HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/20/1996, 4 - FLOOD AND WATERWAYS MANAGEMENT PLAN REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS council ,qq
j agenda izEpoat
CITY OF SAN LUI S OBISPO
FROM: Michael D. McCluskey, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Wayne Peterson, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Flood and Waterways Management Plan Request for Proposals
CAO RECONS EI\E IDATION
Authorize the CAO to request proposals from consultants to prepare a Flood Management Plan
for the City of San Luis Obispo and for areas lying within the County Flood Control District-
Zone 9, Specification No. 96-05A.
DISCUSSION
The City last adopted a Flood Management Plan in 1983. That plan was based upon a Master
Plan for the San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed prepared by a consultant for Zone 9 in 1977.
Nearly twenty years have passed since this basis for our flood management policy was produced.
City policies as well as policies of State and Federal agencies have changed and it is time to
reexamine the concepts and design parameters previously adopted.
During the 1995 winter storms, banks of San Luis Obispo Creek were severely eroded in certain
places. In order to repair the damage the City needs to receive permits from the State
Department of Fish and Game, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and the
Federal Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps of Engineers is requiring the City to perform
additional analysis of the flows and erosion potential of the creeks and evaluations to identify the
least environmentally disruptive solution that will solve the problem. No work will be allowed
to stabilize the creek banks and make repairs of damaged areas unless these studies are
completed.
The City lies within Zone 9, a subdivision of the County Flood Control District, and receives
finding for flood related projects along the major water ways. In the 1970's the City was the
lead agency in the development of the Master Plan and Zone 9 paid the cost.
the proposed RFP is designed to hire a qualified engineering firm that can up-date the master
plan, now to be called the Flood Management Plan. The plan will address two subjects: A) the
immediate maintenance needs of three stream areas within and adjacent to the City; and B) the
long term needs of the San Luis Obispo Creek drainage system in both the City and County.
In addition, the Study and plans will allow the City to rethink the needs and nature of annual
maintenance of the creeks in light of increasing costs, generally improved stream capacity , and
a stronger orientation to riparian resource conservation. The study will be a part of the planned
Natural Resource Inventory of the City, including a variety of biological resources within the
riparian areas.
Council Agenda Repod-Flood and Waterways Management Plan RFP
Page 2
If funding is available, contracts for the preparation of construction plans for the highest priority
repair projects will be brought back to Council for approval, followed by lower priority projects.
Likewise, should fimding be sufficient, additional studies to decrease the magnitude of flood
flows and work to revise the FIA flood information rate maps may be negotiated. This project
does not include any work on the City's existing closed conduit (piped) system due to the
expected cost of such an undertaking.
CONCURRENCES
Staff has discussed this program with staff at the County and the Corps of Engineers. They have
concurred with the scope of the work.
This proposal is consistent with Section 6.4, Creeks,Wetlands,and Flooding Policies in the City's
General Land Use Plan and with the 1995-7 Capital Improvement Plan. The work will help to
advance goals established for the Natural Resource program, including the preparation of a
natural resource inventory.
FISCAL IMPACT
The CIP budget includes $50,000 and Zone 9 has budgeted $ 65,000 for this project. It is the
feeling of the staff that the work will substantially exceed the amount of money currently
budgeted both through the CIP and Zone 9. Once a qualified engineering firm is identified, staff
will return to Council with a detailed discussion of the fiscal impacts, and alternatives for
supporting the cost.
Repair projects for the creek banks, eroded in 1995, may be designed at the end of Phase 1 of
this study. These projects are a part of a FEMA 406 application. If the projects are funded for
construction by FEMA, FEMA could also be billed for the design cost and any or all of the cost
of Phase I of this project.
Attachments
Letter from Corp of Engineers
Excerpt from RFP - Description of Work
The Complete request for proposals is available in the Council Office for Review
yz
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT,CORPS OF ENGINEERS
VENTURAFIELD RCE
2151 ALESSANDANDRp DRIVE,SUITE 255
VENTURA,CALIFORNIA 93001
QRMYTO April 30f 1996
Ar EHIWN OF.
Office of the Chief
Regulatory Branch
Mr. Wayne Peterson
City of San Luis Obispo
955 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Dear Mr. Peterson:
As you are aware, the Corps of Engineers Corps) asserted discretionary authority 133
CFR 330.1(d)] over bank stabilization measures rithin San Luis Obispo Creek and its
tributaries that are located within the City's prol erty boundaries due to cumulative adverse
impacts to aquatic resources.'Compliance with tl a nationwide permit program requires that
activities not result in more than minimal indivii lual or cumulative adverse effects on the
environment. Furthermore, Corps regulations r ognize that cumulative effects of numerous
piecemeal changes can result in a major impairment of aquatic resources 133 CFR Part .
320.4(b)(3)]. It appears that existing bank stabilization measures have resulted in substantial
fragmentation of habitat, loss of wildlife movement corridors, severe loss of floodplain
values, channel constriction and incision. The Corps determined that any subsequent
proposal to channelize or otherwise substantially impact San Luis Obispo Creek and its
tributaries would result in greater than minimal cumulative impacts and would require
authorization under an individual permit.
In order to evaluate installation of additional bank stabilization measures, the Corps in
a letter dated October 19, 1995, requested the City submit the following information:
a. A hydraulic study which analyzes the potential upstream and downstream impacts
of installing rock rip-rap in areas where there is currently no bank protection.
b. An analysis of cumulative impacts of bank stabilization projects on San Luis Obispo
Creek and its tributaries located with the City property boundaries. The analysis should
consider anticipated changes in physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the
waterway.
c. Alternatives to rock slope protection which would meet the overall project purpose
of erosion prevention.
d. A detailed revegetation plan in accordance with the Corps' Habitat Mitigation
Guidelines.
CX
X f y3
-2-
On December 5, 1995, you submitted a draft "Request for Proposals" for review and
approval by the Corps. The Proposal outlined the scope of work to be prepared by a
consultant per our October 19, 1995 correspondence. Bid responses from various consultants
suggested that the City would be unable to fund such an undertaking. Therefore, a meeting
was held on February 22, 1996, with representatives from the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board, City of San Luis Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, Corps of
Engineers, and The Lands Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County. The purpose of the
meeting was to discuss the scope of work necessary to meet the concerns of the Corps. In
that meeting, you requested the Corps reconsider the list of requirements presented in our
October 19, 1995 letter. To assist the Corps in making such a determination,you provided
the Corps with the following documents:
a. Nolte, George. Flood Control and Drainage Master Plan for the San Luis Obispo
Creek Watershed. August 1977.
b. Reents, Mary Battershill. Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, San Luis
Obispo Creek Modifications to Accommodate Tract M. July 1978.
c. County of San Luis Obispo. Environmental Impact Report, Zone 9 Flood Control &
Drainage Master Plan. December 1978.
d. Nolte, George. Preliminary Design Report Flood Control Modifications for San Luis
Obispo Creek. December 1981.
e. Nolte, George. Final Environmental Impact Report, San Luis Obispo Creek Flood
Control Modification. August 1982.
f. Corps of Engineers. Final Survey Report for Flood Control and Related Purposes,
San Luis Obispo County Streams. February 1987.
g. City of San Luis Obispo. Water Reuse Project. December 1995.
h. The Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County. Draft San Luis Obispo Creek
Watershed Hydrologic Survey. March 1996.
Your intent in providing these documents was to facilitate reducing duplication of
effort and possibly eliminate the requirement to prepare a study entirely.
We have reviewed these documents in accordance with the "Guidelines for
Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material' 140 CFR Part 230] established by
the Environmental Protection Agency (hereinafter Guidelines). The Guidelines require that
no discharge of dredged and fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable
alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic
ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental
consequences [40 CFR 230.10]. Although there is a fair amount of valuable information
�y
-3-
contained in the documents you provided, the various flood control alternatives previously
considered are outdated (1977-1987), do not consider more modem, environmentally-sensitive
bank stabilization techniques, and do not demonstrate a fundamental appreciation for the
importance of avoiding and minimizing adverse impacts on important aquatic resources.
Furthermore, the hydrology and biological assessments are outdated. Most of the
information was compiled between 1977 and 1987. These assessments do not reflect current
conditions. More recent biological and hydrological assessments were conducted in 1995 for
the Water Reuse Project which occurs in the extreme southern portion of the City. The
hydrology assessment modeled impacts resulting from a decline in the amount of reclaimed
water that would be discharged into San Luis Obispo Creek below the Water Reclamation
Facility,not impacts due to flood control modifications. Furthermore, the biological
assessment studied lower San Luis Obispo Creek and its tributaries at and below the Water
Reclamation Facility. This assessment only addresses a small portion of the watershed that
occurs with the City's property boundaries. Furthermore, the studies do not appear to
contain sufficient control measures to ensure that mitigation measures would be
implemented to offset identified adverse impacts.
We recognize the City's need to provide flood control for local residences and public
facilities both in the short-term and long-term. With this in mind, we have revised the scope
of work accordingly. Because four of the five bank stabilization projects identified as an
immediate need occur in the County of San Luis Obispo's Middle San Luis Obispo Creek
Master Drainage Plan, dated August 1977, you must prepare a detailed alternative analysis
for this entire reach in accordance with the Guidelines. The objective of the analysis shall be
to identify the least environmentally-damaging practicable flood control alternative for this
reach The purpose and focus of this analysis shall emphasize avoidance and then
minimization of important aquatic resources. In addition, you shall develop a mitigation
plan to offset any unavoidable adverse impacts. Condition of approval will be that you also
prepare a comprehensive, long-term drainage plan for San Luis Obispo Creek and its
tributaries located with the City's property boundaries. This plan shall consist of more than
merely updating the County of San Luis Obispo's 1977 Master Drainage Plan. The purpose
and focus of the comprehensive plan is to ensure that aquatic resource impacts are first
avoided, then minimized to the maximum extent practicable. The plan shall include a) an
analysis of alternatives that meet the overall project purpose of anticipated flood control
needs,b) identification of habitat quantity, width and location of habitat fragmentation, and
c) mitigation measures to offset unavoidable adverse impacts.
Please note that if you elect to pursue additional bank stabilization projects beyond
these studied for Middle San Luis Obispo Creek and prior to the Corps approval of the
comprehensive, long-term drainage plan, you will need to seek an individual permit for
those additional projects. In addition, you will need to submit documentation, similar what
is now being required for the Middle San Luis Obispo Creek Drainage Plan, for the entire
drainage plan in which the project lies.
7--s'
-4-
It is highly recommended that you eventually submit a single individual permit
application for the comprehensive, long-term drainage plan. This approach is consistent with
effective watershed planning and is supported by regulations which state that all activities
which the applicant plans to undertake which are reasonably related to the same project and
for which a permit would be required should be included in the same permit application [33
CFR 325.1(D)(2)]. In addition to allowing for complete consideration of incremental and
cumulative impacts, such a planning approach could eliminate the current climate of
continual controversy over each individually proposed project. This process would facilitate
installation of comprehensive flood control measures for local residents, ..,inin ize adverse
effects on important aquatic resources, and, in the long nm,would expedite permit review of
the entire drainage plan.
If you have any questions, please contact Tiffany Welch of my staff at(805) 641-2935.
Please refer to this letter and 95-50327-TAW in your reply.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Schubel
Acting Chief, Regulatory Branch
scxvsEl ;y2'.
CESP -c
pa
CASrANON
CFSPr.CO-RN
VMM
CESPGCO-RN
CF..File Copy(Yellow)AS-5M27-TAW
Clipboard Copy-Lw Angeles
venh=
A. DESCRIPTION OF WORK
1. Introduction
The City of San Luis Obispo and San Luis Obispo County Flood Control Zone 9 are
seeking services from a qualified consultant to provide professional engineering design
services. Consultant will be required to provide the comprehensive services described
below. It should be noted that the chosen consultant will be asked to meet with staff after
being chosen and before the contract is negotiated to clarify the work to be done and the
final contract cost. The consultant will also include in the work schedule ample time for
staff and consultant to review the activities and process to assure the proiect stays
directed and that the final product meets the City's needs including the ability of the City
to obtain permits from the Corps of Engineers and Regional Water Quality Control Board
to repair creek banks damaged in storms.
2. Project Background
The City and Zone 9 need to review and update their flood prevention and management
policies and programs. The Corps of Engineers has determined that due to the number
of creek bank repair projects needed along the banks of San Luis Obispo Creek in the
City, they can no longer issue a Nationwide Permit for the repair work; they have
requested additional information and studies to evaluate repair methods and to validate
that certain storm damage repairs will not cause additional, future, problems. The
information to be developed in this project will be used to request permits from the Corps
of Engineers for repairing stream banks that were eroded during the severe 1995 storms
and to guide future flood prevention and management policies.
The City and Zone 9 also recognize the need to evaluate design standards and create
an inventory of existing facilities. This project will be conducted in three phases: Phase
I, detailed analysis and project designs for 3 reaches of local creeks as described in
Section 3; Phase II, preparation of a data base, design standards and evaluation of major
streams in the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed; Phase 111,watershed management plan
for San Luis Obispo Creek watershed.
This request for proposals is for the work in Phases I and II. The consultants are also
requested to present their approach to Phase I II for a possible contract amendment for
this work. Any work identified as additionally necessary will be separately negotiated or
advertised as a new project.
3. PHASE I-Scope of Work: Immediate Repair Projects
Prepare a comprehensive plan which will include programs for creek channel repair,
improvement, maintenance and environmental mitigation for portions of creeks shown on
Appendix A and listed as follows; 1) San Luis Obispo Creek between the confluence with
A-1
2,
Stenner Creek and South city limit(reaches 8-10); 2) San Luis Obispo Creek north of the
City limits to the 101 Bridge at the base of Cuesta (reach 14); Prefumo Creek from
Laguna Lake to the City limits; and 4) Stenner Creek from its Confluence with San Luis
Obispo Creek to highway 101 culvert. The program shall be based on an engineering
and environmental analysis following the "Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites
for Dredged or Fill Material' (40 CFR Part 230) by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The analysis will identify the least environmentally damaging, practicable flood control,
channel program and stream bank maintenance alternatives. This analysis shall
emphasize avoidance and then minimization of impact on aquatic resources.
a. The repair program should be designed to restore areas of the creek damaged by
high flows during the winter storms of 1995, listed in Appendix B. These projects
are typically meant to restore and stabilize damaged creek banks.
b. The improvement program should identify concepts and projects that enable
creeks to better handle flood flows and restore the natural riparian habitat where
ever possible.
C. The maintenance program should clearly indicate how the responsible agency
should cavy out an annual maintenance program that emphasizes accommodation
of riparian vegetation while minimizing flood threats. This includes vegetative,
debris and structural maintenance to alleviate unacceptable reasonably potential
problems.
d. The mitigation program should be developed to address unavoidable adverse
impacts at the specific repair sites in anticipation of impacts from the
improvements and maintenance activities.
e. The plan resulting from this analysis including the proposed maintenance program
altematives shall be presented to the City and County for draft review and
approval. The document must be approved by the Corps of Engineers.
f. It is anticipated that after receiving Army Corps of Engineers approval of Phase I
work the City will negotiate for the preparation of construction Plans, Specifications
and Estimates for the projects listed in Appendix B dependent on funding
availability.
4. PHASE II - Scope of Work - Long Term Creek Drainage Plan
Prepare a comprehensive long term drainage plan for the San Luis Obispo Creek
watershed. This plan will replace the "Flood Control and Drainage Master Plan for the
San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed", prepared by George S. Nolte &Associates, August
1977. The purpose and focus of the comprehensive plan is to assist the jurisdictions by
identifying maintenance methods and improvement projects necessary to protect the
A-2
public from the danger of flooding while ensuring that impacts on aquatic resources are
avoided or minimized to the maximum extent possible. Programs described in Phase I,
a through d, shall be completed for all creeks in the study as a part of Phase II. The
specific creeks and limits of detailed study are identified in Appendix C.
a. Design Standards
The consultant shall consider and recommend appropriate design parameters for
evaluating storm flows, developing flood protection standards and designing
drainage facilities. These standards need to be comprehensive enough to provide
guidance for all drainage design (both calculations of flow rates and design of
appropriate facilities) in the basin but need not be uniform throughout the basin;
Various criteria (these may vary based on appropriate storm events 10, 25, 50 and
100 year storms, runoff factors, bulking factors, times of concentration etc.) may
be proposed along with variable standards for different land uses and distance
from creeks. Collectively the standards should be appropriate to identify the
potential magnitude of flood problems and provide criteria for design of necessary
projects, both open channel and conduit, to address these problems. The design
standards shall also recommend land use altematives that would reduce the need
for structural flood control.
b. Maintenance and Construction Guidelines.
Using the design parameters, guidelines should be developed for all stream bed
maintenance and construction activities which will be done by governmental and
private entities within this drainage basin. These standards and guidelines must
be consistent with Corp of Engineers concerns for cumulative impacts on stream
hydraulics and habitat. These guidelines should be presented as separate
documents in a camera ready, 8 1/2 x 11 format that is consistent with City
Engineering standards.
C. Creek Inventory
The creeks listed in Appendix C shall be inventoried. Existing revetments and
structures carrying or containing drainage flows must be identified by type and
location. Structures should also be analyzed for storm flow capacity and inspected
for their condition and remaining life expectancy. Stream habitats will be
inventoried to identify reaches which are currently intact and others which are in
need of restoration. Such inventory will include general botanical composition of
the riparian environment, occurrence and abundance of terrestrial wildlife, nature
of the in-stream habitat, aquatic populations (including indicator species such as
mayfly, caddisfly, and dragonfly larvae), and occurrence and abundance of fish
species. Water quality must be evaluated as necessary to summarize the health
(including biological health) of individual reaches. Potential and actual habitat of
A-3
yq
federally listed species will be identified.
A field hydrologist shall develop the necessary cross sections for a computerized
hydraulic model. It is anticipated that no more than 500 cross sections will be
needed.
The watershed tributary streams should be reviewed for erosion potential and
possible management techniques that can reduce flooding problems in the
watershed.
All data collected in this activity shall be presented in a data base that can be read
by Visual Foxpro. Structures and habitat areas shall be located by coordinate
points consistent with the City's horizontal control system (GPS or some other
surveying system approved by the City may be used).
d. Computer Model
A computer model of the entire San Luis Creek water shed will be developed and
will be used to determine flood volumes and velocities in all reaches of the creeks.
Field cross sections will be used to also determine flood levels and identify areas
of deficient capacities. The modeling may be performed using HEC-2, ARCINFO
or another program that is acceptable to the City, County and Corps of Engineers.
The model should be structured so that as different reaches of the creeks develop
problems in the future, specific analyses can be performed to evaluate the
cumulative effects of any proposed repairs or mitigation. These effects can include
changes in upstream and downstream velocities that would impact sedimentation
or erosion characteristics. The model shall include the ability to forecast changes
in flows, velocity etc due to changes in land use within the basin.
A computerized flood study will be completed. Existing precipitation records,
stream flow data and soil surveys shall be evaluated to recommend a correlation
of run-off volumes between rainfall intensity, soil saturation and bulking for each
major and minor creek. Creeks and drainage ways are generally mapped on the
City's 1995 Open Space Element and on 7 1/2 minutes USGS quad maps for
unincorporated areas. Minor creeks having similar characteristics may be
considered in groups.
Copies of the computer model, data files, and associated software with all
documentation, will be delivered to the City and County. Consultant shall provide
up to 20 hours of staff training on the use of the model.
e. Revision of Flood Insurance Rate Maps
A-4
It is anticipated that the flood levels determined in this study may differ from the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps in some areas. If such areas are identified, the
consultant will complete the applications necessary for revising these maps for the
100 year and standard project.flood events. (This item is optional and may not be
included in the final contract.)
f. Project Identification and Evaluation
As the watershed is inventoried and the creeks modeled, certain problem areas
will be recognized and the magnitude of their problems quantified. Problem areas
are those areas with either structural, ecological or hydraulic capacity problems.
The consultant should clearly identify these areas, develop and evaluate
alternatives and recommended mitigation actions for addressing these problems.
The development of alternatives should consider the cumulative issues of the
entire watershed area including land use, habitat preservation, economic and
hydraulic changes.
Projects shall be identified and prioritized in a summary recommendation. Each
project shall have a construction estimate, estimated design cost, mitigation cost,
and an evaluation of benefit. The prioritization of projects shall, at a minimum,
be based upon a benefit to cost ratio. Benefits shall include the value of flood
protection for commercial and residential property, habitat restoration, ease of
implementation (required permits, etc), maintenance verses capital project.
The City will negotiate separately for the preparation of construction Plans,
Specifications and Estimates for any projects identified in this activity dependent
on funding availability.
g. Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan.
The consultant shall prepare a program for providing Habitat Mitigation and
Monitoring for projects. The program shall follow the guidelines provided by the
Corp of Engineers. The program shall be in sufficient detail so as to provide
guidance for the City in preparing and carrying out any such plan for specific
projects that may occur from time to time.
h. Financial Program
A project financing plan must be developed; it must include current cost estimates
for each project and a summary of current, potential, and non-traditional sources
of funds or labor. Attached is a staff report given to Council this past spring which
discusses various methods of financing drainage projects. The Council after
reviewing the report agreed with staff that a Drainage Utility District deserved
further investigation. The Consultant may have additional information regarding
A-5
N
the pros and cons of a Drainage Utility District and may also have information
regarding other methods of financing drainage projects. The consultant shall
investigate reasonable alternates available to the City and report on how each
would benefit the community and outline how each could be implemented.
i. Operation and Maintenance
An operation and maintenance program which emphasizes avoidance and then
minimization of habitat impacts as much as possible covering the entire study area
will be developed. This plan will include a review of the current maintenance
program for stream channels and structures. A maintenance monitoring program
with criteria for determining needed action should be developed. The inventory of
structures should be presented here with a recommended schedule for needed
or anticipated maintenance. This program will include recommendations for
budget, staffing, and frequency of activity necessary to properly maintain the
creeks with in the City limits.
j. Mapping
The consultant shall provide a data base and linkages to allow GIS mapping that
is compatible with the City of SLO's current software: Visual Fox Pro and ARC
View 2.0 (3.0) An AUTOCAD base map of the city, prepared with GPS
coordinates (metric) and a digital ortho photo set for each metric grid in the entire
water shed are available through the city. A digital aerial (resolution 0.3 meter)
includes a digital elevation model allowing the creation of contours is also
available. Contact Alan Hopkins, 781-7167, for more information about specifics
and availability. Additional information about soil type, vegetation and land use are
available by contacting Walt Bremmer, 756-1319, at the Landscape Architecture
Department at Cal Poly. All GPS points and geographical data shall be collected
on NAD 83 datum and related to the City's horizontal control net.
All components of the data base shall be identified with x, y, and z coordinates
(metric) and be field verified. Specific structure, format and/or precision needs will
be negotiated between the consultant, City and County. Speck coverages
(layers) should be developed for each of the major classes of data collected.
These include, at a minimum, the culvert and bridge inventory, flow rates, sub-
drainage basins, revetment inventory, habitat inventory, flood zones by depth of
water, future projects, and tributaries/sub-watersheds.
k. Consultant Submittals-Phase completion.
Draft documents shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. This
phase will be complete when both of the following activities have been completed:
a) City staff has approve the product and presented it to the City Council with the
assistance of the consultant.
A-6
b) The Corps of Engineers has issued a letter indicating their willingness to issue
Nationwide permits based on the procedures and guidelines included in the Plan.
5. PHASE III - Scope of Work - Water Shed Management Plan
The flooding and erosion problems in SLO Creek can be summarized as too much water,
carrying too much debris, and moving too fast. Phase II is targeted to identify and
quantify these problems and identify projects that control and mitigate their impacts on
adjacent property or riparian habitat. Phase III will be to develop a long term watershed
management plan to reduce these problems. This work is not a part of this contract, but
the consultant is invited to present approaches to this study. If, at the end of Phase II,
there is a clear need and available funding, a contract amendment may be issued for the
Phase III work.
Activities that would be included in this phase include looking at ways to manage runoff
from the land to;
1) reduce the rate of flow in the creeks downstream, and
2) reduce the amount of siltation and debris carried in the flows, and
3) minimize the impacts of high flow rates on downstream properties.
6. UNITS OF MEASURE
Units of measure for all work shall be presented based on the following criteria:
Dimensions of all existing improvements shall be listed in metric units with english
conversion appended parenthetically. All proposed and future improvements and design
plans shall be completed in metric(with english conversions appended parenthetically for
projects in County areas). Contour maps shall be presented in metric units (both metric
and english in County areas) . All maps shall be provided in digital format to allow the
City/County the option to produce maps in either unit of measure.
7. RESPONSIBILITIES - TASKS - SUBMITTALS
The consultants proposal shall provide a detailed list of tasks, submittals and final
products that will be completed by the consultant to carry out the project as described.
The detailed list shall also state those responsibilities that the consultant will expect the
City to perform.
8. CITY MATERIALS AVAILABLE TO CONSULTANT.
a. Nolte, George. Flood Control and Drainage Master Plan for San Luis
Obispo Creek Watershed, August 1977.
b. Reents, Mary Battershill. Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, San
Luis Obispo Creek Modifications to Accommodate Tract 592. July 1978.
A-7
C. County of San Luis Obispo.Environmental Impact Report, Zone 9 flood
contrl & Drainage Master Plan. December 1978.
d. Nolte, George. Preliminary Design Report Flood Control Modifications for
San Luis Obispo Creek. December 1981.
e. Nolte, George. Final Environmental Impact Report, San Luis Obispo Creek
Flood Control Modification. August 1982.
f. Corps of Engineers, Final Survey Report for Flood Control and Related
Purposes, San Luis Obispo County Streams, February 1987.
g. City of San Luis Obispo, Water Reuse Project. December 1995.
h. The Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County, San Luis Obispo Creek
Watershed Hydrologic Survey. May 1996.
End of Section
HOLD FOR MAP EXHIBIT A
A-8
Appendix A
San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed
Main Stem Reaches
r
Foothill Blvd. °
12 1' 14
Stenner Creek
1
`°so 10
a '
oa opo
�qaa 9
gm :••-. ..
,4 San Luis
y° Obispo -
......:..........
:' •i
Buckley Rd •
\s
u
5
4
11
" 4
" San Luis Bay Dr.
2
Hwy.101 N
Pacific Ocean A
IEEE. a AGENDAl
DATE. & ITEM #
RICHARD SCHMIDT
112 Broad Street,San Luis Obispo, G ur CL D
�Q%fMI:rschmldt�di�!bdu
IQ ACAO ❑ F5E CHIEF
August 20, 1996 Q�TTORNEY w DIR
�/CLERWORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
20 Agenda, Item 4 Flood Management Plan ❑ C READMGWrFAM ❑ REC DIR
Re: Aug.
g � g � ❑ C READ FILE ❑ U71L DIR 1
r _ ❑ PERS DIR
To the City Council:
The proposed procedure for "revising" (equals, I fear, "gutting") the existing "pink book"
FMP is a recipe for destroying the scenic, esthetic and natural values of our creek
system, and for turning it into a system of engineered channels.
I know, that's not what McCluskey claims he is doing, but his claims about
environmental sensitivity are belied by the actuality of what he proposes.
A simple analogy is in order: If you have a cow and want it prepared for the freezer, you
hire a butcher. If you have a brain tumor and want it removed in an "environmentally
sensitive manner,"you don't hire the same butcher, you hire specialists: a brain surgeon
for the dirty work, perhaps a plastic surgeon to finish things nicely.
Mr. McCluskey proposes to hire engineers (in context, the analogical equivalent of the
butcher above) to come up with standards for the environmental protection of our
creeks!! NONSENSE. You hire the right person for the job at hand. All this mouthing of
words about environmental protection is mere lipservice if you hire a butcher instead of
a plastic surgeon for your cosmetic jobs.
So, THE ENTIRE APPROACH IS WRONG, AND SHOULD BE REJECTED BY THE
COUNCIL.
Point #2: It doesn't make any difference what's in the FMP if you don't follow it. Current
staff doesn't follow it. As a result the creeks are being destroyed for every purpose
except floodways.
For example, as a member of the long-deceased Waterways Planning Board,' I had a
hand in drawing up the preferential list of methods for reinforcing damaged creek banks.
Our list ruled out the engineer's preferred method, concrete, in favor of methods that
were both more esthetically pleasing and more biologically sound. OUR LIST IS
TOTALLY IGNORED BY CURRENT STAFF, even though it is "city policy"to follow the
list's prescriptions. Staff prefers a method not on the list -- gabions -- a piling of rock and
' How quaint that we even had such a board. Now, if a board isn't made for or controlled by Mr.
Dunn's"frequently called city phone number"agency,the Chamber of Commerce, it doesn't count.What
city board currently exists for the arcane purpose of protecting the natural environment?YDU should be
ashamed, though it's too much to expect him to be. _
AUG 2 :i 1396
CITY CLERK
tangling of wire mesh that destroys creeks just as readily as concrete, and doesn't stay
in place, to boot. I am appalled by the spreading plague of gabions in our creeks.
Nothing can be uglier. Nothing can be more detrimental to creek life except perhaps
concrete channels. Yet staff keep proposing, and council keeps approving, their use.
An example of the gabion plague: about a quarter mile downstream from my property
the city redid a portion of Old Garden Creek with unvegetated gabion walls and a -- if
you can believe thisl -- gabion bottom. What had been a bucolic creek is now a channel.
But the effects on wildlife are astonishing. No longer do I see trout in my own stretch of
the creek; I assume they cannot pass over a section of creek whose bottom is a tangle
of exposed wire mesh. No longer does the occasional muskrat venture into my section
of creek, leaving his silent wake spreading behind his furry above water nose. The
engineers have killed Old Garden Creek. GOOD WORK, GUYS! 1 await more of the
same if the Council allows them to proceed with their current revamp of the FMP.
So, two points:
1. Kill this proposed revamp of the FMP on grounds it is an environmental sham.
2. Direct staff to follow existing environmentally sensitive city policies, and
KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THOSE POLICIES YOURSELVES THAT YOU KNOW
WHEN THEY'RE JIVING YOU, AND TO SAY NO! There are a lot of people in town
who can give you guidance if only y&u_ seek it.
Sincerely,
Richar Schmidt