SRTP continues to recommend the use of CARB approved Clean Diesel vehicles and the
pursuit of alternative (i.e. electric, hybrid, etc.) powertrains for its fixed-route bus fleet.
Conclusion: No Impact
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
5,17,
18,
26, 31
--X--
b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
5,17,
18,
26, 31
--X--
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
5,17,
18,
26, 31
--X--
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
5,17,
18,
26, 31
--X--
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
5,17,
18,
26, 31
--X--
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
5,17,
18,
26, 31
--X--
Evaluation
No biological resources are associated with this project .
Conclusion: No Impact
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historic resource as defined in §15064.5.
5, 23,
24,26,
31
--X--
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5)
23,
24,
26, 31
--X--
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
5, 26,
31
--X--
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
5, 24,
31
--X--
Evaluation
The SRTP recommended service changes predominately refine existing services with minor additional service expansion along
appropriate corridors within city limits.
1.b
Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: b - Aug 24, 2016 Planning Commission - Initial Environmental Review (1323 : SLO Transit 2016-2021 Short Range Transit Plan)
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
8
Conclusion: No Impact
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
4,10,
14,
29, 31
--X--
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
4,10,
14,
29, 31
--X--
II. Strong seismic ground shaking? 4,10,
14,29,
31
--X--
III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 4,10,
14,27,
29, 31
--X--
IV. Landslides? 4,10,
14,
29, 31
--X--
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 4,10,
14,
29, 31
--X--
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
4,10,
14,
29, 31
--X--
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2
[Table 1806.2) of the California Building Code (2007) [2010],
creating substantial risks to life or property?
4,10,
14,29,
31
--X--
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
4,10,
14,
29, 31
--X--
Evaluation
The SRTP recommended service changes predominately refine existing services with minor additional service expansion along
appropriate corridors within city limits.
Conclusion: No Impact
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment?
1,13,
20,21,
31
--X--
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
1,13,
20,21,
31
--X--
Evaluation
Public Transportation is generally viewed as an air quality impact mitigation tool. The SRTP continues to recommend use of
the CARB approved Clean Diesel vehicles and the pursuit of alternative (i.e. electric, hybrid, etc.) powertrains for its fixe d-
route bus fleet.
1.b
Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: b - Aug 24, 2016 Planning Commission - Initial Environmental Review (1323 : SLO Transit 2016-2021 Short Range Transit Plan)
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
9
Conclusion: No Impact
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
4, 31
--X--
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
4, 31
--X--
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
12
--X--
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
30, 31
--X--
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
1, 4
--X--
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
1, 4
--X--
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
4, 17
--X--
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury,
or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
4, 17,
31
--X--
Evaluation
No use of or introduction of hazardous materials are associated with the project.
Conclusion: No Impact
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
5,
15,16,
27, 31
--X--
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre -existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
5,
15,16,
27, 31
--X--
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
5,
15,16,
27, 31
--X--
1.b
Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: b - Aug 24, 2016 Planning Commission - Initial Environmental Review (1323 : SLO Transit 2016-2021 Short Range Transit Plan)
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
10
or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on or off site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site?
5,
15,16,
27, 31
--X--
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
5,
15,16,
27, 31
--X--
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 5, 27,
31
--X--
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
5,
15,16,
27, 31
--X--
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
5, 27,
31
--X--
i) Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
4, 5,
27, 31
--X--
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 4, 31 --X--
Evaluation
Implementation of the SRTP has no impact on hydrology or water quality.
Conclusion: No Impact
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 1, 10,
31
--X--
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
1, 9,
25, 31
--X--
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
5, 12,
31
--X--
Evaluation
The SRTP recommended service changes are consistent with the Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan which
encourages the expansion of public transit services.
Conclusion: No Impact
11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
5, 31
--X--
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
5, 31
--X--
Evaluation
No mineral resources associated with this project.
1.b
Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: b - Aug 24, 2016 Planning Commission - Initial Environmental Review (1323 : SLO Transit 2016-2021 Short Range Transit Plan)
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
11
Conclusion: No Impact
12. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
3, 9,
10, 31
--X--
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
3, 9,
10, 31
--X--
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
3, 9,
10, 31
--X--
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
3, 9,
10, 31
--X--
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
1, 3,
9, 10,
31
--X--
12, 31 --X--
Evaluation
There are no recommended changes in vehicle type which would increase noise. Current proposed alternative energy fleet
conforms with applicable noise ordinances.
Conclusion: No Impact
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
1, 31 --X--
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
1, 31 --X--
1, 31 --X--
Evaluation:
No housing related impacts associated with this project.
Conclusion: No Impact
14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? 1, 4,
9,31
--X--
b) Police protection? 1, 4,
9,31
--X--
c) Schools? 1, 4,
9,31
--X--
1.b
Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: b - Aug 24, 2016 Planning Commission - Initial Environmental Review (1323 : SLO Transit 2016-2021 Short Range Transit Plan)
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
12
d) Parks? 1, 4,
9,31
--X--
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? 1, 4,
9,31
--X--
f) Other public facilities? 1, 4,
9,31
--X--
Evaluation
There are no impacts on public services. The SRTP recommended service changes predominately refine existing services with
minor additional service expansion along appropriate corridors within city limits and CaPoly University.
Conclusion: No Impact
15. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
1, 10,
31
--X--
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
1, 10,
31
--X--
Evaluation:
The SRTP recommended service changes predominately refine existing bus services, with only minor additional service
expansion, along appropriate corridors, within city limits and in order to address ridership demands. In theory, riders will be
able to access more recreational facilities (e.g. Damion Garcia) on a more frequent basis by using public transit. Although it
should be noted that parks are not typically recognized as ma jor trip generators for the Transit Industry.
Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact
16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of
the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation system, including but
not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
2,12,
21,31
--X--
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
1, 2,
4, 31
--X--
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
12, 31
--X--
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)?
2, 21,
28, 31
--X--
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 4, 31 --X--
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
2,31
--X--
1.b
Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: b - Aug 24, 2016 Planning Commission - Initial Environmental Review (1323 : SLO Transit 2016-2021 Short Range Transit Plan)
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
13
Evaluation
The SRTP recommended service changes are consistent with the Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan which
encourages the expansion of public transit services.
Conclusion: No Impact
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
7,16,
31
--X--
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
7,16,
27,
31,
32, 33
--X--
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
7,16,
27, 31
--X--
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and
expanded entitlements needed?
7,16,
31
--X--
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments?
5,
7,16,
31,
32, 33
--X--
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
5, 8,
31
--X--
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
5, 8,
31
--X--
Evaluation
No utility or service systems associated with this project.
Conclusion: No Impact
18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
--X--
Implementation of the SRTP will have no impact on fish or wildlife.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
--X--
Implementation of the SRTP would not result in impacts that are cumulatively considerable.
1.b
Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: b - Aug 24, 2016 Planning Commission - Initial Environmental Review (1323 : SLO Transit 2016-2021 Short Range Transit Plan)
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
14
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
--X--
Implementation of the SRTP would result in no environmental effects that would cause substantial direct or indirect adverse
effects on human beings.
19. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should
identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
Consulted were the ER 101-03, City of San Luis Obispo Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update EIR, available for
review at the City Community Development Department (919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401), or at the following
web site: http://www.slocity.org/government/department -directory/community-development/planning-zoning/general-plan
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Applicable excerpts, analysis and conclusions from the LUCE Update EIR have been added to each impact issue area
discussion, as appropriate.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific
conditions of the project.
N/A
20. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element, December 2014
2. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element, December 2014
3. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element, May 1996
4. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element, March 2012
5. City of SLO General Plan Conservation & Open Space Element, April 2006
6. City of SLO General Plan Housing Element, January 2015
7. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element, July 2010
8. City of SLO Source Reduction and Recycling Element, on file in the Utilities Department
9. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
10. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines, June 2010
11. City of San Luis Obispo, Land Use Inventory Database
12. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations March 2015
13. City of SLO Climate Action Plan, August 2012
14. 2013 California Building Code
15. City of SLO Waterways Management Plan
16. Water Resources Status Report, July 2012, on file with in the Utilities Department
17. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency:
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/
18. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Air Pollution Control District, April 2012
19. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 9 th Edition, on file in the Community Development
Department
20. City of San Luis Obispo, Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, on file in the Community Development
Department
21. City of San Luis Obispo, Historic Site Map
22. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Map
23. Archeological Resource Inventory, Applied Earthworks, Inc. October 2015
Attachments:
1.b
Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: b - Aug 24, 2016 Planning Commission - Initial Environmental Review (1323 : SLO Transit 2016-2021 Short Range Transit Plan)
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
15
1. 2016-2021 SL Transit Short Range Transit Plan
2. ER 101-03
1.b
Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: b - Aug 24, 2016 Planning Commission - Initial Environmental Review (1323 : SLO Transit 2016-2021 Short Range Transit Plan)
Meeting Date: 9/20/2016
FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director
Prepared By: Anne C. Fairchild, Water Quality Laboratory Manager
SUBJECT: LABORATORY ANALYSES SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR
2017-2022, SPECIFICATION NO. 91492
RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve the release of a request for proposal for 2017-2022 Water and Wastewater
Laboratory Analyses Services; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to award and execute a five-year contract if the lowest
responsible proposer does not exceed $300,000.
DISCUSSION
On January 31, 2017 the current agreement for contract laboratory services between the City and
FGL Environmental will expire. While the City’s Water Quality Laboratory (WQL) performs the
majority of the regulatory laboratory analyses for the City’s Water Treatment Plant (WTP) and
Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF), some tests, such as metals and organics , are best
performed by an outside contract laboratory due to impractical economics related to equipment
costs, potential hazardous materials handling, and increased staffing costs.
Request for Proposal
In addition to the required regulatory testing, the City’s WQL routinely undertakes special water
quality studies for the WRRF project. The special studies data is used for WRRF design
modeling and ultimately ensures that the required water quality goals and regulations will be met
after the upgrade is completed.
Maintaining laboratory data consistency throughout the 2017-2022 timeframe is critical to
providing the WRRF project team with the best possible information from which to make
informed decisions. This consistency of quality analyses will be easier to maintain by utilizing
the same contract laboratory throughout the WRRF design and construction. It should be noted
that even while using the same approved laboratory methods, different laboratories have been
shown to experience some variability in their analytical results. For these reasons, staff is
requesting a five-year contract during the course of the WRRF project and regulatory testing
activities. The agreement also contains an option for a two-year extension
FISCAL IMPACT
Total fiscal impact is estimated at $60,000 annually or $300,000 over the five-year term of the
contract. The new contract would begin February 1, 2017. There is adequate funding available in
laboratory services for both water and sewer to cover the cost for 2015-16. The final contract
amount will be allocated 25% to water and 75% to sewer with those costs programmed into
6
Packet Pg. 28
future financial plans.
ALTERNATIVE
Council could decide not to seek a proposal for laboratory services and have City WQL
laboratory conduct the additional laboratory analyses. The City does not possess either the
necessary equipment or staffing levels to conduct the additional analyses in-house. Conducting
the analyses in-house would require significant investments in additional staffing, equipment
acquisition, equipment maintenance, and servicing contracts.
If Council should choose the alternative, staff would return with a full funding analysis and a
request for adequate funding as soon as possible.
Attachments:
a - Lab Services RFP 2017-2022 Spec No. 91492
6
Packet Pg. 29
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including disabled persons in all of our services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410.
Notice Requesting Proposals for
Laboratory Analyses Services
The City of San Luis Obispo is inviting sealed proposals for Laboratory Services pursuant to Specification
No. 91492. All proposals must be received by the Finance Division by October 27, 2016 when they
will be opened publicly in the City Hall Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA
93401.
Proposals received after said time will not be considered. To guard against premature opening, each
proposal shall be submitted to the Finance Division in a sealed envelope plainly marked with the proposal
title, specification number, proposer name, and time and date of the proposal opening. Proposals shall be
submitted using the forms provided in the specification package.
Specification packages and additional information may be obtained by contacting Anne Fairchild at (805)
781-7242.
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2710
6.a
Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: a - Lab Services RFP 2017-2022 Spec No. 91492 (1450 : Laboratory Analyses Services RFP)
Specification No. 91492
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section A. Description of Work 1
Proposal Detail Worksheet Part 1. Wastewater Constituents 3
Proposal Detail Worksheet Part 2. Drinking Water Constituents 7
Section B. General Terms And Conditions 9
Proposal Requirements 9
Contract Award and Execution 10
Contract Performance 10
Section C. Special Terms and Conditions 13
Contract Term 13
Estimated Quantities 13
Proposal Content 15
Proposal Evaluation and Selection 15
List of Required Submittals 15
Proposal Length and Copies 15
Section D. Form of Agreement 16
Section E. Insurance Requirements 18
Section F. Proposal Worksheets Other 20
Proposal Submittal Summary 20
References 21
Statement of Past Contract Disqualifications 22
ATTACHMENT A. NPDES PERMIT # CA0049224 23
6.a
Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: a - Lab Services RFP 2017-2022 Spec No. 91492 (1450 : Laboratory Analyses Services RFP)
-1-
Section A
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
The City is inviting sealed proposals for Laboratory Analyses for Water and Wastewater pursuant to
Specifications No. 91492
1.ANALYTICAL METHODS - All laboratory work shall be performed in accordance with Standard Methods
for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 22nd edition, and approved EPA, DHS and APHA analytical
methods.
2.LABORATORY CERTIFICATION - All proposers and subcontractor(s) shall be currently certified by the
State of California Department of Health Services and Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program
(ELAP) to perform the laboratory analyses listed in the Proposer Detail Worksheet.
3.DETECTION LIMITS - All analytical methods used for work performed for this specification must have
minimum detection limits that are below the maximum discharge limits as outlined in the attached "NPDES
Monitoring Program" (Appendix A). Especially note the "Receiving Water” and “NDMA” reporting limits.
4.QA/QC REPORTS - The proposer shall supply a written Quality Assurance/Quality Control report
concurrently with all analytical results. The QA/QC report describes all QA/QC steps and evaluations taken to
ensure accurate, scientifically and legally defensible data as required per ELAP and Standard Methods 22nd
Edition.
5.REPORTING FORMAT - The proposer shall submit all drinking water analyses reports on California
Department of Public Health (CDPH) forms specifically for that purpose. Drinking water analyses reports
submitted on forms other than said CDPH forms shall be considered delinquent. The proposer must maintain a
valid CDPH Electronic Data Transfer (EDT) certification during the course of this contract.
6.SAMPLE CONTAINERS - Proposer shall supply all sample containers. Sample containers shall be identified
and delivered with legible, preprinted (no hand-written accepted- computer generated only) labels and
preprinted (no hand-written accepted- computer generated only) chain-of-custody forms. Preprinted labels and
chain-of-custody forms shall contain at minimum: client name, address and phone number, analyses to be
performed, frequency of analyses, preservative, sample container type and size and project title. Sample
containers shall be prepared with preservatives required per ELAP and/or Standard Methods 22nd Edition. For
repeat sampling events, the proposer shall provide customized and preprinted chain-of-custody forms and labels.
Proposer shall insure that all sample containers, chains of custody and corresponding labels will be delivered
and available to City of San Luis Obispo Laboratory staff one week prior to the start of the next month’s
sampling. (As an example, for all sampling events scheduled to take place in December, all sampling containers
shall be delivered and available to City of San Luis Obispo lab staff by the third week of November.)
7.SAMPLE PICKUP/DELIVERY –Sample containers, chains of custody will be picked-up by the proposer at
a minimum of twice per week. The proposer will initiate a call to the WQL the day prior to the pickup day.
Prior to accepting the sample and signing the chain of custody, the proposer must provide personnel able to
inspect sample containers, labels and consistency with chain of custodies for completeness and accuracy. The
proposer personnel must be able to sign chain of custodies to maintain integrity of the chain of custody and
legally defensible data.
8.UNSCHEDULED PICKUP/DELIVERY - In the event of unscheduled sampling episode, the proposer shall
arrange for pick-up and a 1-day RUSH turnaround at no surcharge. This service shall be available for up to 12
unscheduled sampling episodes per year.
9.TURNAROUND TIME - Proposer shall provide a 10-12 working day turnaround time for sample analyses
and results. All of any month's analytical results shall be provided to the WQL Laboratory, in writing, by the
15th day of the following month, (5th day of the following month for all drinking water results).
10.PROPOSAL PRICES - All bids shall remain stable for the period February 1st 2017 – January 31st 2022.
6.a
Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: a - Lab Services RFP 2017-2022 Spec No. 91492 (1450 : Laboratory Analyses Services RFP)
-2-
11.ONLINE AND PAPER-COPY REPORTING– Proposer must provide electronic on-line reporting. The
reports must include access concurrently to: QA/QC reports, chain of custodies, data results, invoices, method
numbers and a case narrative. The case narrative must summarize the sample description, date sampled, date
received, sample or tracking number, sample matrix, a discussion of quality control parameters and method
numbers. This information must be available on line for no less than 3 months. The proposer shall notify via
email when the online reports are ready for reviewing. All of any month's analytical results shall be provided to
the City of San Luis Obispo’s Water Quality Laboratory, on line and in writing, by the 15th day of the following
month, (5th day of the following month for all drinking water results).
12.SAMPLE RESULT NOTIFICATION - Proposer must be able to follow special chain of custody instructions
for: Oil and Grease, BOD, THM, NDMA and Reagent Water HPC and other analyses as needed.
13.LABORATORY INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS (LIMS)- The
proposer must utilize a computerized LIMS system or equivalent to generate: reports, data, results items, labels,
chains of custody and related items for required contract sampling and, non-contract workloads.
14.REQUIRED PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL - Proposal submittals must include: #1 Completed and Accurate
Proposal Detail Worksheet including calculated total 5 year contract pricing, #2 Certificate of Appropriate
Insurance, #3 References, #4 Statement of Bidder's Past Contract Disqualifications, if applicable, and #5
Proposal Detail Worksheet, and #6 Examples of: Labels, Preprinted Chain of Custodies, Laboratory Data Report
as specified in Section A Description of Work #1-#14.
REQUIRED FUNCTIONALITY
Table 1 (Functionality Requirements) highlights some mandatory function requirements for this contract. Please
provide an example and respond to all aspects of the functional specifications and criteria in the Functionality
Requirement Table 1. Any deviation or exceptions from the functionality requirements must be clearly noted in the
proposal. The City will entertain other options and recommendations if they can improve upon the current
requirements.
Proposers must review and provide a response ( C or NA) to each functionality requirement (Table 1 below) by
indicating each item with one of the following responses in the proposer response column. If further explanation is
needed please attach comments.
•Fully Compliant (C): Indicates the proposer’s standards and operating procedures meet and/or exceed the
requirement.
•Not Available (NA): Indicates that the proposer does not and cannot meet this requirement.
Table 1: Functionality Requirements
No. Functionality Proposer Response
1.Do you have electronic reports for: permit, process control, special
studies and WTP and WRRF plant upgrade data and reports 2013- to
date?
1a. If yes to 1. , how long is the information available?
2.Do you utilize a LIMS (Laboratory Information Management System) or
equivalent system?
3.Can you provide an example of an April Quarterly Effluent report we
would receive as a client as required in Section A above?
4.Do you have a dedicated QA/QC Officer to answer QA/QC and related
questions within a 45 minute response time Mon-Fri 7am-6pm PDT?
5.Can you have preprinted chains of custody, labels and sample containers
(completed as noted in Section A above) delivered to WQL location for
unscheduled events within 24 hours?
6.Can you provide an example of a preprinted chain of custody and label?
7.Can you provide sample containers within a one hour notice?
8.Will you ever use personnel not employed by your company as a carrier
service for sample pickup or drop off to or from the WQL?
8a. If yes, who would be your likely third party carrier?
6.a
Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: a - Lab Services RFP 2017-2022 Spec No. 91492 (1450 : Laboratory Analyses Services RFP)
-3-
6.a
Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: a - Lab Services RFP 2017-2022 Spec No. 91492 (1450 : Laboratory Analyses Services RFP)
-4-
6.a
Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: a - Lab Services RFP 2017-2022 Spec No. 91492 (1450 : Laboratory Analyses Services RFP)
-5-
6.a
Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: a - Lab Services RFP 2017-2022 Spec No. 91492 (1450 : Laboratory Analyses Services RFP)
-6-
6.a
Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: a - Lab Services RFP 2017-2022 Spec No. 91492 (1450 : Laboratory Analyses Services RFP)
-7-
*
6.a
Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: a - Lab Services RFP 2017-2022 Spec No. 91492 (1450 : Laboratory Analyses Services RFP)
-8-
6.a
Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: a - Lab Services RFP 2017-2022 Spec No. 91492 (1450 : Laboratory Analyses Services RFP)
-9-
Section B
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Requirement to Meet All Provisions. Each individual or firm submitting a proposal (proposer)
shall meet all of the terms, and conditions of the Request for Proposals (RFP) specifications
package. By virtue of its proposal submittal, the proposer acknowledges agreement with and
acceptance of all provisions of the RFP specifications.
2. Proposal Submittal. Each proposal must be submitted on the form(s) provided in the
specifications and accompanied by any other required submittals or supplemental materials.
Proposal documents shall be enclosed in an envelope that shall be sealed and addressed to the
Department of Finance, City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401.
In order to guard against premature opening, the proposal should be clearly labeled with the
proposal title, specification number, name of proposer, and date and time of proposal opening. No
FAX submittals will be accepted.
3. Insurance Certificate. Each proposal must include a certificate of insurance showing:
a. The insurance carrier and its A.M. Best rating.
b. Scope of coverage and limits.
c. Deductibles and self-insured retention.
The purpose of this submittal is to generally assess the adequacy of the proposer’s insurance
coverage during proposal evaluation; as discussed under paragraph 12 below, endorsements are not
required until contract award. The City’s insurance requirements are detailed in Section E.
4. Proposal Quotes and Unit Price Extensions. The extensions of unit prices for the quantities
indicated and the lump sum prices quoted by the proposer must be entered in figures in the spaces
provided on the Proposal Detail Worksheet(s). Any lump sum proposal shall be stated in figures.
The Proposal Detail Worksheet(s) must be filled out accurately and completely. If the unit price
and the total amount stated by any proposer for any item are not in agreement, the unit price alone
will be considered as representing the proposer's intention and the proposal total will be corrected
to conform to the specified unit price.
5. Proposal Withdrawal and Opening. A proposer may withdraw its proposal, without prejudice
prior to the time specified for the proposal opening, by submitting a written request to the Director
of Finance for its withdrawal, in which event the proposal will be returned to the proposer
unopened. No proposal received after the time specified or at any place other than that stated in
the "Notice Requesting Proposals" will be considered. All proposals will be opened and declared
publicly. Proposers or their representatives are invited to be present at the opening of the proposals.
6. Submittal of One Proposal Only. No individual or business entity of any kind shall be allowed
to make or file, or to be interested in more than one proposal, except an alternative proposal when
specifically requested; however, an individual or business entity that has submitted a sub-proposal
to a proposer submitting a proposal, or who has quoted prices on materials to such proposer, is not
thereby disqualified from submitting a sub-proposal or from quoting prices to other proposers
submitting proposals.
6.a
Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: a - Lab Services RFP 2017-2022 Spec No. 91492 (1450 : Laboratory Analyses Services RFP)
-10-
7. Cooperative Purchasing. During the term of the contract, the successful proposer will extend all
terms and conditions to any other local governmental agencies upon their request. These agencies
will issue their own purchase orders, will directly receive goods or services at their place of business
and will be directly billed by the successful proposer.
8. Communications. All timely requests for information submitted in writing will receive a written
response from the City. Telephone communications with City staff are not encouraged, but will be
permitted. However, any such oral communication shall not be binding on the City.
CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION
9. Proposal Retention and Award. The City reserves the right to retain all proposals for a period of
60 days for examination and comparison. The City also reserves the right to waive non-substantial
irregularities in any proposal, to reject any or all proposals, to reject or delete one part of a proposal
and accept the other, except to the extent that proposals are qualified by specific limitations. See
the "special terms and conditions" in Section C of these specifications for proposal evaluation and
contract award criteria.
10. Competency and Responsibility of Proposer. The City reserves full discretion to determine the
competence and responsibility, professionally and/or financially, of proposers. Proposers will
provide, in a timely manner, all information that the City deems necessary to make such a decision.
11. Contract Requirement. The proposer to whom award is made (Proposer) shall execute a written
contract with the City within ten (10) calendar days after notice of the award has been sent by mail
to it at the address given in its proposal. The contract shall be made in the form adopted by the
City and incorporated in these specifications.
12. Insurance Requirements. The Proposer shall provide proof of insurance in the form, coverages
and amounts specified in Section E of these specifications within 10 (ten) calendar days after notice
of contract award as a precondition to contract execution.
13. Business License & Tax. The Proposer must have a valid City of San Luis Obispo business license
and tax certificate before execution of the contract. Additional information regarding the City's
business license and tax program may be obtained by calling (805) 781-7134.
CONTRACT PERFORMANCE
14. Ability to Perform. The Proposer warrants that it possesses, or has arranged through subcontracts,
all capital and other equipment, labor, materials, and licenses necessary to carry out and complete
the work hereunder in compliance with any and all federal, state, county, city, and special district
laws, ordinances, and regulations.
15. Laws to be Observed. The Proposer 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.
16. Payment of Taxes. The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes that the
Proposer is required to pay.
17. Permits and Licenses. The Proposer shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and
fees, and give all notices necessary.
18. Safety Provisions. The Proposer shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to safety
established by OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety.
6.a
Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: a - Lab Services RFP 2017-2022 Spec No. 91492 (1450 : Laboratory Analyses Services RFP)
-11-
19.Public and Employee Safety. Whenever the Proposer's operations create a condition hazardous
to the public or City employees, it shall, at its expense and without cost to the City, furnish, erect
and maintain such fences, temporary railings, barricades, lights, signs and other devices and take
such other protective measures as are necessary to prevent accidents or damage or injury to the
public and employees.
20.Preservation of City Property. The Proposer shall provide and install suitable safeguards,
approved by the City, to protect City property from injury or damage. If City property is injured
or damaged resulting from the Proposer's operations, it shall be replaced or restored at the
Proposer's expense. The facilities shall be replaced or restored to a condition as good as when the
Proposer began work.
21.Immigration Act of 1986. The Proposer warrants on behalf of itself and all subcontractors
engaged for the performance of this work that only persons authorized to work in the United States
pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and other applicable laws shall be
employed in the performance of the work hereunder.
22.Proposer Non-Discrimination. In the performance of this work, the Proposer agrees that it will
not engage in, nor permit such subcontractors as it may employ, to engage in discrimination in
employment of persons because of age, race, color, sex, national origin or ancestry, sexual
orientation, or religion of such persons.
23.Work Delays. Should the Proposer 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 Proposer. In the event that there is insufficient time to grant such extensions prior
to the completion date of the contract, the City may, at the time of acceptance of the work, waive
liquidated damages that may have accrued for failure to complete on time, due to any of the above,
after hearing evidence as to the reasons for such delay, and making a finding as to the causes of
same.
24.Payment Terms. The City's payment terms are 30 days from the receipt of an original invoice and
acceptance by the City of the materials, supplies, equipment or services provided by the Proposer
(Net 30).
25.Inspection. The Proposer shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity for City to ascertain
that the services of the Proposer 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 Proposer of any of
its obligations to fulfill its contract requirements.
26.Audit. The City shall have the option of inspecting and/or auditing all records and other written
materials used by Proposer in preparing its invoices to City as a condition precedent to any payment
to Proposer.
27.Interests of Proposer. The Proposer covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall not
acquire any interest—direct, indirect or otherwise—that would conflict in any manner or degree
with the performance of the work hereunder. The Proposer further covenants that, in the
performance of this work, no subcontractor or person having such an interest shall be employed.
The Proposer 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 Proposer shall at all times be deemed an independent proposer and not
an agent or employee of the City.
6.a
Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: a - Lab Services RFP 2017-2022 Spec No. 91492 (1450 : Laboratory Analyses Services RFP)
-12-
28.Hold Harmless and Indemnification. The Proposer 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 Proposer's employees, agents or officers that arise from or are connected with or
are caused or claimed to be caused by the acts or omissions of the Proposer, 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 Proposer'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.
29.Contract Assignment. The Proposer shall not assign, transfer, convey or otherwise dispose of the
contract, or its right, title or interest, or its power to execute such a contract to any individual or
business entity of any kind without the previous written consent of the City.
30.Termination. If, during the term of the contract, the City determines that the Proposer is not
faithfully abiding by any term or condition contained herein, the City may notify the Proposer in
writing of such defect or failure to perform. This notice must give the Proposer a 10 (ten) calendar
day notice of time thereafter in which to perform said work or cure the deficiency.
If the Proposer 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 Proposer 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 Proposer'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 Proposer 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 Proposer as may be set forth in the Agreement
payment schedule; compensation for any other work, services or goods performed or provided by
the Proposer 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 Proposer be entitled to receive in excess of
the compensation quoted in its proposal.
The City reserves the right to terminate the contract without cause and reason whatsoever upon
thirty (30) days written notice to the Proposer.
6.a
Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: a - Lab Services RFP 2017-2022 Spec No. 91492 (1450 : Laboratory Analyses Services RFP)
-13-
Section C
SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1.Contract Award. Subject to the reservations set forth in Paragraph 9 of Section B (General Terms
and Conditions) of these specifications, the contract will be awarded to the most responsible,
responsive proposer or a combination of factors as determined to be in the best interest of the City.
2.Sales Tax Reimbursement. For sales occurring within the City of San Luis Obispo, the City
receives sales tax revenues. Therefore, for proposals from retail firms located in the City at the
time of proposal closing for which sales tax is allocated to the City, 1.5% of the taxable amount of
the proposal will be deducted from the proposal by the City in calculating and determining the
responsible, responsive proposer.
3.Labor Actions. In the event that the successful proposer is experiencing a labor action at the time
of contract award (or if its suppliers or subcontractors are experiencing such a labor action), the
City reserves the right to declare said proposer is no longer the lowest responsible, responsive
proposer and to accept the next acceptable low proposal from a proposer that is not experiencing a
labor action, and to declare it to be the lowest responsible, responsive proposer.
4.Failure to Accept Contract. The following will occur if the proposer to whom the award is made
(Proposer) fails to enter into the contract: the award will be annulled; any bid security will be
forfeited in accordance with the special terms and conditions if a proposer's bond or security is
required; and an award may be made to the next lowest responsible, responsive proposer who shall
fulfill every stipulation as if it were the party to whom the first award was made.
5.Contract Term. The supplies or services identified in these specification will be used by the City
between February 1, 2017 and January 31, 2022. The prices quoted for these items must be valid
for the entire period indicated above unless otherwise conditioned by the proposer in its proposal.
6.Contract Extension. The term of the contract may be extended by mutual consent with the option
for one, 2-year extension. During the contract extension period, unit prices may not be increased
by more than the percentage change in the US consumer price index for All Urban Consumers
(CPI-U).
7.Estimated Quantities. The quantities indicated in the Proposal Detail Worksheet are estimates
based on past purchasing experience, and will be used to determine the lowest overall proposal.
Actual quantities purchased during the period of this contract may vary from these estimated
amounts as required by the City.
8.Supplemental Purchases. Supplemental purchases may be made from the successful proposer
during the contract term in addition to the items listed in the Proposal Detail Worksheet. For these
supplemental purchases, the proposer shall not offer prices to the City in excess of the amounts
offered to other similar customers for the same item. If the proposer is willing to offer the City a
standard discount on all supplemental purchases from its generally prevailing or published price
structure during the contract term, this offer and the amount of discount on a percentage basis
should be provided with the proposal submittal.
9.Proposer Invoices. The Proposer shall deliver a monthly invoice to the City, by the 10th calendar
day of the following month, with attached copies of work order forms or detail invoices (standard
color or copy to be agreed upon) as supporting detail.
6.a
Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: a - Lab Services RFP 2017-2022 Spec No. 91492 (1450 : Laboratory Analyses Services RFP)
-14-
10.Non-Exclusive Contract. The City reserves the right to purchase the items listed in the Detail
Proposal Detail Worksheet, as well as any supplemental items, from other vendors during the
contract term.
11.Unrestrictive Brand Names. Any manufacturer's names, trade names, brand names or catalog
numbers used in the specifications are for the purpose of describing and establishing general quality
levels. Such references are not intended to be restrictive. Proposals will be considered for any
brand that meets or exceeds the quality of the specifications given for any item. In the event an
alternate brand name is proposed, supplemental documentation shall be provided demonstrating
that the alternate brand name meets or exceeds the requirements specified herein. The burden of
proof as to the suitability of any proposed alternatives is upon the proposer, and the City shall be
the sole judge in making this determination.
12.Delivery. Prices quoted for all supplies or equipment to be provided under the terms and conditions
of this or RFP package shall include delivery charges, to be delivered F.O.B. San Luis Obispo by
the successful proposer and received by the City within 5 days after authorization to proceed by the
City.
13.Start and Completion of Work. Work on this proposal shall begin as stated in Section D: FORM
OF AGREEMENT.
14.Liquidated Damages. In the event that the proposer does not meet the work completion date
specified in its proposal, the award amount shall be reduced in the amount of one thousand dollars
$1000 .00 per calendar day for each day that exceeds the completion date specified in the proposer's
proposal. As the delay in the completion of work could seriously affect the public and the efficient
operation of the City to an extent incapable of precise calculation, said reduction is established as
the nearest measure of damages for such delay that can be fixed at this time, and is not established
as a penalty or forfeiture for the breach of agreement to complete the work. Said reductions may
be invoked if completion of work exceeds the specified time for any reason.
15.Change in Work. The City reserves the right to change quantities of any item after contract award.
If the total quantity of any changed item varies by 25% or less, there shall be no change in the
agreed upon unit price for that item. Unit pricing for any quantity changes per item in excess of
25% shall be subject to negotiation with the Proposer.
16.Recycled Products. A ten percent preference, not to exceed one thousand dollars per contract,
will be given to recycled products. The fitness and quality of the recycled product must be at least
equal to un-recycled products as determined by the City. The preference percentage shall be based
on the lowest price quoted by the supplier or suppliers offering non-recycled products. Price
preferences may be offered in excess of the ten percent ceiling established in this section if it can
be shown that purchase of a recycled product or material will result in greater long-term savings to
the City.
17.Submittal of References. Each proposer shall submit references on the form provided in the RFP
package.
18.Statement of Contract Disqualifications. Each proposer shall submit a statement regarding any
past governmental agency bidding or contract disqualifications on the form provided in the RFP
package.
19.Proposal Content. Your proposal must include the following information:
6.a
Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: a - Lab Services RFP 2017-2022 Spec No. 91492 (1450 : Laboratory Analyses Services RFP)
-15-
List of Required Submittal: Forms, Templates, Worksheets, Items, Reports
a. Proposal Submittal Summary. SEE SECTION F for provided template.
b. Certificate of Insurance. SEE SECTION E.
c. References from at least three firms for whom you have provided similar services. SEE
SECTION F for provided template.
d. Statement of Past Contract Disqualifications. SEE SECTION F for provided template.
e. Completed and accurate Proposal Detail Worksheet: Parts #1 Wastewater Constituents and
Part #2 Drinking Water Constituents including Calculated 5 Year Contract Pricing
Summary. SEE SECTION A.
f. Certificate of Appropriate ELAP Certifications and Fields of Testing.
g. Examples of: Labels and Preprinted Chain of Custodies, as specified in Section A
Description of Work #1-#14 for a February Effluent sampling event.
h. Provide an example of a April Quarterly Effluent report The City of San Luis Obispo
would receive as a client, as required in NPDES Permit # CA0049224 Order # R3-2014-
0033 (provided with invitation for proposal package) as specified in Section A Description
of Work #1-#14.
.
20. Proposal Length and Copies
a. Proposals should not exceed 300 pages, including attachments and supplemental materials.
b. Three copies of the proposal must be submitted.
21. Proposal Evaluation and Selection. Proposals will be evaluated by a review committee based on
the following criteria:
a. Understanding of the work required by the City.
b. Quality, clarity and responsiveness of the proposal.
c. Demonstrated competence and professional qualifications necessary for successfully
performing the work required by the City.
d. Recent experience in successfully performing similar services.
e. References.
f. Background and related experience of the specific individuals to be assigned to this project.
g. Proposed compensation.
h. Quality and completeness of required submittal forms,
As reflected above, contract award will not be based solely on price, but on a combination of factors
as determined to be in the best interest of the City. After evaluating the proposals and discussing
them further with the finalists or the tentatively selected proposer, the City reserves the right to
further negotiate the proposed work and/or method and amount of compensation.
6.a
Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: a - Lab Services RFP 2017-2022 Spec No. 91492 (1450 : Laboratory Analyses Services RFP)
-16-
Section D
FORM OF AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on [day, date, year] by and
between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as City, and
[PROPOSER’S NAME IN CAPITAL LETTERS], hereinafter referred to as Proposer.
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, on [date], City invited requested proposals for laboratory analysis services per Specification
No. 91492.
WHEREAS, pursuant to said request, Proposer submitted a proposal that was accepted by City for said
laboratory analysis 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 February 1, 2017 to January 31, 2022, with an
option to extend for an additional two (2) years.
2. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. City Specification No. 91492 and Proposer's proposal
dated [date], are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement.
3. CITY'S OBLIGATIONS. For providing services as specified in City Specification No. 91492,
City will pay and contractor shall receive therefor compensation based upon actual analysis and services provided.
Compensation will be based upon the contractor’s proposal dated [date].
4. CONTRACTOR’S. For and in consideration of the payments and agreements hereinbefore
mentioned to be made and performed by City, Contractor agrees with City to perform the services set forth on
Contractor’s proposal pursuant to the terms and conditions of this agreement and City specification No. 91492.
5. AMENDMENTS. Any amendment, modification or variation from the terms of this Agreement
shall be in writing and shall be effective be effective only upon approval by the City Manager 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
6.a
Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: a - Lab Services RFP 2017-2022 Spec No. 91492 (1450 : Laboratory Analyses Services RFP)
-17-
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 Utilities Director
City of San Luis Obispo
879 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Proposer Name
Address
8.AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both City and Proposer do covenant that each
individual executing this agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to execute
Agreements for such party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and year
first above written.
ATTEST: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
________________________________ By:_____________________________________
City Clerk City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PROPOSER
________________________________ By: _____________________________________
City Attorney
6.a
Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: a - Lab Services RFP 2017-2022 Spec No. 91492 (1450 : Laboratory Analyses Services RFP)
-18-
Section E
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Operations and Maintenance
The Proposer 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 Proposer, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors.
Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1.Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 20 10 prior
to 1993 or CG 20 10 07 04 with CG 20 37 10 01 or the exact equivalent as determined by the City).
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.
Minimum Limits of Insurance. Proposer 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 Ommissions 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 Proposer shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related
investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be
endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
1.The City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as
respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Proposer; products and
completed operations of the Proposer; premises owned, occupied or used by the Proposer; or
automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Proposer. 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 Proposer's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance
as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance or self-
insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers shall be
excess of the Proposer's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
3.The Proposer's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit
is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.
4.Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be
suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30)
days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City.
6.a
Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: a - Lab Services RFP 2017-2022 Spec No. 91492 (1450 : Laboratory Analyses Services RFP)
-19-
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. Proposer 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.
Certificate of insurance attached; insurance company’s A.M. Best rating: __________________.
Firm Name and Address
Contact Phone
Signature of Authorized Representative
Date
6.a
Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: a - Lab Services RFP 2017-2022 Spec No. 91492 (1450 : Laboratory Analyses Services RFP)
-20-
Section F
PROPOSAL WORKSHEETS OTHER
PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL SUMMARY
The undersigned declares that she or he has carefully examined Specification No. 91492, which is hereby
made a part of this proposal; is thoroughly familiar with its contents; is authorized to represent the proposing
firm; and agrees to perform the specified work for the following cost quoted in full:
Description
Wastewater Constituents (sub-total) $
Drinking Water Constituents (sub-total) $
***TOTAL 5 YEAR CONTRACT PRICE $
*** This 5 year contract price is achieved by adding the subtotals of the Wastewater Constituents and Drinking Water Constituents
together equaling the total 5 year contract pricing.
6.a
Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: a - Lab Services RFP 2017-2022 Spec No. 91492 (1450 : Laboratory Analyses Services RFP)
-21-
REFERENCES
Number of years engaged in providing the services included within the scope of the specifications under
the present business name: .
Describe fully the last three contracts performed by your firm that demonstrate your ability to provide the
services included with the scope of the specifications. Attach additional pages if required. The City
reserves the right to contact each of the references listed for additional information regarding your firm's
qualifications.
Reference No. 1
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & FAX number
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Description of services provided
including contract amount, when
provided and project outcome
Reference No. 2
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & FAX number
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Description of services provided
including contract amount, when
provided and project outcome
Reference No. 3
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & FAX number
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Description of services provided
including contract amount, when
provided and project outcome
6.a
Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: a - Lab Services RFP 2017-2022 Spec No. 91492 (1450 : Laboratory Analyses Services RFP)
-22-
STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS
The proposer shall state whether it or any of its officers or employees who have a proprietary interest in it,
has ever been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from bidding on, or completing a federal, state,
or local government project because of the violation of law, a safety regulation, or for any other reason,
including but not limited to financial difficulties, project delays, or disputes regarding work or product
quality, and if so to explain the circumstances.
Do you have any disqualification as described in the above paragraph to declare?
Yes No
If yes, explain the circumstances.
Executed on at _______________________________________ under penalty
of perjury of the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct.
______________________________________
Signature of Authorized Proposer Representative
6.a
Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: a - Lab Services RFP 2017-2022 Spec No. 91492 (1450 : Laboratory Analyses Services RFP)
-23-
ATTACHMENT A. NDPES PERMIT# CA0049224 Order# R3-2014-0033
..\..\..\Permits and TSOs\WRRF Permits\NPDES PERMIT CA0049224
2014_WDR_R3-2014-0033_City_SLO.pdf
6.a
Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: a - Lab Services RFP 2017-2022 Spec No. 91492 (1450 : Laboratory Analyses Services RFP)
Page intentionally left
blank.
Meeting Date: 9/20/2016
FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Scott Lee, Parking Services Manager
Timothy Scott Bochum, Deputy Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: CONTRACT WITH KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES FOR PURCHASE
OF PARK+ PROGRAM (A PARKING DEMAND MODELING PLATFORM)
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute a Contract with Kimley-Horn and Associates
for the purchase of the Park+ Program for Parking Supply and Demand Modeling not to exceed
$100,000.
DISCUSSION
This item was continued at the request of City Staff at the September 6, 2016 City Council
meeting to the September 20, 2016 meeting. This staff report provides all of the information
included in September 6, 2016 staff report and now includes the proposed scope of work with
Kimley Horn and Associates.
The City has recognized the need to evaluate the existing and future parking demands in the area
east of Santa Rosa Street up to California Boulevard bounded by Palm and Marsh Streets. New
development and redevelopment options in the area of Monterey Street and Santa Rosa Street,
including possible mixed use and public/private partnerships, have recently been considered by
Council. Presently, the City lacks the ability, from both the personnel and technology
perspectives, to adequately analyze the parking implications of these proposals in real-time using
the latest technology available.
The City studied the expansion of the parking in-lieu fee program in 2002 but Council did not
pursue implementation at that time. The Land Use Element of the General Plan, updated in
2014, states that the City shall investigate the addition of the area described above into the
existing parking in-lieu fee program. The intent is to incorporate the analysis of expanding the
parking in-lieu fee program into the demand modeling process and develop a recommendation
for Council. Additionally, the City is in the process of revising the Physical Downtown Concept
Plan. This includes a potential expansion of the downtown commercial zone east of Santa Rosa
Street. The modeling software will be able to provide parking demand scenarios based on the
conversion of these land uses.
On June 14, 2016, The Council allocated $100,000 in funds for the start of this project and
instructed the Parking Services Division to evaluate the options available. Investigation of the
software programs available show that only one vendor has a product that is an interactive
parking scenario planning model integrated with ArcGIS. This product can evaluate existing
parking supply and demands, identify and test new development and parking facilities, and apply
parking management strategies. In the past, the City has contracted with other consulting firms to
7
Packet Pg. 55
analyze existing and future parking demands. However, the lack of a dynamic modeling system
means that these analyses only provide a snapshot in time of the demand as opposed to a system
that can be updated in real-time by City staff.
Kimley-Horn’s Park+ model enables users to analyze the impacts of parking demand for an
endless array of municipal scenarios. Planners, engineers, managers, administrators, and
developers can all benefit from introducing the Park+ model into the City parking system, as it
offers the tools to identify and manage parking demand within any area.
Staff has investigated the market regarding parking forecasting tools that currently available. The
Park+ model is the only current product in use that is GIS based and can provide the dynamic
analysis the City needs for a supply and demand parking model and a pricing based analysis tool.
Section 295 of the City’s Financial Management Manual includes the following regarding use of
directly negotiated Consultant Services:
4. If it is determined that it is in the best interest of the City for servic es to be
provided by a specific consultant—with contract terms, workscope and
compensation to be determined based on direct negotiations—contract award will
be made by the Council.
Based upon available tools, staff has concluded that it is in the best interest of the City to use the
Park+ software and Kimley Horn to develop the software model for the parking demand and supply
of the City.
FISCAL IMPACT
On June 14, 2016, as part of the Financial Plan Supplement, the Council allocated $100,000 in
funds for the start of this project and instructed the Parking Services Division to evaluate the
options available. Kimley-Horn and Associates has a solid understanding of the required work,
extensive experience providing similar services and the proven capability to develop innovative
solutions on-time and within budget.
The scope of work to complete the project as well as additional design services which is
estimated at $100,000. The amount of funds allocated by the Council is expected to be sufficient
for the purchase and implementation of the Park+ program. Additional funds may be required
should the data collection requirements require the use of additional outside resources.
Fee Proposal Summary
Parking Demand Modeling System Budget
Kimley-Horn Park + Model 99,350$
Contract Award 99,350$
Contingency 650$
Total 100,000$
7
Packet Pg. 56
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council could choose to add or modify the scope of the proposed project or add
additional items to be considered as part of project. Staff does not recommend this
alternative since changes to the scope may result in a modification to the contract cost and
could delay the start of the engagement.
2. Deny the request to contract with Kimley-Horn and Associates and direct staff to issue a
Request for Proposals. Staff does not recommend this alternative given the immediate need
to analyze the parking demands east of Santa Rosa Street. In addition, review of other
available “off the shelf” parking tools do not have the GIS based capabilities that the Park+
software currently possesses.
Attachments:
a - Kimley Horn Contract Agreement
b - Final SOW Kimley Horn v2
7
Packet Pg. 57
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on September 20th, 2016, by
and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as City, and Kimley-
Horn and Associates, Inc., hereinafter referred to as Consultant.
W I T N E S S E T H
WHEREAS, Section 295 of the City’s Financial Management Manual includes the following regarding use of
directly negotiated Consultant Services:
4. If it is determined that it is in the best interest of the City for services to be provided by a specific
consultant-with contract terms, workscope and compensation to be determined based on direct
negotiations-contract award will be made by the Council.
And;
WHEREAS, The City has recognized the need to evaluate the existing and future parking demands in the
area east of Santa Rosa Street up to California Boulevard bounded by Palm and Marsh Streets. That, new
development and redevelopment options in the area of Monterey Street and Santa Rosa Street, including possible
mixed use and public/private partnerships, have recently been considered by Council. That the City lacks the ability,
from both the personnel and technology perspectives, to adequately analyze the parking implications of these
proposals in real-time using the latest technology available.
The City studied the expansion of the parking in-lieu fee program in 2002 but Council did not pursue implementation
at that time. The Land Use Element of the General Plan, updated in 2014, states that the City shall investigate the
addition of the area described above into the existing parking in-lieu fee program. The intent is to incorporate the
analysis of expanding the parking in-lieu fee program into the demand modeling process and develop a
recommendation for Council. Additionally, the City is in the process of revising the Physical Downtown Concept Plan.
This includes a potential expansion of the downtown commercial zone east of Santa Rosa Street. The modeling
software will be able to provide parking demand scenarios based on the conversion of these land uses: and,
WHEREAS, On June 14, 2016, The Council allocated $100,000 in funds for the start of this project and
instructed the Parking Services Division to evaluate the options available; and,
WHEREAS, Investigation of the software programs available show that only one vendor has a product that
is an interactive parking scenario planning model integrated with ArcGIS. This product can evaluate existing parking
supply and demands, identify and test new development and parking facilities, and apply parking management
strategies.
WHEREAS, Staff has investigated the market regarding parking forecasting tools that currently available and
has concluded that Kimley-Horn’s Park+ model is the only current product in use that is GIS based and can provide
the dynamic analysis the City needs for a supply and demand parking model and a pricing based analysis tool; and,
WHEREAS, Kimley-Horn and Associates has a solid understanding of the required work, extensive
experience providing similar services and the proven capability to develop innovative solutions on-time and within
budget pursuant to said request, Consultant submitted a proposal that was accepted by City for said services.
Whereas, staff has determined that it is in the best interest of the City for these services to be provided by
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. and that a direct award be made by the Council 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. Start and Completion of Work. Work on this project shall begin within 7 calendar days after contract execution
and shall be completed within 150 calendar days thereafter.
7.a
Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: a - Kimley Horn Contract Agreement (1456 : Parking Demand Modeling System)
Title Page 2 of 8
3. Contract Term for On-Call Service Contracts. The services identified in this specification will be used by the
City between [month/year] and [month/year].
4. Contract Extension and Cost Increases for On-call Service Contracts. The term of the contract may be
extended by mutual consent for an additional year. During this extended period, labor rates may be increased
to reflect increased labor costs and overhead at each 1 year contract anniversary, provided the City is notified of
the increases in advance. Rates may be increased to reflect actual cost increases up to a percentage equal to
the percentage increase in the U.S. Consumer Price Index/All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) from March in the
previous year to March in the year of adjustment upon request of Contractor.
5. 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 that may have accrued for failure to complete on time, due to any of the
above, after hearing evidence as to the reasons for such delay, and making a finding as to the causes of same.
6. Termination. If, during the term of the contract, the City determines that the Consultant is not faithfully abiding
by any term or condition contained herein, the City may notify the Consultant in writing of such defect or failure
to perform. This notice must give 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 goods
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.
The City also reserves the right to terminate the contract for convenience, providing a 30 (thirty) calendar day
notice, at any time upon a determination by the Director that termination of the contract is in the best interest of
the City. In this case the Consultant will be paid compensation due and payable to the date of termination.
7. 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 applicable federal, state, county, city, and special district laws, ordinances, and
regulations.
8. Sub-contract Provisions. No portion of the work pertinent to this contract shall be subcontracted without written
authorization by the City, except that which is expressly identified in the Consultant’s proposal. Any substitution
of sub-consultants must be approved in writing by the City. For any sub-contract for services in excess of
$25,000, the subcontract shall contain all provisions of this agreement.
7.a
Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: a - Kimley Horn Contract Agreement (1456 : Parking Demand Modeling System)
Title Page 3 of 8
9. Contract 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.
10. 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.
11. Record Retention and Audit. For the purpose of determining compliance with various laws and regulations as
well as performance of the contract, the Consultant and sub-consultants shall maintain all books, documents,
papers, accounting records and other evidence pertaining to the performance of the contract, including but not
limited to the cost of administering the contract. Materials shall be made available at their respective offices at
all reasonable times during the contract period and for three years from the date of final payment under the
contract. Authorized representatives of the City shall have the option of inspecting and/or auditing all records.
For Federally funded projects, access to records shall also include authorized representatives of the State and
Federal government. Copies shall be furnished if requested.
12. Conflict of Interest. The Consultant shall disclose any financial, business, or other relationship with the City
that may have an impact upon the outcome of this contract, or any ensuing City construction project. The
Consultant shall also list current clients who may have a financial interest in the outcome of this contract, or any
ensuing City construction project which will follow. The Consultant staff shall provide a Conflict of Interest
Statement where determined necessary by the City.
The Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall not acquire any interest—direct, indirect or
otherwise—that would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the work hereunder. The
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 Consultant and not an agent
or employee of the City.
13. Rebates, Kickbacks or Other Unlawful Consideration. The Consultant warrants that this contract was not
obtained or secured through rebates, kickbacks or other unlawful consideration, either promised or paid to any
City employee. For breach or violation of the warranty, the City shall have the right in its discretion; to terminate
the contract without liability; to pay only for the value of the work actually performed; to deduct from the contract
price; or otherwise recover the full amount of such rebate, kickback or other unlawful consideration.
14. Covenant Against Contingent Fees. The Consultant warrants by execution of this contract that no person or
selling agency has been employed, or retained, to solicit or secure this contract upon an agreement or
understanding, for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or
bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Consultant for the purpose of securing
business. For breach or violation of this warranty, the City has the right to annul this contract without liability; pay
only for the value of the work actually performed, or in its discretion, to deduct from the contract price or
consideration, or otherwise recover the full amount of such commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent
fee.
15. Compliance with Laws and Wage Rates. 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. This includes compliance with prevailing
wage rates and their payment in accordance with California Labor Code. For purposed of this paragraph,
“construction” includes work performed during the design and preconstruction phases of construction, including
but not limited to, inspection and land surveying work.
16. Payment of Taxes. The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes that the Consultant is
required to pay.
17. Permits, Licenses and Filing Fees. The Consultant shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and
fees, and file all notices as they pertain to the completion of the Consultant’s work. The City will pay all application
7.a
Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: a - Kimley Horn Contract Agreement (1456 : Parking Demand Modeling System)
Title Page 4 of 8
fees for permits required for the completion of the project including building and regulatory permit application
fees. Consultant will provide a 10 day notice for the City to issue a check.
18. Safety Provisions. The Consultant shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to safety established
by OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety.
19. Public and Employee Safety. Whenever the 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.
20. 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 resulting from 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.
21. 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.
22. Consultant Non-Discrimination. In the award of subcontracts or in 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 on any basis prohibited by State or Federal law.
23. Accuracy of Specifications. The specifications for this project are believed by the City to be accurate and to
contain no affirmative misrepresentation or any concealment of fact. Consultants are cautioned to undertake an
independent analysis of any test results in the specifications, as City does not guaranty the accuracy of its
interpretation of test results contained in the specifications package. In preparing its proposal, the Consultant
and all sub-consultants named in its proposal shall bear sole responsibility for proposal preparation errors
resulting from any misstatements or omissions in the specifications that could easily have been ascertained by
examining either the project site or accurate test data in the City's possession. Although the effect of ambiguities
or defects in the specifications will be as determined by law, any patent ambiguity or defect shall give rise to a
duty of Consultant to inquire prior to proposal submittal. Failure to so inquire shall cause any such ambiguity or
defect to be construed against the Consultant. An ambiguity or defect shall be considered patent if it is of such
a nature that the Consultant, assuming reasonable skill, ability and diligence on its part, knew or should have
known of the existence of the ambiguity or defect. Furthermore, failure of the Consultant or sub-consultants to
notify City in writing of specification defects or ambiguities prior to proposal submittal shall waive any right to
assert said defects or ambiguities subsequent to submittal of the proposal.
To the extent that these specifications constitute performance specifications, the City shall not be liable for costs
incurred by the successful Consultant to achieve the project’s objective or standard beyond the amounts provided
therefor in the proposal.
In the event that, after awarding the contract, any dispute arises as a result of any actual or alleged ambiguity or
defect in the specifications, or any other matter whatsoever, Consultant shall immediately notify the City in writing,
and the Consultant and all sub-consultants shall continue to perform, irrespective of whether or not the ambiguity
or defect is major, material, minor or trivial, and irrespective of whether or not a change order, time extension, or
additional compensation has been granted by City. Failure to provide the hereinbefore described written notice
within one (1) working day of Consultant's becoming aware of the facts giving rise to the dispute shall constitute
a waiver of the right to assert the causative role of the defect or ambiguity in the plans or specifications concerning
the dispute.
24. Indemnification for Professional Liability. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Consultant shall
indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City and any and all of its officials, employees and
agents (“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all losses, liabilities, damages, costs and
expenses, including attorney’s fees and cost which arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence,
recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant.
7.a
Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: a - Kimley Horn Contract Agreement (1456 : Parking Demand Modeling System)
Title Page 5 of 8
25. Non-Exclusive Contract. The City reserves the right to contract for the services listed in this proposal from
other consultants during the contract term.
26. Standards. Documents shall conform to City Standards and City furnished templates shall be used.
27. Consultant Endorsement. Technical reports, plans and specifications shall be stamped and signed by the
Consultant where required.
28. Required Deliverable Products and Revisions. The Consultant will be required to provide services and work
in accordance with Attachment A – proposed scope of Work, dated August 31, 2016.
29. Ownership of Materials. Upon completion of all work under this contract, ownership and title to all reports,
documents, plans, specifications, and estimates produced as part of this contract will automatically be vested in
the city and no further agreement will be necessary to transfer ownership to the City. The Consultant shall furnish
the City all necessary copies of data needed to complete the review and approval process.
It is understood and agreed that all calculations, drawings and specifications, whether in hard copy or machine
readable form, are intended for one-time use in the construction of the project for which this contract has been
entered into.
The Consultant is not liable for claims, liabilities, or losses arising out of, or connected with the modification, or
misuse by the City of the machine-readable information and data provided by the Consultant under this
agreement. Further, the Consultant is not liable for claims, liabilities, or losses arising out of, or connected with
any use by City of the project documentation on other projects, except such use as may be authorized in writing
by the Consultant.
30. 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.
The Consultant shall not issue any news release or public relations item of any nature, whatsoever, regarding
work performed or to be performed under this contract without prior review of the contents thereof by the City
and receipt of the City’s written permission.
31. 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 furnish 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.
32. Attendance at Meetings And Hearings. As part of the workscope and included in the contract price is
attendance by the Consultant at up to [number] public meetings to present and discuss its findings and
recommendations. Consultant shall attend as many "working" meetings with staff as necessary in performing
workscope tasks.
33. Requests for Review. The Consultant shall respond to all requests for submittal review or contractor RFI’s
within two weeks of receipt of the information from the City.
34. Consultant Invoices. The Consultant shall deliver a monthly invoice to the City, itemized by project work phase
or, in the case of on-call contracts, by project title. Invoice must include a breakdown of hours billed and
miscellaneous charges and any sub-consultant invoices, similarly broken down, as supporting detail.
35. Payment. For providing services as specified in this Agreement, City will pay and Consultant shall receive
therefore compensation in a total sum not to exceed $100,000. Should the Consultant’s designs, drawings or
specifications contain errors or deficiencies, the Consultant shall be required to correct them at no increase in
cost to the City.
7.a
Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: a - Kimley Horn Contract Agreement (1456 : Parking Demand Modeling System)
Title Page 6 of 8
Progress payments shall be made on a monthly basis as invoiced by the Consultant for expenses incurred with
cumulative monthly payments not to exceed:
The Consultant shall be reimbursed for hours worked at the hourly rates attached to this agreement. Hourly rates
include direct salary costs, employee benefits, overhead and fee. In addition, the Consultant shall be reimbursed
for direct costs other than salary and vehicle cost that have been identified and are attached to this agreement.
The Consultant’s personnel shall be reimbursed for per diem expenses at a rate not to exceed that currently
authorized for State employees under State Department of Personnel Administration rules.
36. Payment Terms. The City's payment terms are 30 days from the receipt and approval by the City of an original
invoice and acceptance by the City of the materials, supplies, equipment or services provided by the Consultant
(Net 30).
37. Resolution of Disputes. Any dispute, other than audit, concerning a question of fact arising under this contract
that is not disposed of by agreement shall be decided by a committee consisting of the City’s Project Manager
and the City Director of Public Works, who may consider written or verbal information submitted by the
Consultant. Not later than thirty days after completion of all deliverables necessary to complete the plans,
specifications and estimate, the Consultant may request review by the City Council of unresolved claims or
disputes, other than audit, in accordance with Chapter 1.20 Appeals Procedure of the Municipal Code.
Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under an audit of this contract that is not disposed of by
agreement, shall be reviewed by the City’s Chief Fiscal Officer. Not later than 30 days after issuance of the final
audit report, the Consultant may request a review by the City’s Chief Fiscal Officer of unresolved audit issues.
The request for review must be submitted in writing.
Neither the pendency of a dispute, nor its consideration by the City will excuse the consultant from full and timely
performance in accordance with the terms of this contract.
38. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Use for Federally Funded Projects. This agreement is subject
to Title 49, Part 26 Code of Federal Regulations entitled “Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises
in Department of Transportation Financial Assistance Programs” when project work is for a federally funded
project. In order to ensure the State Department of Transportation achieves its federally mandated statewide
overall DBE goal, the City encourages the participation of DBEs as defined in 49 CFR 26 in the performance of
this agreement. The City has determined that DBE can reasonably be expected to compete for the sub-consulting
opportunities in this agreement and has established a DBE advisory percentage of X. The Consultant is
responsible to be fully informed regarding the requirements of 49 CFR, Part 26. Participation of DBE’s in the
specified percentage is not a condition of award.
The Consultant shall notify the City of any changes to its anticipated DBE participation, maintain records of DBE
usage and complete and submit to the City the final report of DBE utilization prior to receiving final payment.
Records shall show the name and business address of each DBE and the total dollar amount actually paid to
each.
The Consultant shall pay all sub-consultants within 10 calendar days from receipt of each payment made to the
Consultant by the City.
The Consultant shall carry out applicable requirements of Title 49 CFR 26 in the award and administration of US
DOT assisted agreements. Failure by the Consultant to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this
agreement, which may result in the termination of this agreement or such other remedy as the City deems
appropriate.
39. Agreement Parties.
City: Scott Lee, Parking Manager
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Consultant: Brett Wood, P.E., CAPP
Project Manager
Kimley Horn
7740 N 16th Street, Suite 300
Phoenix, AZ 85020
(602)906-5500
7.a
Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: a - Kimley Horn Contract Agreement (1456 : Parking Demand Modeling System)
Title Page 7 of 8
All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail, postage prepaid by registered or
certified mail addressed as shown above.
40. Incorporation by Reference: Consultant's proposal dated August 31, 2016 is hereby incorporated in and made
a part of this Agreement. The Insurance Requirement attached hereto as “Section F” are also hereby incorporated
in and made a part of this Agreement.
41. 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 Engineer.
42. Working Out of Scope. If, at any time during the project, the consultant is directed to do work by persons other
than the City Project Manager and the Consultant believes that the work is outside of the scope of the original
contract, the Consultant shall inform the Project Manager immediately. If the Project Manager and Consultant
both agree that the work is outside of the project scope and is necessary to the successful completion of the
project, then a fee will be established for such work based on Consultant's hourly billing rates or a lump sum price
agreed upon between the City and the Consultant. Any extra work performed by Consultant without prior written
approval from the City Project Manager shall be at Consultant's own expense.
43. 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.
For and in consideration of the payments and agreements hereinbefore mentioned to be made and performed
by City, Consultant agrees with City to do everything required by this Agreement, the said specification and
incorporated documents.
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.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO: CONSULTANT:
___________________________________
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
By: ___________________________________
Katie Lichtig, City Manager Mike Hermann, P.E.
Principal
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
7.a
Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: a - Kimley Horn Contract Agreement (1456 : Parking Demand Modeling System)
Title Page 8 of 8
Section 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 20 10 Prior to 1993 or
CG 20 10 07 04 with CG 20 37 10 01 or the exact equivalent as determined by the City).
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 are to contain, or be endorsed
to contain, the following provisions:
1. The City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects:
liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the 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 insurance as
respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance
maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers shall be excess of the
Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
3. 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.
4. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended,
voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days prior written
notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. The Consultant agrees to notify
the City in the event that the policy is suspended, voided or reduced in coverage or limits. A minimum of 30
days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, will be provided.
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.
7.a
Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: a - Kimley Horn Contract Agreement (1456 : Parking Demand Modeling System)
kimley-horn.com 7740 N 16th Street, Suite 300, Phoenix, AZ, 85020 602-906-5500
August 31, 2016
Scott Lee
Parking Manager
Public Works
Parking Services
1260 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3668
Re: Professional Services Agreementfor Park+
Dear Scott:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (“Kimley-Horn” or “Consultant”) is pleased to submit this letter
agreement (the “Agreement”) to the City of San Luis Obispo (“Client”) for providing parking analysis
services using our Park+ modeling platform.
Project Understanding
The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to evaluate parking demands and impacts of development
decisions the Downtown San Luis Obispo and the Upper Monterey area (as shown in Figure 1). The
project will utilize Kimley-Horn’s Park+ modeling platform to evaluate the parking demands associated
with existing and new development, as well as the impacts associated with new parking and the
necessary structure for parking impact fee collection and allocation.
Scope of Services
Kimley-Horn will provide the services specifically set forth below.
1. Initial Project Kickoff Meeting – at the kickoff meeting, Kimley-Horn will meet with City staff
(as well as invited stakeholders at the request of the City) to discuss modeling parameters and
assumptions. Kimley-Horn will also meet with GIS and IS staff to discuss data needs and ultimate
implementation of the model. During this kickoff meeting, Kimley-Horn staff will conduct a field tour of
the study area to determine specific modeling patterns and relationships between parking and City
uses.
2. Initial Data Request and Review – Kimley-Horn will submit a data request to staff, including
requests for GIS data (land uses and parking), transit ridership and mode split surveys, special event
parameters, and future planned development in the City. Additional addendums are included with this
proposal for the collection of parking occupancy data using License Plate Recognition (LPR)
equipment and collecting land use characteristics to supplement City data, if needed.
3. Database Development – after the City land use and parking data are compiled, Kimley-
Horn will create specific GIS databases for use in the Park+ model. The databases will be structured
in ArcGIS shapefiles and compiled into file geodatabases for use in the modeling platform. The
existing data provided by the Client will be maintained with columns and data appended to support
Park+ functionality.
7.b
Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: b - Final SOW Kimley Horn v2 (1456 : Parking Demand Modeling System)
Page 2
kimley-horn.com 7740 N 16th Street, Suite 300, Phoenix, AZ, 85020 602-906-5500
4. Model Calibration – Kimley-Horn will calibrate a Park+ modeling platform for the City that
accounts for the actual conditions in the study area, through the use of the collected land use and
parking occupancy data. The calibration process will include the coding of public and private parking
assets, permitted parking restrictions, user walking tolerances, and price/distance sensitivity. Kimley-
Horn will calibrate the model to travel demand industry standards using an iterative calibration
process that allocates demand reflective to conditions observed in the field.
5. Mid-Project Check-In Meeting – After model calibration, Kimley-Horn will schedule a mid-
project check-in meeting with the City to present the calibrated model and begin the scenario
development process. The meeting is intended to finalize calibration through iterative analysis and
revisions with the clients and begin scenario planning through live model demonstrations and
adjustments. At the end of this meeting, Kimley-Horn will be able to finalize scenarios back in the
office before completing build-out of the model.
6. Scenario Evaluation – Following the mid-project check-in, Kimley-Horn will use the
calibrated Park+ model to analyze various scenarios related to the planned City development.
Scenarios will be delivered with the modeling platform upon completion. Up to four (4) scenarios will
be evaluated as part of this proposed scope. Additional scenarios can be included at an additional
cost.
7. Final Presentations – Kimley-Horn staff will be available for presentation of model findings
to Client staff. The proposed budget includes two days of on-site meetings and presentations.
Additional Services
Any services not specifically provided for in the above scope will be billed as additional services and
performed at our then current hourly rates. Additional services we can provide include, but are not
limited to, the following:
x In the field data collection, including license plate recognition (LPR) data collection and/or land
use data collection
x Additional meetings
x Additional calibrations
x Additional scenarios
x Model ownership, including training and necessary license fees
x On-call support for the model, whether owned or Kimley-Horn supported
Information Provided By Client
We shall be entitled to rely on the completeness and accuracy of all information provided by the Client
or the Client’s consultants or representatives. The Client shall provide all information requested by
Kimley-Horn during the project, including but not limited to the following:
x Study area land use data, in ArcGIS shapefile format, including use type and size
x Study area parking data, including historic occupancy and inventory
x Study area user information, including mode split and walking characteristics
7.b
Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: b - Final SOW Kimley Horn v2 (1456 : Parking Demand Modeling System)
Page 3
kimley-horn.com 7740 N 16th Street, Suite 300, Phoenix, AZ, 85020 602-906-5500
Fee and Expenses
Kimley-Horn will perform the services in Tasks 1 - 7 for the total lump sum labor fee below. Individual
task amounts are informational only. In addition to the lump sum labor fee, direct reimbursable
expenses such as express delivery services, fees, air travel, subconsultant costs, and other direct
expenses will be billed at 1.10 times cost.
1 – Kickoff Meeting $5,600
2 – Data Request/Review $5,800
3 – Database Development $12,900
4 – Model Calibration $15,300
5 – Mid-Project Meeting $5,600
6 – Scenario Analysis $11,300
7 – Final Presentations $6,600
Total Lump Sum Labor Fee $63,100
Lump sum labor fees will be invoiced monthly based upon the overall percentage of services performed.
Reimbursable expenses will be invoiced based upon expenses incurred. Payment will be due within
30 days of your receipt of the invoice and should include the invoice number and Kimley-Horn project
number.
Closure
In addition to the matters set forth herein, our Agreement shall include and be subject to, and only to,
the attached Standard Provisions, which are incorporated by reference. As used in the Standard
Provisions, "Consultant" shall refer to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., and "Client" shall refer to the
City of San Luis Obispo.
Kimley-Horn, in an effort to expedite invoices and reduce paper waste, submits invoices via email in an
Adobe PDF format. We can also provide a paper copy via regular mail if requested. Please include
the invoice number and Kimley-Horn project number with all payments. Please provide the following
information:
____ Please email all invoices to ___________________________
____ Please copy _______________________________________
If you concur in all the foregoing and wish to direct us to proceed with the services, please have
authorized persons execute both copies of this Agreement in the spaces provided below, retain one
copy, and return the other to us. We will commence services only after we have received a fully-
executed agreement. Fees and times stated in this Agreement are valid for sixty (60) days after the
date of this letter.
To ensure proper set up of your projects so that we can get started, please complete and return with
the signed copy of this Agreement the attached Request for Information. Failure to supply this
information could result in delay in starting work on your project.
7.b
Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: b - Final SOW Kimley Horn v2 (1456 : Parking Demand Modeling System)
Page 4
kimley-horn.com 7740 N 16th Street, Suite 300, Phoenix, AZ, 85020 602-906-5500
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these services to you. Please contact me if you have any
questions.
Very truly yours,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
By: Brett Wood, P.E., CAPP Mike Hermann, P.E.
Project Manager Principal
7.b
Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: b - Final SOW Kimley Horn v2 (1456 : Parking Demand Modeling System)
Page 5
kimley-horn.com 7740 N 16th Street, Suite 300, Phoenix, AZ, 85020 602-906-5500
City of San Luis Obispo
A Municipality
____________________________________
(Date)
(Print or Type Name and Title)
(Email Address)
, Witness
(Print or Type Name)
Official Seal:
7.b
Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: b - Final SOW Kimley Horn v2 (1456 : Parking Demand Modeling System)
Page 6
kimley-horn.com 7740 N 16th Street, Suite 300, Phoenix, AZ, 85020 602-906-5500
Figure 1 – Proposed Study Area (C-C Zone and Proposed C-C Expansion)
See Exhibit 1
7.b
Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: b - Final SOW Kimley Horn v2 (1456 : Parking Demand Modeling System)
kimley-horn.com 7740 N 16th St, Suite 300,Phoenix, AZ 85020 602-906-5500
Park+ Options for Ownership or Access
Kimley-Horn provides two options for model ownership or access following the completion of the
scoped development and analysis of the Park+ model. These two options include:
MODEL OWNERSHIP AND ONLINE ACCESS
Kimley-Horn is moving access to the Park+ model to the ESRI online cloud, allowing our users to
access the model and data online, without the need for a dedicated ArcGIS license or local data
storage. The solution will include a singular login that can be used by anyone within the client’s staff.
The annual hosting fee also includes access to all module and versioning upgrades as they are
implemented, as well as software support for model issues. Kimley-Horn can also provide hourly on-
call support for model review, data management and updating, scenario development, and model
calibration, if requested by the user.
One Time License Fee for Model Ownership - $10,000
Model Training for Staff - $5,000, plus reimbursable expenses
Annual Hosting and Maintenance Agreement - $10,000
On-Call support – Hourly, as needed
KIMLEY -HORN ON -CALL SUPPORT
In lieu of model ownership, Kimley-Horn can provide model support through an on-call agreement
that allows for model review, data management and updating, scenario development, and model
calibration, as requested by the user. These services would be conducted on an hourly basis, at our
current hourly rate structure.
In addition, if the user would like a login to access data and see model results, that service can be
provided for a fee of $8,000 annually. That fee covers access, review, and report production
(standard PDF reports in Park+).
7.b
Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: b - Final SOW Kimley Horn v2 (1456 : Parking Demand Modeling System)
Page 2
kimley-horn.com 7740 N 16th St, Suite 300, Phoenix, AZ 85020 602-906-5500
Park+ Sole Source Justification
The Park+ parking scenario planning model is a proprietary modeling platform developed by Kimley-
Horn. The model, and all of the processes and design associated with it, were designed by parking
and software professionals at Kimley-Horn.
The model is a unique platform provided only by Kimley-Horn. No other firm provides a dynamic
ArcGIS-based model that allows its clients to distinctly maintain parking and land use databases and
quickly and cost-effectively evaluate how changes in parking and land use will impact parking
demands in an area.
Kimley-Horn’s Park+ model has been developed and tested among more than 25 municipalities and
universities over the past few years. Additionally, Kimley-Horn can deliver its Park+ model in an
expedited time frame because the model has been refined through these numerous deployments.
7.b
Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: b - Final SOW Kimley Horn v2 (1456 : Parking Demand Modeling System)
Page 3
kimley-horn.com 7740 N 16th St, Suite 300, Phoenix, AZ 85020 602-906-5500
License Plate Recognition Data Collection
The following scope is for the collection of parking occupancy data with Kimley-Horn’s license plate
recognition (LPR) equipment.
Task 1 – Meetings & Coordination
As part of the Downtown San Luis Obispo parking occupancy and turnover study, the following
meetings will be facilitated:
1. Project Kick-Off – An initial meeting will be held to discuss the data collection effort and
responsibilities of Kimley-Horn and the client via conference call.
2. Presentation of Existing Condition Findings –Kimley-Horn will facilitate a conference call to discuss
the findings of the study via conference call.
Task 2 – Occupancy Data Collection
The study area is assumed to include all on-street and off-street parking facilities within the Proposed
Parking District and the C-C Expansion Area
Existing parking occupancies will be collected for facilities within this study area for two days (to be
decided in consultation with the client) for a 12 hour period each day from 10:00 AM through 10:00
PM, every hour. Additional days or time periods may be collected at an additional expense of $7,500
per day. License Plate Reader (LPR) technology will be utilized for the on-street data collection
process. Occupancy and turnover data collected with the LPR equipment will be processed and
merged with the parking shapefile provided by the client, for use in the Park+ model. Off-street data
collection will be collected manually and included in the parking shapefile for use in the Park+ model.
Proposed Fee
Labor: $21,500
Equipment Fee (4 LPR units): $3,750
Estimated Expenses: $3,000
Estimated Total: $28,250
7.b
Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: b - Final SOW Kimley Horn v2 (1456 : Parking Demand Modeling System)
Programming and Model Development
Kickoff Meeting 5,600.00$
Data Request/Review 5,800.00$
Database Development 12,900.00$
Model Calibration 15,300.00$
Mid‐Project Meeting 5,600.00$
Scenario Analysis 11,300.00$
Final Presentations 6,600.00$
63,100.00$
Programming and Occupancy Development
Labor 21,500$
License Plate Recognition Systems (4)3,750$
Misc Expenses 3,000$
28,250$
Total for Model Development (Does not include Land Use):91,350.00$
Additional Costs:
Iniatial On‐Call Scenario Support (65 Hrs est.)8,000.00$
Total Proposed Budget Model Development:99,350.00$
Future Annual Costs:
Alternative 1:
One Time License Fee 10,000$
Model training For Staff 5,000$
15,000$
Alternative 2:
Annual Hosting & Maint Agreement 10,000.00$ /year
Misc Staff Access rto Model:8,000.00$
18,000.00$
7.b
Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: b - Final SOW Kimley Horn v2 (1456 : Parking Demand Modeling System)
Parking In Lieu Expansion AreaOverlap Planning AreaParking In Lieu AreaStudy Area – Parking Demand ModelExhibit 17.b
Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: b - Final SOW Kimley Horn v2 (1456 : Parking Demand Modeling System)
Meeting Date: 9/20/2016
FROM: Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager
Prepared By: Robert A. Hill, Natural Resources Manager
SUBJECT: LAGUNA LAKE DREDGING AND SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PROJECT -
PREFERRED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file the Preliminary Dredging Report (the “PDR”) prepared by MNS Engineers, Inc.
and, as further described in the PDR, direct staff to proceed with further analysis and further
recommendations related to the following preferred project alternative:
1. Use of hydraulic or cyclonic dredging equipment as the dredging technology; and
2. Removal of 50,000 cubic yards of sediment from the Laguna Lake as the dredging
project option; and
3. Mechanical dewatering at Laguna Lake Park as the dewatering location and method; and
4. Off-site disposal at Cold Canyon Landfill as the sediment deposition location and facility;
and
5. Creek bank restoration and installation of a sediment basin at Laguna Lake Golf Course
along Prefumo Creek, as well as shoreline restoration at the lake itself, as short-term
sediment management strategies.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
In January 2016, the City retained the firm MNS Engineers (“MNS”) to assist the City with the
work plan that was adopted by the City Council as part of the “Other Important Council
Objectives” associated with the 2015-17 Financial Plan. The first phase of the work prepared by
MNS, in consultation with staff, includes development of the Preliminary Dredging Report
(“PDR”). The PDR documents eleven significant key project elements.
The fiscal impacts associated with the Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management
Project, as recommended, are substantial. Staff anticipates that the total project cost based on
staff’s recommended preferred alternative is estimated to be $10-12 million. Following the City
Council’s selection of the preferred project alternative, it is expected that staff and the City’s
consultant team will analyze the costs and the benefits that will accrue to the community, to
neighboring property owners and residents, and to the natural ecosystems found within Laguna
Lake and its surroundings, and complete the required California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) analysis. As overall project costs and project feasibility are further refined based on
subsequent engineering, environmental review, and evaluation of the potential for land-based
financing, staff will return to Council for additional actions necessary to move the project to
“shovel ready” status.
8
Packet Pg. 77
DISCUSSION
Background
The City of San Luis Obispo owns the 344 -acre Laguna Lake Natural Reserve (the “Reserve”)
that includes most of the lake itself, portions of Prefumo Creek and its outlet into the lake, and
adjacent upland areas. The City Council adopted the Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation
Plan (“Conservation Plan”) on July 15, 2014 to guide future management of the Reserve by
offering a framework for conservation, restoration, recovery, and scenic recreational use.
Laguna Lake is primarily a naturally occurring lake, although the lake and its watersheds have
been altered and manipulated, to include the re-routing of Prefumo Creek into the lake in the
early 1960s to help facilitate the 1961 Master Plan for Laguna Lake and the construction of Tract
279 along Oceanaire. This has resulted in increased sediment deposition rates. Recent
bathymetric surveys indicate accelerated changes in lake depth and morphology resulting in
decreased water quality and aquatic habitat functions, as well as diminished aesthetic and
recreational values associated with the lake. As a result, dredging and sediment management
strategies are among the primary recommendations of the Conservation Plan.
The City’s Financial Plan for 2015-17 identifies implementation of the Conservation Plan as an
“Other Important Council Objective” and includes a work plan that contains all of the necessary
steps to make a dredging and sediment management project “shovel ready”. In January 2016,
the City retained the firm MNS Engineers (“MNS”) to assist the City with the work plan that was
adopted by the City Council. MNS is the prime contractor for a multi-disciplinary team to
complete the following main tasks: 1.) Prepare Design Plans and Engineering Specifications; 2.)
Environmental Studies and Project Permitting; and 3.) Public Outreach and Financing Options.
Preliminary Dredging Report
The first phase of the work prepared by MNS, in consultation with staff, includes development
of the Preliminary Dredging Report (“PDR”). The PDR documents 11 key project elements:
1. A review of the current status of the lake, previous studies, and management documents;
2. New geotechnical and water quality testing data;
3. New biological and cultural resource assessments;
4. A review of applicable dredging technologies and approaches;
5. Development of dredging alternatives;
6. Recommendations for deposition and disposal of sediments;
7. A preferred alternative recommendation;
8. Dredging operations recommendations;
9. Recommendations for future sediment management;
10. An overview of additional project amenities and project enhancement opportunities; and
11. An analysis of project funding options.
Of the project elements described in the PDR, those that are especially pertinent to the
recommendations set forth in this Council Agenda Report are further detailed below.
8
Packet Pg. 78
Geotechnical Investigation and Sediment Characterization
A geotechnical investigation and analysis was completed in the spring of 2016 by Leighton
Group, Inc., to characterize lake bed deposits, identify any contaminants present in lake
sediments, determine the slope stability of the existing lake shore banks, and provide dredging
recommendations based on the findings of their investigation. The complete geotechnical report
documenting the geotechnical investigation and analysis is provided in the PDR.
The subsurface investigation included five surface soil samples and eleven vibracore samples.
For each core, samples were taken at discrete intervals, three per core, in order to enable detailed
sediment chemistry testing. The results of the geotechnical investigation indicated that the
lakebed materials are largely silty to fat clays (CH) interlayered with lean clay (CL) and
inorganic silt (MH) throughout the lake and within the principal proposed dredging areas. There
is limited sand present in thin surface layers within the delta formed at the mouth of Prefumo
Creek. The clays generally transition from a soft oxidized clay to a stiff clay with little to no air
voids with increasing depth.
Sediment samples collected were analyzed for metal and nitrate and phosphate content. In
addition, modified elutriate tests were performed on sediment collected from Laguna Lake.
Sediment chemistry testing detected nickel, Chromium 3 (Cr+3) and Chromium 6 (Cr+6) in the
areas surrounding the lake as well as concentrations in the lake sediment. The detectable levels
of chromium and nickel in the soil samples are naturally-occurring and the result of outcrops of
serpentine rock located in the surrounding watersheds that drain to the lake. Detected levels of
nickel and Chromium (Cr+6) are below the EPA dictated National Action Levels (NALs).
However, at some locations, samples exceed the US EPA Region 9 Regional Screening Level
(RSL) for a residential setting. Soil chemistry is typical of the general region, with no
contamination noted from man-made sources such as Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH),
Volatile or Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC or SVOC), or Pesticides.
Dredging Technology
There are three main types of appropriate dredging techniques associated with small inland water
bodies: 1) mechanical, 2) hydraulic, and 3) cyclonic.
Mechanical dredging involves the physical excavation of sediment material using conventional
earth moving equipment, such as a backhoe, or specialized excavation equipment, such as a clam
shell excavator or draglines. The advantages of mechanical dredging are that water is not
required for dredging operations, little water is used in the dredging process and excavated soil
material maintains its in-situ density. Disadvantages associated with mechanical dredging are
that the excavation is not as precise as other methods and the reach distance of mechanical
equipment can limit excavation extents or require additional logistics; this is especially true
given the soil characteristics at Laguna Lake.
Hydraulic dredging is performed by using sucti on to pump sediments to the shore in a slurry
state. The advantages of hydraulic dredging are dredging precision, flexibility of reach, and
access to sediments. The chief disadvantages of hydraulic dredging are the required water use
associated with making the slurry, down times to repair and maintain piping, and the drying time
required for slurry dredged sediment. With cutting head attachments hydraulic dredging can also
8
Packet Pg. 79
increase the turbidity of the water body being dredged. Turbidity issues associated with hydraulic
dredging can be mitigated through the use of a turbidity curtain.
Cyclonic dredging is an emerging hydraulic dredging technology that generates a vortex to
transport sediments. The vortex reduces friction between transported sediments and the
transmission pipe resulting in higher excavation rates, increased percent age of solids in slurry
dredged sediment, less pipe break downs, and a longer pipe transport range. Dewatering
processes would limit typical excavation rates of both conventional and cyclonic dredging
operations. However, the increased percent solids of slurry material achieved by cyclonic
dredging would accelerate the dewatering process, which could translate to less onsite space used
for dewatering and an increased dredging rate. Even with cutting head attachments cyclonic
dredging reportedly does not increase the turbidity of the water body being dredged.
The following table provides a summary of different aspects of the three dredging techniques:
Color Key Poor Fair Fair Good
Dredging Technology Options Mechanical Hydraulic Cyclonic
Environmental Impact
Medium – Low
Turbidity
Medium
Turbidity, Some
Water Level
Impact
No Turbidity,
Slight Water
Level Impact
Works Offshore With barge or
constructed land
bridge
Yes Yes
Excavation Rate (CY/Hr)
NOte
70-100 200-400 900-1000
Percent Solids In Situ 10-20% Up to 80%
Daily Maintenance (Hrs/Day) 1 2 <1
Minimum Operational Depth None 3 feet < 3 feet
Accuracy Rough grading Precise Precise
Soil Transport via Pipeline No Yes Yes
Pipeline Transport Range N/A 3,000 feet >5,000 feet
The recommendation is to select hydraulic or cyclonic dredging as a combined option in the plan
specifications giving the City the opportunity to better understand the competitive bidding
environment for a project that utilizes either of these options. This is because cyclonic dredging
is relatively new technology and not all prospective contractors have access to it.
8
Packet Pg. 80
Dredging Priority Areas
Three Priority Areas were identified by staff and the engineering consultant as part of the PDR
and ranked in order of importance. These areas are outlined in the exhibit below, and are also
shown as Figure 8 of the PDR and in the Map Set that is Attachment A.
The area encompassing the northwest inlet, peninsula inlet, and transition into Center Lake was
not considered for the proposed dredging project. The northwest inlet and peninsula inlet areas
have high environmental and biological significance and should not be disturbed. The area
between the northwest and peninsula inlets and Center Lake experiences a low rate of
sedimentation because of the topography and characteristics of these drainages and the ability of
the marsh wetlands to capture the sediment.
Dredging Project Alternatives
Alternative 1 addresses Priority Area 1, the area identified as having the highest sedimentation
rate in Laguna Lake. Dredging in this area has the greatest impact on the lake’s ability to capture
sediment passing through Prefumo Creek and Prefumo Arm. This elevation was selected to
address the alluvial fan in Priority Area 1 but also to connect the northwest end of the lake to
Center Lake with a smooth transition. The total project hard costs would be roughly
$5.26 million with dewatering using onsite sedimentation ponds or $6.34 million with
mechanical dewatering. The physical characteristics of Alternative 1 are shown in the table,
below:
8
Packet Pg. 81
Characteristic Value
Target Priority Area(s) 1
Dredged Volume 36,500 CY
Dredged Area 15.95 acres
Max. Existing Elevation 119.2
Finished Elevation 114.0
Max. Dredging Depth 5.2 feet
Lake Capacity Increase 22.6 AF
A range is proposed for Alternative 2 in order to provide the opportunity to select a point within
the range that best satisfies the goals of this dredging project within potentially available
financing. The low end of the range is anticipated to cost approximately $6.95 million with
dewatering basins and $8.68 million using mechanical dewatering practices.
The high end of the range for Alternative 2 is anticipated to cost approximately $11.32 million
with the sedimentation pond method for dewatering and $14.55 million using mechanical
dewatering.
By addressing Priority Areas 1 and 2, Alternative 2 provides a greater ability to remove sediment
than Alternative 1. Alternative 2 also increases the lake depth over a larger area, which provides
both environmental and recreational benefits. Expanding the dredging area towards the boat
launch area provides access to deeper water for kayakers, canoers, and other recreational boaters.
A wider, deeper lake bed also provides aquatic wildlife with a larger habitat and overall healthier
ecosystem. The physical characteristics of Alternative 2 are shown in the table, below:
Characteristic Value
Alternative 2-Min Range Alternative 2-Max Range
Target Priority Area(s) 1 & 2 1 & 2
Dredged Volume 50,000 CY 85,000 CY
Dredged Area 21.40 acres 31.00 acres
Max. Existing Elevation 119.2 ft. asl 119.2 ft. asl
Finished Elevation 113.75 ft. asl 113.25 ft. asl
Max. Dredging Depth 5.4 feet 5.9 feet
Lake Capacity Increase 31.0 AF 52.7 AF
Alternative 3 represents the alternative in which all three priority areas are dredged. Alternative 3
would cost roughly $21.6 million with the sedimentation pond method for dewatering and $27.3
million using mechanical dewatering. The physical characteristics of Alternative 3 are shown in
the table, below:
8
Packet Pg. 82
Characteristic Value
Target Priority Area(s) 1, 2, &3
Dredged Volume 167,000 CY
Dredged Area 35.37 acres
Max. Existing Elevation 117.6
Finished Elevation 111.5
Max. Dredging Depth 6.1 feet
Lake Capacity Increase 103.5 AF
In sum, Alternative 1 represents the minimum economically feasible project in consideration of
mobilization costs and achieving the primary project goal of attending to the accumulated
sediment at the outlet of Prefumo Creek. Alternative 3 represents a project that would result in
lake depths of approximately 9 feet when full through the Center Lake and Southeast Arm,
which is consistent with prior Council direction in 2010; however, at an expected cost of over
$20 million, this alternative is likely to be financially infeasible.
Alternative 2 provides a project that achieves the primary project goal of attending to the
accumulated sediment at the outlet of Prefumo Creek, while also providing longer-lasting
benefits and additional aesthetic and recreational benefits. In consideration of these expected
benefits, on balance with anticipated financial feasibility, a project in the low range of
Alternative 2 that will remove 50,000 cubic yards of sediment from the lake is therefore
recommended as the preferred dredging option.
Dewatering
Dredged sediment can be mechanically dewatered, dewatered using dewatering basins, or
dewatered by a combination of the two methods.
Dewatering basins require adequate onsite space; in the case of the Laguna Lake project 6-8
acres would be necessary. A typical dewatering basin system has a sequence of at least three
basins. Dredge slurry is pumped into the dewatering basin at the top of the sequence until that
dewatering basin is full. The material is then allowed time to settle. Optionally, additives may be
used to decrease the settling time. Clarified water is then pumped or syphoned off the top of the
dewatering basin and sent to the second and third basins in the series for additional clarification.
The basin retention time required to meet turbidity requirements identified in the permitting
process is also another factor that will affect production schedule. Locating adequate space for
settlement basins will likely be challenging on City owned property on the north side of the Lake
within the park due to other ongoing uses.
Mechanical dewatering allows for faster return of water used in dredging operations but is
generally more expensive. However, mechanical dewatering can be accomplished with less
onsite space; in this case 3-4 acres. Mechanical dewatering methods can include belt presses,
centrifugal sludge handlers, screw presses, or heat, among others. Commercial sludge dryers of
various t ypes are commonly used due to their ability to incorporate return water treatment
processes.
8
Packet Pg. 83
Due to space considerations in the park and the goal of minimizing disruptions in the park,
timing dewatering with the pace of dredging production, as well as the opportunity to return
treated water back into the lake quickly, mechanical dewatering is recommended. The proposed
dewatering area is delineated in Figure 18 in the PDR and in the Map Set that is Attachment A.
This option was endorsed by the Parks and Recreation Commission at their meeting on August 3,
2016 (Attachment B).
A summary of dredging and dewatering project options is depicted in the table below:
Proposed
Alternative
Priority
Areas
Dredged Volume
(CY) Total Cost Cost Per CY
Alternative 1A 1 36,500 $5.3 million $144.1
Alternative 1B 1 36,500 $6.3 million $173.8
Mechanical
Alternative 1 1 36,500 $6.1 million $165.7
Alternative 2A-
Min Range 1 & 2 50,000 $7 million $138.9
Alternative 2B-
Min Range 1 & 2 50,000 $8.7 million $173.7
Mechanical
Alternative 2-
Min Range
1 & 2 50,000 $7.4 million $148.6
Alternative 2A-
Max Range 1 & 2 85,000 $11.3 million $133.2
Alternative 2B-
Max Range 1 & 2 85,000 $14.6 million $171.2
Mechanical
Alternative 2-
Max Ranage
1 & 2 85,000 $12.4 million $145.5
Alternative 3A 1, 2, &3 167,000 $21.6 million $129.1
Alternative 3B 1, 2, & 3 167,000 $27.3 million $163.5
Mechanical
Alternative 3 1, 2, & 3 167,000 $23.2 million $139.1
A – Hydraulic Dredging with Dewatering Basin
B – Hydraulic Dredging with Mechanical Dewatering
Sediment Deposition
Several sites were evaluated for the deposition of dredged material. To minimize hauling costs,
only sites within 10 linear miles of Laguna Lake were considered. Due to the silty, heavy clay
nature of the sediment, few beneficial uses exist for the dredged material. However, all potential
sites within the 10-mile radius were evaluated, including the Laguna Lake Natural Reserve and
Laguna Lake Park, privately-owned property adjacent to the Reserve, Cold Canyon Landfill, the
Chevron Tank Farm, and Price Canyon oil field.
8
Packet Pg. 84
The area directly to the east and northeast of Laguna Lake is part of the Laguna Lake Natural
Reserve and the Laguna Lake Park, both City-owned properties with open land available for
sediment deposition. Various areas within these properties were identified and evaluated for
potential sediment deposition. However, an on-site deposition strategy proved to be challenging
for three primary reasons: 1.) both prior and current botanical surveys (Keil, 1996; Terra Verde,
2014; Rincon 2016) documented the presence of numerous rare, special-status plant species
including the adobe sanicle (sanicula maritima) which would require an Incidental Take Permit
from California Department of Fish and Wildlife prior to any site disturbance under the
California Endangered Species Act; 2.) the geotechnical and chemical properties of the sediment
both in the lake and in the soil at the areas identified for potential deposition, as discussed above
under the Geotechnical Investigation sub-heading; and 3.) the total volumes of sediment under
consideration, if placed on-site, would result in substantial areas of the Reserve and Park being
disturbed during the course of dredging operations that would likely require most, if not all, of
the Reserve and Park to be closed during construction, while ongoing restoration and monitoring
efforts would continue for many years following the physical implementation of the dredging
project. For these reasons, on-site deposition should not be considered.
Various local ranch properties were also identified and evaluated as potential deposition sites for
the dredged sediment. Several of these properties are adjacent to Laguna Lake and these sites
could be accessed through public roads or roads created through private property. Several other
nearby and regional locations were also identified. However, large portions of these sites lie
within the 100-year flood plain, according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), which limits the available area for deposition, while
the geotechnical and chemical properties of the dredged sediment would also be problematic for
potential deposition on private properties.
Currently, the only plausible and feasible deposition site of the dredged sediment is the Cold
Canyon Landfill (Cold Canyon), which is a Class III municipal solid waste disposal facility and
is already permitted by the appropriate regulatory agencies for accepting waste materials. It is
located seven miles to the southeast of the City along Highway 227. A meeting was conducted
on May 26, 2016, between MNS, the City, and Cold Canyon representatives to discuss several
criteria regarding the disposal of dredged sediment. Under its current permit, the dredged
sediment meets Cold Canyon acceptance criteria and the facility can receive up to 1,200 tons of
solid waste per day. Accounting for the Landfill’s average daily intake from municipal trash
collection, Cold Canyon can receive approximately 600 tons of sediment per day. At an
estimated unit weight of 125 pounds per cubic foot (lb/ft3), 600 tons equals roughly 350 CY of
sediment, which approaches the estimated daily dredging production rate. Cold Canyon plans to
open a new landfill cell on its property in the coming months, and under a new permit, it could
receive a total of 1,600 tons of solid waste per day. The increased capacity could allow for a
higher sediment disposal rate.
For planning and cost-estimating purposes, Cold Canyon suggests a tipping fee of $20 per ton
($33.75/CY). This rate is lower than the tipping fee for private entities, although further
negotiations would be made before a contract is finalized. When finalized, the contract would be
active for one year. Cold Canyon also imposes a moisture content limit of 50% for the sediment.
The quality of the sediment has been initially accepted; however, Cold Canyon requires a soil
8
Packet Pg. 85
sample report for every 1,000 CY of sediment disposed of at the Landfill, with soil samples valid
for up to one year before disposal.
Sediment Reduction
There are two areas within and tangent to Laguna Lake that are actively contributing sediment to
the lake environment due to eroded and unstable conditions.
Sections along Prefumo Creek within the upstream extent of the Laguna Lake Golf Course have
become over-steepened and present near vertical banks where this section of creek leaves the
original, historic alignment of Prefumo Creek and enters the re-aligned and straightened portion
of Prefumo Creek that was completed in the early 1960s. At this location, the creek appears to
be re-gaining sinuosity and a natural “angle of repose” but in doing so has caused significant
erosion. Stabilization measures should be evaluated on a case by case basis through this system
by the design engineer and biologist to insure desired outcomes due to the dynamic nature of
creek systems and the propensity of one action to cause another action further downstream.
Areas of erosion and shoreline sloughing exist along the northeast shore of the lake near the boat
launch/ramp area, access road and parking lot. In addition, the shoreline path has eroded and
parts of the path and road have failed due to wave action associated with the predominant
westerly winds frequently encountered at the lake. The design recommendations that govern
selection of shoreline erosion protection are further described in the PDR and include:
1. Indirect or vegetative methods preferred over structural methods such as is vegetated rock
slope protection ("VRSP"), as may be necessary;
2. Protect and conserve stream bank and shoreline features with the potential to attenuate
impaired runoff; and
3. Plan and manage activities within the water bodies adjacent to shorelines and along the
shoreline to limit erosion.
Over the longer-term, the Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan also recommended
seeking voluntary conservation easement agreements in the upper watersheds that drain to the
lake in order to maintain low-intensity land uses in these areas. Staff will continue to track such
opportunities through the City’s Greenbelt Protection Program, with recognition that protection
of the watersheds associated with Laguna Lake would represent an additional, substantive
benefit relative to the priority-setting of land conservation opportunities throughout the
Greenbelt.
Sediment Management
Prior studies indicate that the Prefumo Creek watershed deposits an average annual load of 8,000
CY of coarse sediment in the Prefumo Inlet and 3,900 CY of finer sediment in the Center Lake
portion of Laguna Lake. In total, an estimated 11,900 CY of sediment is carried from the
Prefumo Canyon watershed and deposited in the Prefumo Inlet and Center Lake per year. These
deposits are detrimental to the water quality, fish habitat, recreational use, and hydraulic capacity
of Laguna Lake.
It is recommended that sediment from the Prefumo Creek watershed be collected and removed to
8
Packet Pg. 86
the extent possible before they are deposited in the lake since the sediment deposits spread out
over a larger area. Soil deposits from the Prefumo Creek watershed also become more sorted
and have the potential to mix with contaminants, making the material excavated from the lake
less feasible for offsite placement.
In addition to collecting and removing sediment in the Prefumo Inlet downstream of Los Osos
Valley Road, it is recommended that a new sediment collection pond be created in the area
immediately upstream of Los Osos Valley Road. To capture the majority of the total average
annual sediment load of 11,900 CY, a four–feet-deep pond would require about a two-acre
footprint. The exact location of the placement of this pond would be identified through additional
analysis. The portion of the Prefumo Inlet located upstream of Los Osos Valley Road is part of
Laguna Lake golf course. The City could easily access the site to regularly remove sediment
deposits on a periodic basis and no land acquisition or easements would be required. This area is
also less environmentally sensitive than the portion of the Prefumo Inlet located downstream of
Los Osos Valley Road. The site that has been identified would be located in an area of regular
play within the golf course. The annual cost of regularly removing sediment from the basin
would be much less than the costs to remove the same sediment from Laguna Lake. Should the
Council support intercepting as much sediment as is reasonably possible, an estimate of the
annual operating costs to remove sediment and debris from the basin will be provided to the City
Council before making a final decision on this aspect of the project.
Additional Project Amenities and Enhancement Opportunities
One of the major findings and recommendations of the 2014 Laguna Lake Natural Reserve
Conservation Plan was to increase access and use of the lake as a valued passive recreational
amenity for boating, fishing, hiking, and bird watching1. Potential projects identified for further
detailed evaluation, design, and environmental review pursuant to the Conservation Plan include:
1. Improved signs and kiosks (currently underway pursuant to the Open Space Major City
Goal work plan);
2. An accessible walking path along the lake shoreline within the Reserve (also underway);
3. A raised boardwalk along the peninsula feature of the lake;
4. Improved boat launch and parking area;
5. Viewing platforms at two locations on the south side of the lake at Priolo-Martin Park
and adjacent to Laguna Middle School between the cul-de-sacs at the end of Vista Del
Lago and Vista Del Collados; and
6. Migratory fish passage improvements at the Prefumo Creek culverts below Madonna and
Los Osos Valley Roads, as well as potentially improved flood attenuation capacity and
surface elevation management through alterations of the Madonna Road culverts.
7. Future recycled water line extension to provide a base amount of water in the lake during
extreme drought events for dust control, weedy vegetation control, and to provide
watering opportunities for wildlife.
Option items 1-5, above, were endorsed by the Parks and Recreation Commission at their
1 “Throughout the planning process, community members were consistent in stating their preference that the lake
continue to be maintained to support recreational uses, and that the City should do more to increase access and use
of the Reserve as an attractive amenity” (p. 5).
8
Packet Pg. 87
meeting on August 3, 2016 (Attachment B).
Project Funding and Financing Recommendations
The recommended activities to be funded include the primary dredging and sediment
management components of the project, as well as ongoing operations and maintenance
associated with and the lake and sediment management aspects described above. These activities
have multiple benefits including drainage and flood control, recreation, water quality, habitat
restoration, and aesthetic benefits.
The expected project beneficiaries include residents and visitors of the City of San Luis Obispo,
as well as property owners that are proximate to Laguna Lake. The benefits accrued to these
parties must be allocated and the costs should be equitably assessed as a matter of sound public
policy. There are several mechanisms to levy the costs of allocated benefits. A preliminary
funding and financing plan was prepared and is included with the PDR.
Numerous grant opportunities were evaluated, as well as low-interest loans, City provided
funding sources, and land-based financing options. The recommended project, in its totality, is
comprised of a diverse combination of activities that would provide both community-wide, and
localized benefits. However, the initial and ongoing cost of accomplishing the project is
significant. Accordingly, a broad funding strategy is necessary for the project to be successful
given the range and scope of other pressing capital and maintenance projects needed throughout
the City. In order to provide the necessary funding to implement the various project elements, the
following recommendations are presented for consideration:
1. Monitor potential State and Federal grant programs on an ongoing basis. As each
potential project element is developed and approved, review the applicable programs for
the feasibility of a successful application, level of potential funding, and funding schedule
of the program. Because of the level of funding required and the broad range of benefits
provided, the highest priority should be given to grant programs that focus on water
quality, habitat restoration, non-point source management, and recreational development.
At this time, State of California grant funding has been identified for several of the
project’s sediment management and amenity enhancement features based on staff’s prior
experience. These are:
a) Peninsula Boardwalk - California Department of Parks and Recreation, Habitat
Conservation Fund Trails Program
b) Boat Launch and Parking Area – California Department of Boating and
Waterways
c) Creek and Shoreline Stabilization Projects, Fish Passage and Flood Control
Improvements – California Wildlife Conservation Board
8
Packet Pg. 88
2. Pursue land-based financing. Formation of a benefit-assessment district would provide a
vehicle for sediment removal and ongoing maintenance funding that would be allocated
based on the level of localized benefit that the project provides. Multiple districts or
zones may be necessary to separate the level of benefits anticipated in various areas,
although the allocation between these types of benefits cannot be determined until the
project benefits are quantified and addressed in the Engineer’s Report that would support
district formation. However, in the event that the Engineer’s Report cannot provide
quantifiable evidence of specific property benefit, a Community Facilities District (CFD)
is recommended to be pursued. A CFD has a higher threshold for successful formation,
but does not require an Engineer’s Report.
The potential for land-based financing was first included in Council direction set forth in
2010. Following the prospective selection of the preferred project as contemplated in this
Council Agenda Report, staff will work with the consultant team to determine the
feasibility of land-based financing options through public outreach with potentially
affected property owners and through public opinion research. As above, the use of a
benefit assessment district (if selected) requires the preparation of an Engineer’s Report
as a necessary condition precedent to district formation. This report would describe the
boundaries of the district and zones, the activities to be funded, the basis for allocating
costs, and the cost to each parcel. The formation of a benefit assessment district requires
voter approval.
3. Evaluate the level of financial contribution and commitment from the City’s General
Fund. The project is expected to accrue both community-wide benefits and specific
benefits to areas proximate to the lake. In support of the community-wide benefits, the
City should evaluate the level of financial contribution and commitment it is willing to
make with its General Fund through its normal, customary financial plan priority-setting
process.
4. Utilize an Infrastructure State Revolving Fund (ISRF) low-interest loan. The California
Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (I-Bank) provides low interest loans for
eligible projects, such as:
a) Drainage, Water Supply, and Flood Control including ditches, levees, pumps,
pipes, as well as the acquisition, improvement, maintenance, and management of
flood plain areas and all equipment used in the associated maintenance and
operation;
b) Environmental Mitigation Measures including required construction or
modification of public infrastructure, and purchase and installation of pollution
control and noise abatement equipment; and
c) Parks and recreational facilities.
Financing amounts range from $50,000 to $25,000,000 per project with a maximum 30-
year term. The interest rate for each loan is set at the time the loan is approved and is
based on the Interest Rate Benchmark and Interest Rate Adjustments. For loans equal or
8
Packet Pg. 89
greater to $250,000, a one-time origination fee of $10,000 or 1% of the original loan
amount, whichever is greater is due at closing. The City would need to pledge a piece of
City-owned real property of equal or greater value as security for the loan.
A low-interest credit facility provided through ISRF would be a key element of the
overall funding and financing strategy as a means of providing the up-front capital
necessary to undertake the project, while revenues streams from potential land-based
financing and the City’s General Fund would be used for debt service. Staff met with
senior I-Bank representatives in Sacramento in July 2016 to ensure that the proposed
project meets with their eligibility and underwriting requirements, as well as to ensure
that the City would have adequate credit capacity for this project as well as other future
capital infrastructure projects. Based on this meeting and subsequent I-Bank review, the
City has been invited to apply.
CONCURRENCES
The Parks and Recreation and Public Works Departments have provided their concurrence for
the recommendations set forth in this Council Agenda Report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
There is no environmental review required to provide direction on the recommended preferred
project options under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Once the preferred
alternative is selected, however, the City and its consultant team will be able to develop and
provide a detailed project description upon which the environmental review process will be
based. The City Council’s direction on the preferred project options is not intended to preclude
the formal alternatives analysis that would be required under CEQA if a full Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) is determined to be the appropriate environmental document.
In addition, the project will require review and regulatory permits from numerous other agencies
in order to be lawfully conducted, potentially including: California Department of Fish and
Wildlife; Regional Water Quality Control Board; Air Pollution Control District; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; and, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries
Division.
FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impacts associated with the Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management
Project, as recommended, are substantial. Staff anticipates that the total recommended project
cost is between $10-12 million. This estimate is based on known hard costs associated with
dredging production, dewatering, and sediment disposal as described above; however, exact
regulatory permit requirements and mitigation measures associated with the project are not yet
known (although mitigation costs as a percentage of total project costs are included for
estimating purposes, see Appendix F of the PDR), nor are exact costs and prospective grant
awards associated with project amenities and enhancements yet known.
8
Packet Pg. 90
Following the City Council’s feedback on the preferred project alternative, it is expected that
staff will return with more detailed costs and articulation of the benefits that will accrue to the
community, to neighboring property owners and residents, and to the natural ecosystems found
within Laguna Lake and its surroundings. As overall project costs and project feasibility are
further refined based on subsequent engineering, environmental review, and evaluation of the
potential for land-based financing, staff will return to Council for additional discussion and
subsequent action steps necessary to move the project to “shovel ready” status.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council could:
1. Request additional information or analysis from staff.
2. Continue consideration of the recommendation with direction to staff on necessary
changes.
3. Select some of the recommended options, while selecting alternatives for other options.
Because there are five different preferred project elements set forth in the
recommendation, and there are various aspects to consider within each project element,
there are many possible permutations from which project choices could be selected.
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE
1. Master Plan Laguna Lake Park (1961)
2. Laguna Lake Management Program (1982)
3. Laguna Lake Technical Appendix (1982)
4. Laguna Lake Park Master Plan (1993)
5. Council Agenda Report (2009)
6. Council Agenda Report (2010)
7. Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (2014)
8. Preliminary Dredging Report (2016)
These documents are also available for review on the City’s website using the following link:
http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/city-administration/natural-
resources/laguna-lake
Attachments:
a - Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management - Map Set
b - Parks and Recreation Commission Draft Minutes of 8-3-16
c - Council Reading File
8
Packet Pg. 91
8.a
Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: a - Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management - Map Set (1447 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Project - Preferred
8.a
Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: a - Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management - Map Set (1447 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Project - Preferred
8.a
Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: a - Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management - Map Set (1447 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Project - Preferred
8.a
Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: a - Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management - Map Set (1447 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Project - Preferred
8.a
Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: a - Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management - Map Set (1447 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Project - Preferred
8.a
Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: a - Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management - Map Set (1447 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Project - Preferred
8.a
Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: a - Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management - Map Set (1447 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Project - Preferred
8.a
Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: a - Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management - Map Set (1447 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Project - Preferred
8.a
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: a - Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management - Map Set (1447 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Project - Preferred
Minutes - DRAFT
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
3 August, 2016
Regular Meeting of the Advisory Body Committee Commission
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission was called to order on the 3rd day of August,
2016 at 5:32 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California,
by Chair Whitener.
ROLL CALL
Present: Committee Members Douglas Single, Greg Avakian and newly sworn-in Commissioner Rodney
Thurman, and Chair Jeff Whitener
Absent: Susan Olson, Keri Schwab, Susan Updegrove,
Staff: Parks and Recreation Director Shelly Stanwyck, Recreation Supervisor Devin Hyfield, Natural
Resources Manager Bob Hill
PRESENTATIONS, INTRODUCTIONS, APPOINTMENTS
1. Oath of Office
The City Clerk provided the Oath of Office for new Parks and Recreation Commissioner;
Rodney Thurman
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.
CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
ACTION: APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 6, 2016 AS AMENDED BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER AVAKIAN, SECOND BY COMMITTEE MEMBER SINGLE.
2. Consideration of Minutes
CARRIED 4:0:0:3 to approve the minutes of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Body for the
meeting of 07/06/2016.
AYES: AVAKIAN, SINGLE, THURMAN, WHITENER
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT: OLSON, SCHWAB, UPDEGROVE
8.b
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: b - Parks and Recreation Commission Draft Minutes of 8-3-16 (1447 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Project - Preferred
DRAFT Minutes – Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of August 3, 2016 Page 2
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND BUSINESS ITEMS
3. Presentation of Conceptual Designs and Proposed Park Site Plan for Froom/Il Villagio
Project
ACTION: RECEIVE INFORMATION AND PROVIDE FEEDBACK
Contract Planner, Shawna Scott, presented to the Commission the Conceptual Park Site
Plan component of the Froom / Il Villagio Specific Plan (Madonna on Los Osos Valley
Road Specific Plan). The proposed project would require several entitlements, which
would ultimately lead to the development of the project site. The applicant is proposing
a mix of land uses including a Continuing Care Retirement Community, housing,
commercial, open space, and park land. The applicant has identified an additional,
adjacent, 7.4-acre parcel located within the City limits as the potential site for a park.
Ms. Scott added that this is the first review of the project by the Parks and Recreation
Commission. She noted that the applicant is seeking early feedback from the
Commission on the proposed, conceptual, park facilities identified for the Specific
Plan, and for the Commission to provide preliminary input with respect to their
potential consistency with policies and programs contained in the Parks and Recreation
Element before preparing the Draft Specific Plan for the project.
Ms. Scott noted that the applicant team met with Parks and Recreation while
developing conceptual plans to determine the character and range of improvements
desired in a park for this project. The applicant has made an effort to make the character
of the proposed park more “naturalistic”, celebrating the “uniqueness of the site”. In
addition, parking and access to the open space have been identified as priorities at this
location. Ms. Scott said that the applicant is proposing a 4.7-acre park with the
following amenities:
Parking lot area to provide approximately 26 spaces
Historic plaza including relocated historic residence and bunkhouse (to be used as a
ranger’s office and storage building) and a public restroom
Playground area with naturalistic equipment
Dog park area
Wetland overlook
Trail rest area
Drought-tolerant landscaping
Developer Representative, Pam Ricci, RRM spoke about the park design
Commission Comments followed.
Commissioner Single asked for clarification on screening between current development (Home
Depot) and Primary Park in reference to area in between park and home depot. Director
Stanwyck responded that loading area could not be adjusted but that fencing could be required
to alleviate safety concerns behind the trees. Commissioner Single expressed concern about
8.b
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: b - Parks and Recreation Commission Draft Minutes of 8-3-16 (1447 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Project - Preferred
DRAFT Minutes – Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of August 3, 2016 Page 3
safety and suggested small fencing. Ms. Ricci responded that the plans at this time are
conceptual.
Commissioner Thurman asked about workout equipment and the continued usage of the
equipment.
Commissioner Avakian asked about access to the park with the adjacent Home Depot and
Costco traffic. Ms. Ricci commented added that there has been discussion with current stores
for alternate routes.
Commissioner Avakian commented on senior living and access to the trail through the new
proposed neighborhood. Ms. Ricci added that there would be additional pedestrian access
between residential trails with a five-minute walk. Commissioner Thurman commented about
trailhead plaza being private. Commissioner Avakian asked about lighting and ADA access.
Chair Whitener asked about connectivity of the park to City. Ms. Scott responded that the park
would connect to Irish hills and current development with potential additional connection.
Commissioner Single said he viewed the conceptual park design more as a pocket park and
noted the need for a dog park in this area.
Chair Whitener added he was not in support of the location as there was not enough usable park
space.
Public Comments:
Michael Parolini, San Luis resident, commented that the conceptual design does not feel like a
typical park given its isolation and potential maintenance issues and suggested this located be
considered as open space.
Neil Havlik, San Luis resident, agreed that this is not an ideal location for a park.
John Madonna, San Luis resident, spoke about the ease of access to the trailhead as opposed to
the access from Madonna Road.
4. Update for Laguna Lake Dredging Project Relative to Laguna Lake Park
ACTION: RECEIVE INFORMATION AND PROVIDE FEEDBACK
Natural Resources Manager, Bob Hill, presented the Commission an update on the Laguna
Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Project relative to the Laguna Lake Park Area. He
added that he is seeking the Commission’s input and consensus relative to the aspects of the
project that are pertinent to the recreational uses at Laguna Lake Park and Natural Reserve.
Commission Comments followed.
Commissioner Thurman commented about capturing sediment attachment into the lake. Hill
explained the procedure in excavation of sediment and dewatering plans for removal.
8.b
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: b - Parks and Recreation Commission Draft Minutes of 8-3-16 (1447 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Project - Preferred
DRAFT Minutes – Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of August 3, 2016 Page 4
Commissioner Single asked about the dry lake conditions and cost associated with dredging.
Staff Hill explained difference between hydraulic (wet) and mechanical (dry) dredging and
condition of lake during dry conditions.
Commissioner Avakian asked about the project duration and impact on other park usage. Staff
Hill responded that dredging would potential occur over several seasons to minimize
construction impacts and employ a sediment management strategy would limit amount of
sediment flowing into lake, thereby minimizing future impacts to the lake. Staff Hill added that
there would be minimal impacts to the public and estimated approximately 400 cubic yards per
day could be removed (approximately 10 truckloads).
Public Comments:
Mike Parolini asked about the cost of the project and the tax incurred by the residences of
Laguna Lake.
John Smeglski, San Luis resident, asked if the improvements to Vista Lago Park would be
associated with the project. Staff Hill responded to provide feedback about how the
improvements could be incorporated.
5. Selection of Wes Conner Awardee for 2016
Director Stanwyck recommended the Commission postpone this agenda item to the September
meeting to allow the full Commission the opportunity to consider and select the Wes Conner
awardee.
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER AVAKIAN, SECOND BY COMMITTEE
MEMBER SINGLE, to recommend postponing the selection of the 2016 Wes Conner Awardee
to the September 7, 2016 meeting. Motion passed 4:0:3:0 on the following roll call vote:
AYES: AVAKIAN, SINGLE, THURMAN, WHITENER
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT: OLSON, SCHWAB, UPDEGROVE
6. Discussion of Annual Park Tour Dates and Topics
Director Stanwyck explained the itinerary of annual park tour and potential locations to visit.
The Commission agreed to finalize this at its September meeting.
COMMITTEE COMMUNICATIONS
Director’s Report
Director Stanwyck provided a brief overview of current Parks and Recreation programming.
Hydro Flask Rewards for staff
Box Art Policy – Vote for next locations to be painted by August 28th
SLO Triathlon - a Success!
Movies in the Mission, 8/6, 8/13, 8/20
8.b
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: b - Parks and Recreation Commission Draft Minutes of 8-3-16 (1447 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Project - Preferred
DRAFT Minutes – Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of August 3, 2016 Page 5
Family Overnight Camp Out in Laguna Lake Park will be held on August 13-14
Skate Park Ramp n’ Roll 8/20 (Fun & Educational Event)
Volunteer Appreciation Dinner 9/22 (at Jack House)
Commission Communications
LIAISON REPORTS
Adult and Senior Programming: Commissioner Single said adult softball ended last week
and it was a great season. Fall softball sign-ups are starting. French Park pickleball is
being played twice weekly after restriping of the basketball courts. The Ludwick
Community Center hosts volleyball and table tennis – and attendance is in good numbers.
Adult soccer is starting at Damon Garcia Sports Fields. Seniors are staying active with
fun, well-attended, activities at senior center including bunko and bridge. Commissioner
Single requested a list of Senior Center Board Meeting dates.
Bicycle Advisory: No report. Commissioner Olson absent.
City Facilities (Damon Garcia, Golf, Pool & Joint Use Facilities): Commissioner
Avakian said that summer is busy. Damon-Garcia is open as of August 1 but still closed
on Mondays for field recovery. Jack House weddings are booked through October. New
tables were ordered for the Ludwick Center. The City/County Library conference room
will for library use from October 2016 through January 2017. The Swim Center saw rise
in attendance and will be closed for two weeks in August for maintenance. Golf Course
had good summer with rounds up 100 from previous month and 550 rounds in one
weekend. Increased youth participation at the Golf Course and increase in merchandise
sale. Tournaments were held over summer months. Middle school classes held at Golf
Course during school year.
Jack House Committee: No Report. Vice Chair Updegrove absent.
Tree Committee: No Report. New subcommittee assignment for Commissioner
Thurman.
Youth Sports: Chair Whitener said YSA had some issues with field use due to
construction at SLO High School. YSA is planning a meeting with the School District to
discuss topics related to youth sports.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m. The next Regular meeting of the Parks and Recreation
Commission is scheduled for 07, September, 2016 at 5:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION: 09/07/2016
8.b
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: b - Parks and Recreation Commission Draft Minutes of 8-3-16 (1447 : Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Project - Preferred
Page intentionally left
blank.