The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08/15/1989, C-3 - SUBMITTAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR ""CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, OLD GARDEN CREEK, CENTER STRE" MEETING DATE City Of San LUIS OBISPO August 15, 1989 COUNCIL ENC► REPORT ITETu,NUMBB� David F. Romero Wayne A. Peterson Prepared by: Bridget O.Fraser Public Works Director City Engineer Engineering Assistant; SUBJECT: Submittal of Plans and Specifications for "Creek Improvement Project, Old Garden Creek, Center Street to 250' Southerly, City Plan No. J-14H". RECOMMENDATION: By resolution, approve the plans and specificatons, authorize the Staff to advertise for bids and authorize the CAO to award the contract in accordance with Purchasing Control Procedure 403-3. BACKGROUND: This project consists of modifying the channel to provide a more uniform flow and to increase the capacity of Olde Garden Creek which is currently impeded due to a hump along the profile of the bed. This hump slows the water velocity and allows silt and debris to deposit upstream along the creek bed and through the Center Street culvert, thus reducing the hydraulic capacity of the culvert and causing a damming effect which will increase the risk of flooding during wet years. Gabion walls will be constructed downstream of the culvert to provide protection to the creek banks which are eroding and to create a uniform cross section. As many trees as possible will be saved along this stretch of creek. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds for this project will be appropriated from Zone 9 allocations. The estimated costs are as follows: Base Bid: $39,000.00 Contingencies: 3,000.00 - Total: $42,000.00 CONCERNS OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS: This project has been given an EIR clearance by the Community Development Department. Status: Negative Declaration. The Community Development Department also assisted with the design to preserve as many trees as possible. CONSEQUENCE OF NOT TAKING RECOMMENDED ACTION: The project may be more expensive to construct ut a later date, and the risk of flooding will increase as the capacity of the stream and culvert continue to decrease. The banks along the creek will continue to erode leading to loss of trees and backyards. C 411111IqNCity Of san luis-omspo IM COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT City Plan No. J-14H Meeting of August 15, 1989 Page Two. ACTION RECOMMENDED: Approve the Plans and specifications, authorize staff to advertise for bids and authorize the CAO to award the contract. APPROVE ' ity ministrative fficer • i City Att�orn i Hance Director Public Works Director t I Attachment - Resolution (Plans and specs available in the Council Office for inspection) i I I I 'r RESOLUTION NO. (1989 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AUTHORIZING STAFF TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS AND AUTHORIZING CAO TO AWARD CONTRACT TO SUCCESSFUL BIDDER WHEREAS, funds for the improvement of Olde Garden Creek are available through the Zone 9 allocations; and WHEREAS, the project is categorically exempt from an EIR, and is not of sensitive or exceptional community interest; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby approves the Plans and Specifications for City Plan 'No. J-14H, "Creek Improvement Project: Olde Garden Creek - Center Street to 250' Southerly"; directs staff to advertise for bids; and authorizes the CAO to award the contract to the low bidder if bids are below the Engineer's Estimate. On motion of seconded by -� and on the following roll call vote.: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of 1989.. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED: City A nistrative Of icer CA City Attorn Figdecirector Public Works Director bof2/j14h-sr �� MOM AGENDA RECEIVED DAT Ls&4 ITEM # AUG 15 WS 112 Broad Street San Luis Obispo *Denotes action by lead Person PAN LM CLERK Ca, CALIFORNIA 93401 Respond by. August 14, 1989 Regarding Item C-3, Aug. 15 Agenda -- AGAIN! �o ' lerk..�y��g. r,�'g,,('oMcRO City Council City of San Luis Obispo C Dear City Council This is a follow-up to my previous letter on this matter . Subsequent to writing that letter , I reviewed the staff report , plans and specs for this project . I am dumbfounded! This is not the minor project I had been told it was by staff . THIS IS A MAJOR CREEK REBUILDING along an entire. block of very natural creek . This project has never had public review. This project's environmental review was handled with a negative declaration , which is a highly dubious procedure , giver, its magnitude and the array of obvious issues not dealt with . The rationale for a project of this magnitude is not supported by documentation presented in the staff report . Why is a _projec-t_ -of this size and type being handled in this "secret-ive" manner : no public review-, no routing to the citizen creek constituency organizations for comment ,• cursory staff report accompanying hard-to-understand blans (could a developer get awav with these?) and boiler plate specs Cis the creek being paved?) submitted for approval as a CONSENT ITEM on the -CounciI agenda?! Really! This is absolutely incredible , given the public's concern about protecting creeks. Is this what has become of "open government , " of "community involvement?" As I said, I am dumbfounded. This may be good "management , " but it ' s rotten public policy. �, I certainly hope you don' t follow the recommended action . Schmidt , Page ^c This issue needs airing -- both the creek project itself , and the out-of-public-view manner in which the project has been handled . Sincerely , i Richard Schmidt P. S. The creek's name is, and always has been , Old Garden Creek . There's no need to cutesy it with Olde . ' MEETING AGENDA DATE 4°ale TEN, # �-,"3 112 Broad Street San Luis Obispo ER"p" by limyCALIFORNIA 93401 T�_August 12, 1989 Regarding Item C-3, Aug. .15 Agenda e) City Council City of San Luis Obispo Dear City Council : I wish to offer the following concerns about this item: I own a portion of Old Garden Creek several hundred yards upstream from this creek project. I am concerned that the environmental studies for this creek project are inadequate to determine whether this project will have advs.- se environmental impacts on portions of Old Garden --Creek not directly involved—in the project . I—furt4er-=raise the question whether anyone rea' ' y understands what sort of impacts the project might have on other parts of the creek . "^:r caneerns _ tem from history. I have owned my property for 17 years , and during that time h-ave obser-. edi many interesting events in the life of the creek . Perhaps the most alarming of t ese events has been rapid bottom erosion ( i .e . , cutting down of the channel ) which began in the late 1970s and accelerated in the early 1980s . At my southern property boundary, where for ,years I put a summertime fence across the creek to contain, m;- pet ducts and therefore have positive markers and points of reference to show where the =reek bottom was formerly located, the bottom erosion in the past decade has amounted to at least two and a half feet on the vertical . Needless to say, it is no longer Possible to fence this deeply eroded channel . The entire character of the creek has changed. For the first - 8 years I lived along it , the portion through my yard and my upstream neighbors' was a gently flowing stream, nearly level in slope , with large still pools of water all summer long. Now the pools are all gone , and the creek is a steep cascading torrent in winter , and a barren relatively steep rock-strewn channel in the summer . I was at a loss to understand why this sudden vertical erosion , which is cutting away at the base of a massive stone retaining wall built in the 1930s, and at the base of a huge tree that has grown peacefully and beautifully for years-it E ED D f_x 14 lJb:j CITY CLERK SAN LU►5.9 Schmidt , Page 2 About a year ago I had the opportunity to discuss this erosion on site with Dave Romero. He said the creek bottoms throughout town were all eroding in this fashion , and that the apparent cause was the widening done in the 1970s on San Luis Creek below the sewer plant. That project , he said, has speeded the flow of water through town , with the result that the flow lines have lowered- into the earth . 1 was astonished, yet the idea does make sense . Nonetheless, I don' t recall this being one of the environmental impacts mentioned in the EIR on the. San Luis Creek widening project . MY point is this : if a project which sped the flow so far away could have the major effect noted in my backyard, what will be the effect of a speed-increaa- ing project much closer to home? Goes anyone have any idea? ` Or will this project be Yet another environmental exp,:r-imgnt?_ :. If the erosion is quickened, and trees, banks and retaining Wall "=_ a.re lost , is the city planning tc _at _ cnR„o c F F nprivate property owners for the d .mage it has caused? Ther questions about off-site. environmental effects need to be addressed orior to commencement of any more creek a.! ter inq pr,Dj :ct _ , - Sir;cerely Richard Schmidt