Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/4/2026 Item 6a, Collins and Horn - Staff Agenda CorrespondenceCity of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum City of San Luis Obispo Council Agenda Correspondence DATE: August 4, 2026 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Scott Collins, Assistant City Manager Prepared By: Matt Horn, Major City Projects Manager VIA: Whitney McDonald, City Manager SUBJECT: ITEM # 6a- PRADO INTERCHANGE AND PRADO BRIDGE PROJECTS Staff received the following questions regarding the Prado Interchange and Prado Bridge Projects. The questions are below with staff’s response shown in italics: 1) Is there any marked difference in cost for the various aesthetic treatments? Some of them seem to have substantially more elements and I would imagine those will add to the cost. Yes. Based on the project engineer’s preliminary assessment, the three aesthetic themes are expected to have different costs because they include different quantities and types of architectural treatments. Using the Base Theme as a relative cost index of 1.0, the preliminary comparison is: • Base Theme: 1.0 • Modern Mission Theme: approximately 1.5 times the Base Theme • Mission Theme: approximately 1.75 times the Base Theme These factors are preliminary and compare only the relative costs of the aesthetic treatments. They do not mean that the total Interchange Project cost would increase by these percentages. The actual cost difference will depend on the final combination of wall treatments, fencing, railings, landscaping, lighting, materials, and other components selected for incorporation into the project. Because the themes remain conceptual, the project team recommends waiting until completing additional coordination with the Caltrans District Landscape Architect and receiving input from Caltrans Structures before preparing detailed cost estimates. That coordination will clarify which treatments are acceptable and how they must be incorporated into the structural design. Additionally, the themes are also composed of individual elements that can be combined or omitted from a theme. Council may identify a preferred overall theme while selecting or omitting specific components to balance gateway character. Following Council direction and further Caltrans coordination, the selected aesthetic approach will be refined and a more detailed cost estimate prepared. ITEM # 6a- PRADO INTERCHANGE AND PRADO BRIDGE PROJECTS Page 2 2) SPR review: Is the Caltrans review process iterative in that they can make minor or moderate requirements to change the design and staff responds to each of those or is it a final review report and the staff decides what is feasible to modify? “Any substantive change would return to the council” What’s the threshold for substantive? Is it cost or design or both? Caltrans review of the Supplemental Project Report (SPR) is expected to be iterative. The City will submit the draft SPR, and Caltrans may provide comments or require revisions to the supporting analyses, design assumptions, or documentation. The project team will respond to those comments and incorporate changes necessary to obtain Caltrans approval. The City may evaluate how best to address a Caltrans comment, but it cannot unilaterally decline a requirement that Caltrans determines is necessary for work within the State right-of-way or for approval of the SPR. For purposes of the proposed delegation, a substantive change would be one that materially departs from the project scope or policy direction approved by Council. This determination would consider both design and financial impacts. Examples could include a significant change to the approved roadway or bridge configuration, removal or reduction of bicycle or pedestrian improvements, a change to Council’s selected aesthetic direction, or acquisition of substantially more right-of-way. Minor or moderate technical refinements that remain consistent with Council direction, such as adjustments to dimensions, structural details, drainage features, construction methods, quantities, or cost estimates within the approved project scope, would be addressed administratively. Revisions in excess of this threshold would return to Council before final approval.