HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6i. Approval of a reimbursement agreement with the County of San Luis Obispo for the Salinas Dam Feasibility Study Item 6i
Department: Utilities
Cost Center: 601-6001
For Agenda of: 1/13/2026
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: NA
FROM: Aaron Floyd, Public Works and Utilities Director
Prepared By: Mychal Boerman, Utilities Deputy Director - Water
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY
OF SAN LUIS OBIPSO FOR THE SALINAS DAM FEASIBILITY STUDY
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt a resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of San Luis Obispo ,
California, Approving a Reimbursement Agreement with the San Luis Obispo County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District to Support the Salinas Dam Feasibility
Study;” and
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Reimbursement Agreement and related
documents; and
3. Find the action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.
POLICY CONTEXT
The Salinas Reservoir (Santa Margarita Lake) is a significant component of the City’s
surface water supply portfolio. The Salinas Reservoir and Dam were built in 1941 under
a military directive to supply water to Camp San Luis Obispo to support training needs for
the U.S. Army during World War II. Soon after it was built, Camp San Luis Obispo no
longer had the need for housing large numbers of personnel, and the military transferred
the reservoir and dam ownership to the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in 1955.
USACE subsequently leased the facility to the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District (District) to operate the dam to provide water supply for the
City of San Luis Obispo.
The Salinas Dam is currently owned by USACE and leased to the District for operation
and maintenance. The Federal government has determined that the Dam no longer
serves a federal purpose and USACE has initiated steps under a Disposition Study1 to
evaluate transfer of ownership to a local agency. This step by the Federal government is
consistent with the City Council’s adopted 2025 Legislative Platform which states that the
City is supportive of “Federal and state funding that would allow for transfer of Salinas
Reservoir from the Army Corps of Engineers to the County or City of San Luis Obispo.”
1 Authorized under Section 216 of the Flood Control Act of 1970, a disposition study gives USACE the
authority to evaluate a project which is no longer serving its authorized purpose.
Page 127 of 525
Item 6i
In 2024, Congress included language in the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)
of 2024 to authorize conveyance of the Salinas Dam and d irected USACE to consult with
federal and non-federal partners to ensure that the property meets both federal and state
dam safety requirements. The State also allocated $500,000 through Assembly Bill 102
(AB 102) to support a feasibility analysis regarding potential transfer, retrofit, or expansion
of the facility.
The City’s General Plan Water and Wastewater Element (WWE) identifies the Reservoir
as a water supply source for the City and includes a policy that the City utilize multiple
water resources to meet its water supply needs (Policy A.2.2.1 Multi -Source Water
Supply). WWE Programs A.2.3.1 and A.2.3.5 state that the City will work cooperatively
on regional water issues and water resource planning, and continue to work with the
County on the operation and maintenance of the Salinas Reservoir. The proposed
Reimbursement Agreement aligns with the City’s long-term water supply strategy and
General Plan policies and programs, ensuring the City remains an active partner in the
technical, legal, regulatory, and financial analysis required for assessing potential local
ownership of a critical regional water asset.
DISCUSSION
Background
The Salinas Dam was constructed by the
Federal government in 1941 and the
Reservoir currently stores raw water that is
conveyed to the City’s Water Treatment
Plant for treatment and distribution to City
customers for domestic uses. The Dam is
operated and maintained by the District
under a lease agreement with USACE, and
the County separately leases surrounding
administrative and recreational lands.
USACE initiated a Disposition Study in 2018
to evaluate options for disposal of federal
property, including potential transfer of
Salinas Dam ownership to a local entity. On September 22, 2020, the San Luis Obispo
County Board of Supervisors authorized submittal of a Letter of Interest to USACE
expressing interest in ownership transfer. Subsequent County presentations identified the
significant technical, regulatory, seismic, environmental, cultural, and governance
questions that must be evaluated before an ownership transfer can be responsibly
considered. These issues will need to be evaluated in a feasibility study regarding the
potential transfer of ownership, and associated retrofits that may be necessary to meet
State Division of Safety of Dam (DSOD) standards (which exceed federal regulations
governing the Dam).
To support this work, State Assembly Bill (AB) 102 allocated $500,000 to the County to
aid in the completion of a Salinas Dam Feasibility Study. The County conducted a
Page 128 of 525
Item 6i
competitive procurement process and selected Tetra Tech BAS, Inc. (Consultant) to
conduct the study, with a contract value of $1,1 75,884, plus a 10% contingency of
$117,588, for a total of $1,293,472.
Feasibility Study Scope of Work
The Scope of Work for this project/study includes:
Project Management & Progress Reporting over a 24-month period.
Stakeholder Engagement, including DSOD, USACE, the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO), landowners, recreation stakeholders, Native
American tribal representatives, non-governmental organizations, and the County
Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC).
Conditions Assessment & Data Gap Identification, covering civil, structural,
mechanical, electrical, hydrology/hydraulics, geology, seismic, environmental, and
regulatory baselines.
Conceptual Alternatives Analysis, including retrofit concepts, regulatory
pathways, water rights implications, rough order of magnitude capital and
operations and maintenance costs, and a risk-benefit evaluation.
Vetting, Ranking & Recommendation, using a multi-criteria evaluation matrix
with partner workshops that include City staff.
Feasibility Study & 10% Design Package for the preferred alternative.
Planning for Future Phases, including regulatory roadmaps, milestones, and
cost estimates.
At the December 16, 2025 Board of Supervisors Meeting, the District approved the
execution of a contract to have Tetra Tech perform the proposed work and approve d the
proposed reimbursement agreement with the City. If approved by City Council, County
staff will finalize the funding agreement and provide Tetra Tech with a Notice to Proceed
(NTP) for the study.
Funding Structure
The County has proposed a Reimbursement Agreement between the District and the City
to cover the costs of completing the Feasibility Study (Attachment B). This
Reimbursement Agreement outlines the following:
The $500,000 AB 102 State allocation will be fully applied toward project costs
before City and District funds are spent.
The remaining cost will be shared equally between the District and the City.
The City will reimburse the County 50% of costs after the State funds are
exhausted, up to a maximum City contribution of $600,000, which accounts for the
City’s share of currently identified study costs and potential additional costs beyond
the currently identified 10% contingency.
Based on the County’s staff report from the December 16, 2025 Board of Supervisors
Meeting, project costs will be shared as follows:
Total project cost (including contingency): $1,293,472
Less AB 102 grant: $500,000
Remaining: $793,472
Page 129 of 525
Item 6i
50% City share (expected): $396,736
City’s contractual maximum: $600,000
Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
The City Council approved $150,000 for this study as part of the 2023-25 Financial Plan
(CIP #52 - Page 422). As part of the 2024-25 Supplemental Budget (Page 62) the City
Council approved an additional $550,000 in funding for a cumulative total of $700,000.
Public Engagement
Public engagement will be led by the County as part of the Feasibility Study’s stakeholder
process and includes public meetings, workshops with WRAC, coordination with agency
partners, and preparation of public-facing materials.
CONCURRENCE
The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed the Reimbursement Agreement and has
approved to legal form.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City Council’s approval of the Reimbursement Agreement is statutorily exempt from
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15262 (Planning and Feasibility Studies) as it involves a cost-sharing agreement
for a feasibility and planning study with no direct physical impact. Approval of the
Agreement and the County’s implementation of the feasibility study does not commit the
City to any future action or project. Any future actions regarding Dam ownership, design,
or construction would require compliance with CEQA. Environmental factors likely to be
considered and evaluated for any action that would result in a physical impact or change
to the environment include, but are not limited to: aesthetics, agriculture, air quality,
biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology/soils, greenhouse gas
emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, land use, mineral
resources, noise, recreation, transportation, and tribal cultural resources.
FISCAL IMPACT
The total project cost for the feasibility study, including a 10% contingency, is $1,293,472.
The project would be funded by the AB 102 grant ($500,000), the District ($396,736), and
the City ($396,736 if the Reimbursement Agreement is approved by the City Council).
The Agreement includes a not-to-exceed City contribution of $600,000 to allow for
potential amendments or scope adjustments. With $700,000 budgeted for this Project
2001047 (Salinas Reservoir Transfer of Ownership Plan), and $600,000 requested for
potential use by the County, $100,000 will remain unused at this time. Should additional
need arise for studies related to the transfer of ownership of the Salinas Dam, the City
Council could authorize this funding to be utilized for these purposes at a future date.
Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: 2025-26
Funding Identified: Yes
Page 130 of 525
Item 6i
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
City Water Fund
(Project #2001047)
$700,000 $600,000 $100,000 NA
The City Council previously appropriated $700,000 for this work—$150,000 in the 2023–
25 Financial Plan and an additional $550,000 in the 2024 –25 Supplemental Budget—
providing sufficient funding for the maximum City obligation. No additional funding is being
requested at this time.
Participating in the study is financially prudent because it leverages available State funds,
shares remaining costs equally with the County, and provides essential information about
long-term capital, regulatory, and liability obligations before any ownership or construction
decisions are made, helping protect ratepayers and supporting Council -approved water
supply policies.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Council could request a modified Reimbursement Agreement with a different
proportion of cost sharing for each involved entity. Should Council pursue this
option, the project could be delayed or hindered due to insufficient funds in the event
of potential and necessary scope amendments. Amendments to the Reimbursement
Agreement would also trigger the need for the County Board of Supervisors to
reapprove the new agreement.
2. Council could deny authorization of the Reimbursement Agreement. Should
Council deny authorization of the Agreement, the County would not move forward with
the Feasibility Study, and the City and County would not obtain the analysis and
information necessary to fully consider transfer of ownership of the Dam to the County
and evaluate the physical improvements, costs and other factors related to transfer of
ownership. If the County is not able to effectively plan for a potential transfer of
ownership, the County and City could potentially risk losing the long-term ownership
of the Dam to another agency or risk the am being removed. While the City would
retain its water rights, a potential future scenario (where the County is not able to
secure ownership of the Dam) may necessitate new agreements with another agency
related to operation of the Dam and diversion of water to the City.
ATTACHMENTS
A - Draft Resolution approving the Reimbursement Agreement for the proposed feasibility
study
B - Salinas Dam Feasibility Study Reimbursement Agreement
C - Salinas Dam Feasibility Study Scope of Work
Page 131 of 525
Page 132 of 525
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2026 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REIMBURSEMENT
AGREEMENT WITH THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY FLOOD
CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT TO SUPPORT
THE SALINAS DAM FEASIBILITY STUDY
WHEREAS, the Salinas Dam is owned by the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE); and
WHEREAS, the USACE leases the Dam to the San Luis Obispo County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District (District) for its operation, maintenance, and
delivery of water to the City; and
WHEREAS, the USACE is undertaking a federal disposition process evaluating
options for divestiture of the Salinas Dam, including potential transfer of ownership to a
local public agency; and
WHEREAS, the State of California has allocated $500,000 through Assembly Bill
102 to partially fund a Salinas Dam Feasibility Study to assess engineering, regulatory,
seismic, environmental, and governance considerations needed to inform any future
ownership decision; and
WHEREAS, following a competitive procurement process, the District has selected
Tetra Tech BAS, Inc. to conduct the Feasibility Study; and the District will enter into a
Professional Services Agreement not to exceed $1,293,472, inclusive of contingency; and
WHEREAS, the Feasibility Study is expected to benefit both the District and the
City by evaluating Dam condition, retrofit options, reservoir capacity, seismic and geologic
requirements, regulatory pathways, water rights implications, and long-term operational
responsibilities, thereby informing regional water supply reliability planning; and
WHEREAS, the District and City desire to jointly fund the remaining cost of the
Feasibility Study after the State allocation is fully expended; and
WHEREAS, under the proposed Funding Agreement, the City will reimburse the
District for 50% of the remaining consultant costs after the State’s $500,000 contribution
is exhausted, not to exceed a maximum City contribution of $600,000; and
WHEREAS, approval of the Funding Agreement is necessary for the City to
participate as a partner in the Feasibility Study and secure access to all consultant work
products, technical analyses, stakeholder engagement activities, and recommendations
regarding the Dam’s future.
Page 133 of 525
Resolution No. _____ (202X Series) Page 2
R ______
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby approves the Funding Agreement between
the City of San Luis Obispo and the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District for the Salinas Dam Feasibility Study, attached hereto as Exhibit 1
and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 2. The City Council authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to
execute the Funding Agreement (Exhibit 1) and to take any administrative actions
necessary to implement the Agreement consistent with its terms.
SECTION 3. The City Council authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to
prepare and submit payments to the District in accordance with the Funding Agreement,
including reimbursement of 50% of eligible consultant costs after the State’s allocation
has been expended, not to exceed a total City contribution of $600,000.
SECTION 3. Environmental Review. The action is statutorily exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section
15262 (Planning and Feasibility Studies) as it involves a cost -sharing agreement for a
feasibility and planning study with no direct physical impact. Approval of the Agreement
and the County’s implementation of the feasibility study does not commit the City to any
future action or project. Any future actions regarding Dam ownership, design, or
construction would require compliance with CEQA.
Upon motion of Council Member ___________, seconded by Council Member
___________, and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _______________ 202 6.
___________________________
Mayor Erica A. Stewart
ATTEST:
______________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Page 134 of 525
Resolution No. _____ (202X Series) Page 3
R ______
______________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the
City of San Luis Obispo, California, on ______________________.
___________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
Page 135 of 525
Resolution No. _____ (202X Series) Page 4
R ______
EXHIBIT 1
Reimbursement Agreement
Salinas Dam Feasibility Study
This Reimbursement Agreement (“Agreement”) is made on this ____ day of _______,
2025 by and between the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District (“District”) and the City of San Luis Obispo (“City”), collectively referred to herein as
the “Parties”.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) owns the Salinas Dam
(“Dam”) and jointly holds water rights permits with the City; and
WHEREAS, the USACE leases the Dam to the District for its operation and
maintenance, which includes water delivery to the City; and
WHEREAS, the USACE has been evaluating options for disposal of the Dam, including
transferring ownership to a local agency such as the District; and
WHEREAS, said transfer is an opportunity to secure existing and/or additional water supplies
to address needs in the County of San Luis Obispo; and
WHEREAS, to evaluate the transfer, a feasibility analysis of dam ownership, condition,
and retrofit/improvement (“Feasibility Study”) would be required; and
WHEREAS, the State of California has provided a grant to the District in the amount of
$500,000 (“State Grant”) to partially fund the Feasibility Study;
WHEREAS, after a competitive procurement process, the District has tentatively
selected Tetra Tech BAS, Inc. (“Consultant”) to perform the Feasibility Study and enter into an
Agreement for Professional Services (“Consultant Contract”) with the Consultant, attached
hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the District and the City have a common interest in the performance of the
Feasibility Study and desire to jointly contribute the additional funding necessary for the
completion of the work.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby mutually agreed by the Agencies and District as
follows:
1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this
reference.
Page 136 of 525
Resolution No. _____ (202X Series) Page 5
R ______
2. Prior to the payment of any funds by the City, the District shall expend the State
Grant, in a manner consistent with the terms of the grant, to pay invoices received
from the Consultant.
3. Once the State Grant is fully expended, the City shall pay the District a sum equal
to fifty (50%) of the costs of each remaining invoice from the Consultant. The
City shall make said payment within thirty (30) days of the receipt of each invoice
from the District.
4. Notwithstanding Paragraph 3 above, the City’s payment obligation pursuant to
this Agreement shall not exceed six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000) unless
otherwise agreed by the Parties in writing.
5. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to create a contractual relationship between
the Consultant and the City, nor to obligate or subject the City to any of the terms
of the Consultant Agreement.
6. The District’s contract with the Contractor require the Contractor to maintain
accounting records for contract billings, a monthly detailed statement of all
services performed to be billed at rates set forth in the Consultant’s Cost Proposal,
and a requirement to repay any disallowed costs in Articles 3 and 4 of Exhibit A.
The District and City have a common interest in ensuring that all billings for
services provided are accurate and in accordance with approved work and
services.
7. This Agreement has been executed and delivered in, and shall be interpreted,
construed, and enforced pursuant to and in accordance with the laws of the State
of California. All duties and obligations of the parties created hereunder are
performable in the County of San Luis Obispo; and such County shall be that
venue for any action or proceeding that may be brought or arise out of, in
connection with, or by reason of, this Agreement.
8. If any term, covenant, condition, or provision of this Agreement is held by a court
of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remainder of
the provisions hereof shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be
affected, impaired, or invalidated thereby. 5.
9. Unless otherwise provided, all notices herein required shall be in writing, and
delivered in person or sent by United States first class mail, postage prepaid.
Notices required to be given to County shall be addressed as follows:
Department of Public Works
Attn: Public Works Director
976 Osos Street STE 207 San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
Notices required to be given to City shall be addressed as follows:
City of San Luis Obispo
Page 137 of 525
Resolution No. _____ (202X Series) Page 6
R ______
Attn: Utilities Director
879 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
10. This Agreement is intended by the parties as a final expression of their
understanding with respect to the matters contained herein and is a complete and
exclusive statement of the terms and conditions thereof
11. The parties acknowledge that each party and its attorneys have reviewed,
negotiated and revised this Agreement; and that the normal rule of construction to
the effect that any ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall
not be employed in the interpretation of this Agreement or any document
executed and delivered by any party in connection with the transactions
contemplated by this Agreement
12. This Agreement shall not be changed or modified except upon written consent of
all of the Parties.
13. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed
an original and all of which shall constitute a single instrument. Signature pages
may be detached from individual counterparts and attached to a single or multiple
original(s) in order to form a single or multiple originals of this Agreement.
Page 138 of 525
Resolution No. _____ (202X Series) Page 7
R ______
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has executed this Agreement with the approval of
its governing body, and District has executed this Agreement in accordance with the
authorization of the Board of Supervisors.
City of San Luis Obispo
By:
Date: , 20____
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT:
J. CHRISTINE DIETRICK
City Attorney
By:
Date: , 20____
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
By:
Date: , 20____
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT:
JON ANSOLABEHERE
County Counsel
By:
Deputy County Counsel
Date: , 20____
Page 139 of 525
Page 140 of 525
Page 1
Reimbursement Agreement
Salinas Dam Feasibility Study
This Reimbursement Agreement (“Agreement”) is made on this ____ day of _______, 2025 by
and between the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (“District”)
and the City of San Luis Obispo (“City”), collectively referred to herein as the “Parties”.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) owns the Salinas Dam (“Dam”) and
jointly holds water rights permits with the City; and
WHEREAS, the USACE leases the Dam to the District for its operation and maintenance,
which includes water delivery to the City; and
WHEREAS, the USACE has been evaluating options for disposal of the Dam, including
transferring ownership to a local agency such as the District; and
WHEREAS, said transfer is an opportunity to secure existing and/or additional water supplies
to address needs in the County of San Luis Obispo; and
WHEREAS, to evaluate the transfer, a feasibility analysis of dam ownership, condition, and
retrofit/improvement (“Feasibility Study”) would be required; and
WHEREAS, the State of California has provided a grant to the District in the amount of
$500,000 (“State Grant”) to partially fund the Feasibility Study;
WHEREAS, after a competitive procurement process, the District has tentatively selected
Tetra Tech BAS, Inc. (“Consultant”) to perform the Feasibility Study and enter into an Agreement for
Professional Services (“Consultant Contract”) with the Consultant, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and
incorporated by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the District and the City have a common interest in the performance of the
Feasibility Study and desire to jointly contribute the additional funding necessary for the completion
of the work.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby mutually agreed by the Agencies and District as follows:
1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.
2. Prior to the payment of any funds by the City, the District shall expend the State
Grant, in a manner consistent with the terms of the grant, to pay invoices received
from the Consultant.
3. Once the State Grant is fully expended, the City shall pay the District a sum equal to
fifty (50%) of the costs of each remaining invoice from the Consultant. The City shall
Page 141 of 525
Page 2
make said payment within thirty (30) days of the receipt of each invoice from the
District.
4. Notwithstanding Paragraph 3 above, the City’s payment obligation pursuant to this
Agreement shall not exceed six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000) unless
otherwise agreed by the Parties in writing.
5. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to create a contractual relationship between the
Consultant and the City, nor to obligate or subject the City to any of the terms of the
Consultant Agreement.
6. The District’s contract with the Contractor require the Contractor to maintain
accounting records for contract billings, a monthly detailed statement of all services
performed to be billed at rates set forth in the Consultant’s Cost Proposal, and a
requirement to repay any disallowed costs in Articles 3 and 4 of Exhibit A. The District
and City have a common interest in ensuring that all billings for services provided are
accurate and in accordance with approved work and services.
7. This Agreement has been executed and delivered in, and shall be interpreted,
construed, and enforced pursuant to and in accordance with the laws of the State of
California. All duties and obligations of the parties created hereunder are
performable in the County of San Luis Obispo; and such County shall be that venue
for any action or proceeding that may be brought or arise out of, in connection with,
or by reason of, this Agreement.
8. If any term, covenant, condition, or provision of this Agreement is held by a court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remainder of the
provisions hereof shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected,
impaired, or invalidated thereby. 5.
9. Unless otherwise provided, all notices herein required shall be in writing, and
delivered in person or sent by United States first class mail, postage prepaid. Notices
required to be given to County shall be addressed as follows:
Department of Public Works
Attn: Public Works Director
976 Osos Street STE 207 San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
Notices required to be given to City shall be addressed as follows:
City of San Luis Obispo
Attn: Utilities Director
879 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Page 142 of 525
Page 3
10. This Agreement is intended by the parties as a final expression of their understanding
with respect to the matters contained herein and is a complete and exclusive
statement of the terms and conditions thereof
11. The parties acknowledge that each party and its attorneys have reviewed, negotiated
and revised this Agreement; and that the normal rule of construction to the effect
that any ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be
employed in the interpretation of this Agreement or any document executed and
delivered by any party in connection with the transactions contemplated by this
Agreement
12. This Agreement shall not be changed or modified except upon written consent of all
of the Parties.
13. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an
original and all of which shall constitute a single instrument. Signature pages may be
detached from individual counterparts and attached to a single or multiple original(s)
in order to form a single or multiple originals of this Agreement.
Page 143 of 525
Page 4
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has executed this Agreement with the approval of its
governing body, and District has executed this Agreement in accordance with the authorization of
the Board of Supervisors.
City of San Luis Obispo
By:
Date: , 20____
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT:
J. CHRISTINE DIETRICK
City Attorney
By:
Date: , 20____
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
By:
Date: , 20____
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT:
JON ANSOLABEHERE
County Counsel
By:
Deputy County Counsel
Date: , 20____
Page 144 of 525
Exhibit A - Scope of Work
Task 1: Project Management
• General project management (scheduling, coordination, staff management, invoicing) over the
course of the project.
• Submittal of monthly progress reports to the County.
• Bi-monthly virtual progress meetings. Meetings to be attended by Tetra Tech Project Manager and
specific discipline Task Leaders as appropriate.
Task 1 Deliverables:
1) Monthly progress reports.
2) Meeting agendas and materials (e.g., presentations, minutes)
Task 1 Assumptions:
1) The effort assumes a 24-month project schedule.
2) 12 Bi-monthly progress meetings are assumed to be virtual and 1 hour each.
Task 2: Stakeholder Engagement
• Develop and implement Stakeholder Engagement Plan: Identify key stakeholders, including
landowners and community groups, environmental and historical preservation groups, riparian
landowners, WRAC, NGOs, and recreation partners, as well other governmental entities, including
the State of California DSOD, USACE, City of San Luis Obispo. The Tetra Tech Team will develop an
engagement plan outlining communication strategy, meeting schedules, and feedback mechanisms.
• Regulatory Coordination: Establish early and ongoing dialogue regulatory agencies, including DSOD,
to align seismic safety and retrofit expectations, and the State Historic Preservation Officer, given
the dam’s historical significance.
• Public and Agency Meetings: Present key milestones at WRAC, the Board of Supervisors, and other
public meetings to share progress and solicit feedback.
• Documentation and Feedback Integration: Maintain a stakeholder log to track feedback. Integrate
stakeholder input into the development and evaluation of conceptual alternatives.
Task 2 Deliverables:
1) Admin draft, partner draft and final Stakeholder Engagement Plan
2) Other deliverables as defined in the Stakeholder Engagement Plan (e.g., exhibits, website content,
presentations, message points)
3) Stakeholder log and engagement meeting minutes/outcomes
Task 3 Assumptions:
1) Meetings are assumed to be virtual and 1-hour, unless otherwise specified.
2) Anticipate up to 6 meetings with regulatory and partner agencies, 4 meetings with other key
stakeholders as identified.
3) Deliverables development will include one round of review and comment incorporation.
4) Submittals shall be provided in electronic copy in native file format (e.g., .docx, .pdf, .ppt)
Task 3: Conditions Assessment & Data Gaps Identification
• Document Compilation & Review: Index and synthesize historic and recent reports, O&M manuals,
logs and studies (e.g., environmental review documents, inspection logs, seismic TMs,
tunnel/pipeline assessments, emergency response plans, O&M manuals, USACE studies) as they
relate to the civil, H&H, structural, geotechnical, electrical, mechanical, and environmental
components of the project. Page 145 of 525
• Desktop Evaluation: Establish system parameters including reservoir capacity, drainage,
outlet/spillway configuration, booster/tunnel details, and operational release practices.
• Site Visit: Conduct a limited, targeted inspection of critical features (e.g., dam, spillway, and
appurtenant works) to validate desktop findings and supplement record data.
• Technical Evaluation: Perform technical evaluation of project elements based on available
information.
o Civil: evaluate system layout, dam footprint, conveyance infrastructure.
o Structural: review condition of dam and original design, spillway, and abutments and
general concrete condition.
o Mechanical: assess pumps, valves, outlet works.
o Electrical: review control and power systems.
o H&H: review inflow/outflow records, reservoir capacity, gage data.
o Water supply: evaluation of existing and future water supply.
• Regulatory Baseline: Review DSOD dam safety criteria, previous studies and agency records related
to environmental and historical resources, CEQA/NEPA triggers, Section 106 (SHPO), Clean Water
Act, and ESA compliance pathways.
• Gap Identification: Document deficiencies in geotechnical/seismic inputs, outlet/spillway structural
information, pipeline/tunnel condition, mechanical & electrical system performance, and
environmental/cultural baseline data.
• Workplan Development: Prepare technical workplans to close gaps, specifying scope of
investigations, permitting needs, access coordination, and sequencing.
• Geologic Assessment: As part of the field assessment of the site Tetra Tech will perform a geologic
reconnaissance. This work will include geologic mapping of surface geology including joint patterns,
bedding structure and evidence of shears or faulting. The information will be used to verify and
supplement existing data.
• Geotechnical and Seismology Review: Tetra Tech’s geotechnical and engineering geology personnel
will review all available information including subsurface investigations, geotechnical analyses, and
seismologic characterization of the site. This will include reviews performed by DSOD of previous
studies. Tetra Tech will review as-built plans, previous inspection reports and any geological field
mapping performed for the dam to obtain a thorough understanding of the geology, seismic
response, and expected performance of the site. With this information the Tetra Tech Team will
develop the geotechnical components to all conceptual project alternatives.
Task 3 Deliverables:
1) Conditions Assessment Memo
2) Data gap analysis and Technical Workplan for filling data gaps
3) Policy memo re: existing and future water supply, regulatory requirements, as appropriate.
Task 3 Assumptions:
1) One consolidated 4-hour site visit with all disciplines attending.
2) No formal investigations or inspections will occur with this site visit. The site visit will be used to
confirm documented information from desktop review. Site visit will be limited to observations of
surface features only.
3) County will provide all available records and projections regarding water supply and water demand.
4) No biological or aquatic resource studies will be conducted.
Task 4: Conceptual Alternatives Analysis
• Define Needs to Be Met and Infrastructure Modifications: Identify District’s needs and
objectives and required Civil, Structural, H&H, Mechanical, and Electrical changes for each
concept, including dam and outlet/spillway retrofits, pumping/electrical controls, and potential Page 146 of 525
storage increases.
• Regulatory & Permitting Review: Map the approvals required for each concept (including
DSOD, CEQA/NEPA, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, Section 106 consultation with
SHPO and other state and federal environmental and historical resource permits/approvals
applicable to the project). In addition, a preliminary assessment of listed or at-risk species that
might be affected by operations/enlargement of the Dam will need to be completed to
determine how the District would comply with state and federal species-protection statutes. For
any federally listed species, it may be prudent to evaluate the potential of obtaining incidental
take authorization through section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, rather than section 10, and
the potential of obtaining a consistency determination, rather than an incidental take permit,
under the California Endangered Species Act for species listed under the state act.
• Institutional and Operational Considerations: Document implications of ownership transfer,
O&M responsibilities, and water-rights changes. Define roles and responsibilities of operators,
regulators, internal stakeholders, and external beneficiaries. To properly consider viable
governance alternatives, the analysis will need to consider, or anticipate, the preference of the
District, limitations that might be imposed through the District’s governing act, as well as the
ability to manage the implementation of a specifically proposed governance structure.
• Financial & Economic Analysis: Develop rough order-of-magnitude (ROM) capital and O&M
costs for each concept, paired with potential funding sources. Estimate ROM economic benefits
for each alternative as it relates to water supply, recreation, and other readily monetizable
benefits of the facility. Prepare conceptual benefit-cost ratios and/or overall net benefits of the
alternatives for comparison purposes.
• Water Supply and Policy Issues: Evaluate water supply benefits, reliability under
drought/climate scenarios, and related policy considerations. Identify potential beneficiaries,
water rights implications, and operational scenarios for each concept. Performing an initial
integrated water resources analysis would assist the with determining how additional water
supplies could be managed. As a part of that analysis, each conceptual alternative would be
considered. It could also lead to additional analyses to investigate other storage and use options
that could be more effective in meeting the District’s water demand needs.
• Stakeholder Interests and Liabilities: Identify stakeholder groups (e.g., finance, environmental,
real property, parks, riparian landowners, North County agencies, environmental groups,
regulators) and assess potential impacts, liabilities, and partnership structures for each
alternative.
• Risk/Opportunity Assessment: Identify key risks (e.g., seismic retrofit magnitude, regulatory
delays, stakeholder opposition) and opportunities (e.g., expanded storage, improved reliability,
multi-benefit recreation/environmental enhancements).
Task 4 Deliverables:
1) One-page concept, decision-grade summary sheet for each of the five (5) alternatives
2) Alternatives comparison matrix highlighting costs, risks, and regulatory pathways
3) Ownership Transfer Memo/Recommendations
4) Water Supply/Water Rights Impacts Memo
5) O&M Strategies Memo/Recommendations
Task 4 Assumptions:
1) Alternatives will be conceptual (<10% design), with one sketch/section per alternative. Each
alternative summary sheet will be one page.
2) All cost estimating will be Rough-Order-of-Magnitude.
3) Environmental permitting review is limited to pathway identification and does not include
CEQA/NEPA analysis.
4) Tetra Tech's permitting evaluation will rely on project information available at the conceptual Page 147 of 525
alternative stage. If the project description changes substantively, the evaluation may require
additional budget for revision.
Task 5: Vetting, Ranking, and Recommendation
• Based on District’s priorities, develop a weighted evaluation matrix incorporating technical,
regulatory, financial, and stakeholder dimensions.
• Incorporate the weighted evaluation matrix into a multi-criteria decision-making analysis to
compare alternatives and briefly analyze sensitivities from changes to the weights developed. After
weights are set, run a cost effectiveness analysis on alternatives to provide additional economic
insight into the comparison and selection process.
• Conduct workshops with District, City, USACE, DSOD, SHPO, and stakeholders to vet alternatives.
• Prepare a Recommendation Memo summarizing preferred alternatives and prerequisites (e.g.,
USACE transfer terms, DSOD approvals).
Task 5 Deliverables:
1) Draft and Final Feasibility Recommendation Memo
Task 5 Assumptions:
1) One virtual workshop will be held
Task 6: Feasibility Study
• Refine the selected alternative into a 10% design package (plan view, section, cost estimate).
• Prepare an updated life-cycle cost analysis for the preferred alternative.
• Prepare and refine Feasibility Report consolidating findings from Tasks 1–5 and documenting
alternatives, evaluations, and recommended alternative.
• Incorporate agency and stakeholder
• Incorporate up to 2 rounds of District/agency comments into the Final Feasibility Report.
Task 6 Deliverables:
1) Draft and Final Feasibility Report with 10% Design Package
Task 6 Assumptions:
1) The feasibility study, which will position the District to decide whether to pursue ownership transfer,
under what conditions, and with what commitments, will only evaluate one alternative as the
selected alternative for further refinement.
2) The feasibility study will not require any field investigations, modeling, or other detailed engineering
of project features. Some concept-level assessment or calculation may be included.
3) Quantities and costs developed in this task will be refined but will still be concept level.
4) Feasibility Report will incorporate up to two (2) rounds of District/agency comments.
Task 7: Detailed Planning for Project Development Phases
• Prepare draft scope, schedule, and budget for implementation of the selected alternative.
• Develop a regulatory roadmap covering DSOD submissions, CEQA/NEPA milestones, ESA and CWA
permitting and coordination, and Section 106 consultation with SHPO.
• Prepare a Project Development Planning Memo with decision gates, funding strategies, and phasing
recommendations.
Task 7 Deliverables:
1) Draft Scope, Schedule, and Budget for Implementation
2) Regulatory Roadmap, Project Development Planning Memo Page 148 of 525
Task 7 Assumptions:
1) Regulatory roadmap limited to sequencing/milestone planning, not permit applications or
CEQA/NEPA development.
Task 8 - 10: Optional Tasks
• Subject to future negotiation
Page 149 of 525