Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/19/1988, 10 - DETENTION DAMS UPSTREAM OF THE CITY II►N�IN�i��IIII�II+fp�IIuIN MEETING DATE: N II'�ull city Of San LUl$ OBI$p0 arch 75, 198R. COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER FROM: David F. Romero, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Detention dams upstream of the city CAO RECOMMENDATION: By motion, direct staff to proceed with engineering study BACKGROUND_ At its meeting of October 8, 1987, the Council considered the possibility of contracting for an engineering study to determine the feasibility of installing detention dams upstream of the city to assist in control of peak storms. Staff was directed to prepare a scope of work and to determine if Zone 9 Advisory Committee was willing to recommend that funds be appropriated to share in the cost of the study. Staff prepared a scope of work and presented this, together with the request for financial participation, to the Zone 9 committee. At its January 20, 1988 meeting, the committee determined that it did not wish to participate in the study. (Action was to table the matter for a year) . Various reasons were put forth by committee members: a) It is time to stop studying and start doing, b) not the most cost effective use of funds, c) further studies would slow down needed improvement projects, d) the current budget does not contain funds for this kind of a study, e) there are already enough studies showing that detention dams are not feasible, f) even if the studies show detention facilities are feasible, environmental and cost considerations would probably prevent the improvement project, g) detention basins would have a negative effect on the pristine environment upstream of the city. The committee adopted a further motion supporting the Flood Management Policy set forth in the pink book; that is conducting small projects first, with the ultimate goal of developing 40 year storm capacity through the city. (Minutes of January 20, 1988 are attached - Exhibit A) . Reasons stated by individual Zone 9 committee members are valid, however if the City is ever to resolve its flood problem, this primary possibility must be studies in sufficient detail that all . parties are satisfied. If the study shows that some type of detention facility is feasible and would be cost effective, additional studies (such as geotechnical, land acquisition, and environmental) would be required. If the study shows these facilities are not feasible, the matter can be laid to rest and staff can proceed with an update of the pink book. ����►�► i��ullllllllll1QII�IU city of san tu. oeispo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Detention Page Two An RFP for the study has been prepared for the first phase of the work (Attached, Exhibit B) . The RFP has recently been revised to include the concept presented by the Land Conservancy, that is, off-streamdetention, with benefits to recreation and stream augmentation. Alternatives: 1. Council may approve hiring a consultant to conduct the study (staff recommendation) . 2 . Council may determine that there is no need for further study and direct staff to update pink book based on current information. 3. No Action - Council should direct staff as to appropriate action. Fiscal Impact• Study as outlined in the RFP should cost around $15, 000. If the detention dams are found to be feasible, additional studies costing in excess of $50, 000 will be required before a final determination can be made regarding a particular site. If upstream detention proves to be feasible, millions of dollars of downstream creek widening costs might be avoided. Although not specifically designated for a study, sufficient surplus funds are available within the Flood Control Capital accounts in the current budget to pay for the first phase study. Comments from Other Agencies: The Zone 9 Committee has refused to participate in the study. The SLD Land Conservancy is very much in favor of the study, particularly following the concept of off-stream detention. The Conservancy may offer to participate financially if it receives a grant. RECOMMENDATION Staff is convinced that the only way to proceed with a meaningful Flood Management Program is to address this issue. Therefore staff recommends that it be directed to proceed with the study. Attachments: Zone 9 minutes RFP AVIWA detention/dfr#10 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT ` ZONE 9 ADVISORY COMMITTEE Chairman Parsons convened the meeting at 1 :32 p .m. on Wednesday , January 20, 1988 in the Auditorium of the Cooperative Extension, University of California, 2156 Sierra Way, Suite C, San Luis Obispo, CA. The attached sheet shows those in attendance . Chairman Parsons had those in attendance introduce themselves and he noted that Joe Guidetti is the alternate for Walt Christensen representing the Ag liaison and that Dennis Cox is an alternate member representing the City of San Luis Obispo. Chairman Parsons then advised that it was time for the annual elections of Chairman and Vice Chairman and appointment . of the secretary for 1988. He further advised that he had served the allotted time as Chairman, so he could not be considered for the Chairman 's job in 1988. He then called for nominations . Wayne Peterson nominated Joe Glass as Chairman. Marshall Ellis seconded the nomination. Marshall Ellis then moved th . t4n ominations be closed. Walt Christensen seconded theamination. Joe Glass was then unanimously elected Chairman for 1988. oy Parsons then turned over the Chairmanship job to Joe Glass. Joe Glass then asked if there were nominations for Vice Chairman . Roy Parsons nominated Walt Christensen and Walt advised that he a problem that will last for the next year, and that he has a conflict with an agricultural advisory board that meets the same time and that he would prefer not being considered. Marshall Ellis then nominated Wayne Peterson as Vice Chairman. Roy Parsons seconded the nomination. Marshall Ellis then moved that nominations be closed. Dennis Cox seconded the motion; Wayne Peterson then was unanimously elected Vice Chairman for the calendar 1988. Chairman Glass then asked for motions concerning the appointment of secretary. Marshall Ellis nominated Clinton Milne to continue as secretary. Roy Parsons seconded the motion ; Marshall Ellis then moved that nominations be closed and Roy Parsons seconded it and Clinton Milne was unanimously appointed secretary for 1988. Secretary Milne advised that he occasionally has conflicts with the meetings , for example on the next scheduled meeting on March 16th he is scheduled to be in Sacramento and he recommended that the Committee appoint an alternate secretary to take over when he. had a conflict and suggested that the alternate secretary be Glen Priddy. Accordingly, Wayne Peterson moved that Glen Priddy be appointed as alternate secretary. Marshall Ellis seconded the motion. Glen Priddy was unanimously appointed as alternate secretary. Chairman Glass then asked if the minutes of the meeting of September 16, 1987 were acceptable as submitted. Roy Parsons noted that he did not believe that Wayne Peterson was absent . He had recalled him being in attendance, furthermore Dyer Campbell , Jerry Kenny and Bob Walker were not in attendance as the . minutes showed. With those corrections, Wayne Peterson moved that the minutes be approved. Roy Parsons seconded the motion and the minutes of the September 16, 1987 meeting as corrected were unanimously approved. Chairman Glass then indicated it was time for public comments . There were none. Chairman Glass then went onto the matter of the Land Conservancy' s Urban Streams Enhancement Grant Program report and asked Bob Jones if he would make the presentation. Bob Jones noted that he and a number of Committee members had commitments requiring that the meeting be short ._ Therefore, with the Group' s approval he suggested that items 5 and 6 could be discussed together with the focus being on item 6, which is the proposed City of San Luis Obispo Feasibility Study of Upstream Detention of Flood Flows on San Luis Obispo and 2 /�� / Stenner Creeks . He said that the review of the Land Conservancy ' s report could be held over until the next meeting of the Zone. 9 Advisory Committee if that were acceptable. Roy Parsons asked if the City of San Luis Obispo would be taking action before the next Zone 9 meeting scheduled for March 16, 1988? Dave Romero responded that he had sent a special report to the City Administrative Officer concerning the Land Conservancy ' s report . He said that his comments were that it is generally favorable. He had recommended that the City- work with the Land Conservancy. He said that he felt that it was okay to put off the detailed discussion until the next meeting . Thereafter Roy Parsons then moved that the report be continued to the next meeting, and Wayne Peterson seconded the motion . Ron Dunin asked Bob Jones would he be making financial recommendations and could those be ready for the next meeting? Bob Jones acknowledged that they could. Ron Dunin then expressed his philosophy of "stop looking and start doing. " He said that the Land Conservancy is asking an additional $35,000 funding from the Department of Water Resources. He said that during the discussion at. City Council, he had . supported that application based upon positive comments by City staff and by the Land Conservancy. He said that it 's very nice to protect the flora and the fauna, but what about property? Marshall Ellis said that he agreed with Ron Ounin that consideration should also be given to property rights. Bob Jones then brought up the matter of the detention dams and the City 's "Pink Book" update. Dave Romero reported that the update of the "Pink Book" as requested by City Council was done so with a requirement that such be coordinated with the Land Conservancy and with Zone 9. Dave then reminded that the "Pink Book" called for upgrading of the stream system through the City to accommodate a 40-year storm in • the upper reaches . He said that some Council members are not yet convinced that all alternatives have been 3 considered and that others should be looked at , like the detention basin. Harold Miossi referred to the Land Conservancy ' s report on page S-2 where it talks about the recommendation to defer action on widening of 11, 000 feet of creek channel , and he asked what reach was that? Bob Jones and Dave Romero confirmed that it was the reach from the sewer plant upstream to the confluence with Marsh and Higuera Streets. Bob Jones then advised that the recommendation is to defer action on the 11,000 foot creek channel widening until the matter of the feasibility of an upstream diversion project is determined . Wayne Peterson then called for the question on the matter of tabling the report discussion until. the next meeting. The vote was unanimous to table it until the next meeting. Ron Dunin then complimented the Land Conservancy on their report . He said the good report represented value paid. Chairman Glass then brought up item 6 on the agenda and asked Dave Romero to review the proposed City of San Luis Obispo Feasibility Study of Upstream Detention of Flood Flows on San Luis Obispo and Stenner Creeks . Dave Romero reminded that copies of the City ' s request for proposals (RFP' s) had been sent to all Zone 9 members and alternates . He said that he had also sent a copy to Jim Schaaf. Jim Schaaf is the one who has done a number of studies for the County and the City in the San .Luis Obispo Creek area . He said that Jim Schaaf felt that the RFP was generally acceptable. Dave did note that there was now an exception to the RFP in that the City had envisioned a detention reservoir as tbeing on-stream and that the Land Conservancy was proposing one as an off-stream facility . This is another approach that should be considered. He said originally it was felt that the RFP would result in a cost of about $10, 000 estimate for a reconnaissance type study. Now perhaps that $109000 should be increased to $150000. Dave then noted that if at the 4 l6'-� reconnaissance level study was promising there would be additional studies feasibility studies, geologic evaluations and that perhaps eventually - we could be talking about costs in the order of $75, 000 to $100, 000 if the project looks feasible. Roy Parsons observed that a Tot of dollars have been spent on studies. He said that a study might prove a project feasible, but politically it could go down the tubes and that it will probably take a major disaster to get things going in the right direction. He felt that perhaps the best use of the money was doing the small projects . Dave Romero noted that the earlier studies by Nolte and by the Corps of Engineers envisioned a large dam just upstream from Highway 101. He said that Harold Miossi had hired a geologist who had some comments about it being in a seismically unsafe area. Dave Romero noted that what was envisioned was a reservoir . that would be dry except during the height of the floods so the seismic safety matter shouldn ' t be of great consideration . Dave noted that the Land Conservancy is now envisioning a multi-purpose project ; not just flood control, but water conservation and environmental benefits too. Marshall Ellis asked about recharge from a multi-purpose project . Marshall was concerned that at the site proposed there wouldn 't be any recharge. John Ashbaugh noted that the recharge is not considered to be likely at the site ; what they are envisioning is that there would be a release made downstream which would allow infiltration to occur where the stream is dry and thus recharging the well field below the City. Marshall Ellis asked wasn' t the City now studying the groundwater situation?. Dave Romero responded that they were indeed and had hired Jahn Wallace & Associates Consulting Engineers and Tim Cleath, a hydrogeologist, to do the study. 5 V Bob Jones reported that the reason the Land Conservancy had suggested the upstream detention was because John Merriam, a former member of the Zone 9 Advisory Committee, had become very excited about its potential. He said that doing work downstream doesn ' t benefit all parties, but the upstream detention basin concept would benefit all. Roy Parsons observed that he was against detention because it would slow down work on the bottleneck problems. Roy Parsons then asked if Zone 9 voted against this , what are the prospects of Federal funding? Dave Romero and Clint Milne both had the opinion that there would little chance of Federal funding of another study in the area. Likely an additional study wouldn' t occur until another major disaster occurred. Harold Miossi observed that the group should be looking at rainfall patterns . He also observed that the reservoir could fill under a large storm and that it then wouldn ' t provide much downstream protection. Perhaps doing the 11 ,000 foot upgrading widening project in the City would be better and not result in losing time and money . The Land Conservancy does not intend to delay "other projects. " Roy Parsons expressed his opinion that he was afraid of the report simply calling for more studies . Secretary Milne then reminded the group that the City ' s request for Zone 9 financial assistance could pose a problem in that Zone 9 funds are limited from the share of the, actual revenue that Zone 9 gets as a result of Proposition 1.3. The entire revenue is now committed to programs such as the small projects , the Giant Reed Eradication Program and the Streambed Clearing Program. For the Zone 9 to assist in funding the study would merely be taking funds for those programs and putting them into the cost of the study . He said that Zone 9 could not increase its revenue to do more unless there was a vote of the people within Zone 9. He said that a special tax or an ad valorem assessment could be done with a 2/3rds approval of the voters or a benefit assessment could be done by a simple majority of the voters, but he reminded too that there was a time element in getting voter approval. The bottom line is that Zone 9' s funds are limited and the work should be done on the basis of priorities. Secretary Milne also expressed the opinion that the cooperation couldn ' t take place until next budget year unless the City Council and the Board of Supervisors agreed to amend the current agreement with the City whereby funds would be taken from projects and diverted to the proposed upstream detention study. Wayne Peterson said that he thought that this upstream detention study fit very well into the Zone 9 guidelines. John Ashbaugh noted that the small projects work has been going on for five years and he thought it was appropriate for Zone 9 to also help in the financing of the proposed study. John Ashbaugh also noted that the Land Conservancy proposes to help in the study if their application for $359000 additional funding is approved. Ron Ounin asked what ' s "cost-effective?" He hears about these projects never being cost-effective, but he said that his personal experience was such that his home was damaged an estimated $10, 000, and in fact, it cost $25,000 and moreover his wife would not live in the home anymore, so he had to move. Clinton Milne explained that some of those "costs" are in.tangibles and are not included in a cost-effective analysis. Dave Romero noted that that ' s why the City of San Luis Obispo is going ahead on projects even though they don 't meet the benefit-cost test. Ron Dunin then expressed the opinion that they might not be cost-effective to people like himself, but the projects seem to be cost-effective if the environment is concerned. /�-9 Harold Miossi then asked if the problem with the City Council was environmental or political? Dave Romero responded "yes" . Roy Parsons then asked the agricultural representatives what their views were about the proposed upstream detention dam? Walt Christensen said that he felt that it was a "God damn joke . " He does not believe that it ' s feasible and that he would vote "no" on it . Secretary Milne then noted that if had understood John Ashbaugh correctly the Land Conservancy was proposing that the upstream detention be a project that would meter out the flow to accommodate a 40-year storm. If so , that still met downstream improvement as proposed by the City of San Luis Obispo in the "Pink Book" . John Ashbaugh said that he probably had said that wrong ; the Land Conservancy isn' t willing to go that far yet , it ' s probably something . less . Dave Romero was asked about when, the "Pink Book" was published , he noted that it was 1983, but really was the successor to a number of other policy statements . Ron Dunin noted that the "Pink Book" was to answer the concerns. Secretary Milne then asked Ron Dunin if the study were done on the upstream detention and the results were that it was not feasible, did Ron Dunin think the Coun d go along with the "Pink Book" recommendations? Ron Duni( avoided �nswerq the question. ' Bob Jones brought up the matter of the Land Conservancy recommendations about floodproofing. He said that floodproofing won ' t eliminate but would reduce flooding. He said that perhaps with one of these big storms coming up as part of a five-day storm that people could be alerted in time to get their floodproofing measures in .place so that damages would be reduced. Secretary Milne responded that the problem is not with a three- or four-day storm, as the matter of fact , the time of concentration when the peak 8 �_�a runoff . can occur is so short, perhaps in the order one-half hour or less , that it 's most difficult to alert the populace so that their floodproofing efforts can .be done in a timely manner. Harold Miossi said that in his listening to the City Council ' s deliberations , he felt that the Council wasn ' t in favor of going ahead with the projects yet, but the Council was in favor of another study. R.oy Parsons then asked if any member was willing to make a motion to go ahead with the study? There was no response. Roy Parsons then made the motion that the item be tabled for one year and then it be reconsidered, if appropriate. Marshall Ellis seconded the motion. The motion was then approved. There were no "no" votes, but Ron Dunin wanted the record to show that he had .abstained from voting because of his previous vote on the City Council. Dave Romero then asked if Roy would give some reasons so that he could pass them along to the City Council. for their information. Roy Parsons said that he . was of the opinion that the upstream detention basin wouldn 't be done in any event. He is tired of studies. He said that he feels that it would be environmentally worse. He said too, that the motion included that the matter be reconsidered in a year. At this point in time, the Bob Jones excused himself and left with John Ashbaugh. The secretary then brought up the matter of the Harold Miossi letter of protest. Harold observed that it ' s too bad that the Land Conservancy representatives had left as he had met with them and had as a result written a second letter. Harold Miossi ' s first letter was written when he had believed the detention basin was to be located on the main stream of San Luis Obispo Creek upstream from Highway 101 in that pristine environment . He said that what ' s now being proposed with an off-stream detention basin isn ' t as great a concern and that such had been written in a second letter. Roy Parsons then made a motion that the Zone 9 Advisory Committee supports the "Pink Book" which sets forth the flood management policy . That policy calls for small projects first , with the ultimate goal of developing 40-year storm capacity through the City system. Marshall Ellis seconded the motion and it was unanimously carried. Chairman Glass then asked the City representatives to make a status report on the small projects , the Giant Reed Eradication Program and the Streambed Clearing Program. Accordingly , Dennis Cox noted that the Streambed Clearing Program had been finished by the . lst of November at a cost of $56, 000. The Giant Reed Eradication Program had been finished at a cost $25, 000. This was done by contract. He reminded that such cost was $5, 000 under the budget. He said that some . of the giant reeds had remained relatively healthy and that they had Monsanto representatives come out and inspect them ; their recommendation is that some need to be resprayed. He said this was not a surprise as it was expected that some would have to be resprayed. He said that all-in-all , they think a good job was done by the contractor. Dennis Cox also noted that the Giant Reed Eradication Program had been carried out through the entire watershed all the way to Avila Beach . Roy Parsons then asked Dennis Cox when the best time of the year was for spraying the willows? It was thought to be in September . Roy Parsons reminded that there are some new willows sprouting near the Hayward San Luis Mill & Lumber Yard. Dennis Cox noted that with the small . projects they had had some . problems in keeping the California Conservation Corps people in the area as they were on and off the job quite often. He said that 10 I� gabions have been installed at the new Los Osos overpass bridge area. Gabions had also been installed in the sewer plant area. He was then asked by Roy Parsons if some planting on the gabions couldn ' t be arranged near the Nipomo Street site in that it would environmentally improve the situation. Dennis Cox advised that the original installation resulted in vegetation planting but the plants had died and that they will be replanted. Chairman Glass then asked for the County ' s report on the Streambed Clearing Program. Glen Priddy responded that the reconnaissance inspection had been done and there were no significant problems observed. The limited funds were being saved for emergency work during the winter should suchbe needed. Harold Miossi advised that there were some large sycamores down across the stream on his property and also on the Harold Low property. Glen Priddy said that the County would inspect those sites. A question was then asked by Dave Romero about the Cuesta Park Bridge and what arrangements had been made to prevent washout ; it has washed out in previous years? Secretary Milne noted that at one time the General Services Department of the County had simply tied off the bridge so that if it were washed out that It would not be carried downstream. He wasn ' t sure if that was the present situation; perhaps now it was removed. Harold Miossi confirmed that it has been removed for the winter. Chairman Glass then brought up the item concerning the "Mission Statement. " Roy Parsons said that he had asked that the item be carried over to this meeting. He said the he feels that Zone 9 is back on track and that as far as he is concerned the item should be tabled. He said that he hoped Ron Ounin would agree. Roy then moved that the matter of the Mission Statement be tabled. Marshall Ellis seconded the motion and such was unanimously approved. s/3 11 �� The secretary then reminded that the meetings are scheduled on the third Wednesday of add numbered months at 1 :30 p.m. He asked the Group if they liked meeting at the Cooperative Extension Auditorium? There was concurrence that that was the best place to meet . Accordingly , the next meeting will be March 16th at 1 : 30 p .m. Marshall Ellis then .moved that the meeting be adjourned. Roy Parsons seconded the motion. Chairman Glass adjourned the meeting at 3: 10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, CLINTON MILNE Secretary M/nt Attachment 1153x 12 Gsass Z 7 fit i.)r,Y 51—C) Ccswm7-Y F146/C OF'r-7'0 cli�,�- SLS c/?O REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL : FEASIBILITY STUDY OF UPSTREAM DETENTION OF FLOOD FLOWS ON SAN LUIS OBISPO AND STENNER CREEKS A. INTRODUCTION The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to hire a consultant to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of controlling peak flood flows in San Luis Obispo and Stenner Creek by constructing detention facilities upstream of the City of San Luis Obispo. Your firm is invited to submit a proposal. Anticipated end products of the consultant's work include: 1 . Recommendation regarding feasibility and most suitable locations for detention facilities on each creek. 2. Recommendation as to whether the city should continue to pursue this approach on any or all of the proposed sites or spend no further time in considering this solution. 3. If detention facilities are feasible, prepare preliminary analysis and cost and benefits regarding the most suitable detention facilities on each creek. 4. The consultant shall present his findings to one meeting of Zone 9 Committee and one City Council meeting. All proposals must provide the information specified in the remainder of this RFP. Three copies of your proposal shall be submitted to the following address by City Clerk Attention: Pamela Voges P.O. Box 8100 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo. CA 93403-8100 If you have any questions. contact David F. Romero, Public Works Director at (805) 549-7210 or Gary W. Henderson, Civil Engineer at (805) 549-7191 . B . PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION The City of San Luis Opispo has developed along and between San Luis Obispo and Stenner Creeks. In the downtown area of the city, there is commercial development on both sides of, and over, San Luis Obispo Creek. Below the confluence with Stenner Creek, development in the floodplain consists mostly of commercial, industrial and governmental, with some low and medium density residental. Due to this development along the creeks, during large storms the restricted channel capacities at numerous locations results in flooding of the downtown area and other areas around the city. To the extent feasible, the consultant's work must address the following concerns. /��// 1 . Feasibility Given the terrain- and the size of the watershed are there any detention facilities which could feasibly be installed upstream of the City. 2. Possible Sites Possible sites will need to be evaluated based on field reconnaissance. Numerous sites should be studied based on sizing requirement. The consultant is required to conduct field reconnaissance only. Field surveys, if required, will be conducted by the City. 3. Geological Problems Identify possible geological problems which may impact site selection or improvements. Problems such as existing faults, possible landslides, etc. shall be addressed in preliminary manner in the report. 4. Design Storm Various design storms will need to be studied which will dictate the size of the detention facilities required. A hundred (100) year storm shall be evaluated along with other storms of lesser magnitudes. The initial selection of the level of protection provided to the city should be based on an economic comparison of the benefits to the costs of the various size requirements of the detention facilities. 5. Storms Larger Than Design Storm Storm flows in excess of the design storm shall be evaluated to determine the consequences of the excess flows on the structural integrity of the detention facility and effects on the downstream areas. 6. Land Conservancy Approach Consider the possibility of off stream detention, temporary storage and slow release to recharge the creek as recommended by the Land Conservancy for at least one site on San Luis Obispo . Creek. 7. Economic Evaluation An economic evaluation of the various options shall be prepared using the same economic evaluation system that is utilized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The economic evaluation shall include the cost of the mitigation measures and the operation and maintenance costs for the facilities. 8. Environmental Discuss environmental concerns of recommended installation. C . RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONSULTANT AND CITY 1 As an independent contractor, the consultant will conduct all studies and prepare draft and final reports that address economic, environmental, and engineering concerns. The Engineering Department will be the city's "lead agency." The department will appoint a project coordinator (Gary Henderson) who will coordinate the consultant's work with other city departments, primarily with the Community Development Department. The city's project coordinator will schedule all staff/consultant conferences, coordinate the review of all preliminary work products, and provide direction as needed. The coordinator will be the consultant's contact person. The city will assist the consultant by providing (upon request) copies of all existing studies, aerial photos and topographical maps. A partial bibliography of pertinent reports is attached. These reports will be available to the consultant chosen to conduct the study. Pertinent information from these previous reports has been included as an attachment to this document. D . CONTENT OF CONSULTANT PROPOSAL The consultant must submit three copies of a proposal that includes the following: 1 . Workprogram. The workprogram shall be broken into two parts. The first part shall be an initial feasibility study to determine the economic viability of the various options. The second part shall be a refined conceptual design for the proposed projects which were determined to be economically justified. The program should present and describe all phases of work and include estimates of the time needed to complete each phase. Within each work phase, major work tasks should be identified. Production time estimates for each work phase should be presented. The work program should specifically identify work tasks that will require the assistance of city staff. The work responsibilities of proposed subconsultants should be clearly identified. The work program should include cost estimates for each major work task and subtotal costs for each work phase. You should also give us a wage schedule for your firm's personnel. (Note: cost estimates need not include the cost of printing reports for public review. The city will require the consultant to submit "camera ready" copy; the city will be responsible for reproduction costs. ) The format and content of.the consultant's workprogram should be sufficient to permit its use as part of a formal services contract between the city and the consultant. 2. Resume Information. The proposal should identify a member of your firm that you will appoint as project manager for the duration of this project and key production staff and their responsibilities. The proposal should include resumes of the project manager and key staff. Pertinent resume information of your firm that demonstrates experience with similar studies should be submitted. Client references should also be provided. f po Resume information demonstrating the qualifications and experience of subconsultants must accompany the proposal. 3. Contact Person. Your proposal should provide the name and telephone number of the member of your firm that we can talk to if we have questions about your proposal. E . CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS 1 . Distribution of RFPs. The city has sent RFPs for this project to several consultant firms. It is the city's policy not to disclose the names of those firms. 2. Indication of Interest. No later than consultants interested in submitting a proposal should contact David F. Romero, Director of Public Works at 805/549-7210 (alternate contact Gary W. Henderson, Civil Engineer at 805/549-7191 ). 3. Questions. Questions about the scope and intent of the city's RFP should be submitted in writing to David F. Romero, Director of Public Works, P.O. Box 8100, San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 no later than City will prepare a written response that will be distributed to all interested firms no later than 4. Submittal of Proposals. The consultants shall submit their proposal by 5. Initial Proposal Review. The city's project manager and the Public Works Director will review the proposals and establish a list of firms to be invited to interviews in San Luis Obispo. 6. Evaluation Committee Interviews. The City will establish a committee to evaluate all consultant proposals and conduct interviews. Some of the evaluation factors that the committee will consider include: Completeness of the proposal Demonstrated understanding of the problem Experience with similar projects Experience and qualifications of key personnel Timely completion of work Favorable responses from client references Interviews will be conducted at City Hall in San Luis Obispo. After the interviews, the committee will rank the consultant proposals and submit a priority list to the City Council. The report will ask the Council for authorization to negotiate a contract with a consultant, in the order provided by the priority list. The consultants will be notified of the committee's ranking. 7. Council Authorization. The City Council will consider the staff's report and the consultant proposals and will authorize staff to negotiate a 1 services agreement with one of the consultant firms. All consultants will be notified of the City Council's action. 8. Final Contract Approval. The staff will negotiate a final work program and contract with the selected consultant and will submit the contract to the City Council for approval. At this point work begins. BIBLIOGRAPHY i 1 . U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Survey Report for Flood Control and Related Purposes, November 1986. 2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Flood Insurance Study, City of San Luis Obispo, July 1978. 3. County of San Luis Obispo, Hydrologic and Climatological Data Seasons of 1970-71 and 1971-72, December 1974. 4. County of San Luis Obispo, Hydrologic and Climatological Data Seasons of 1972-73 and 1973-74, December 1976. 5. George S. Nolte and Associates, Flood Control and Drainage Master Plan for the San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed, August 1977 (Revised October 1980). 6. .MDW Associates, Final Environmental Impact Report: San Luis Obispo Creek Flood Control Modifications, August 1982. 7. George S. Nolte and Associates, Preliminary Design Report Flood Control Modifications for San Luis Obispo Creek, December 1981 . 8. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Luis Obispo County Streams Hydrology for Survey Report for Flood Control and Allied Purposes, January 1985. 9. City of San Luis Obispo, Flood Management Policy, Adopted June 1983. 10. City of San Luis Obispo, Flood Management Report, June 1983. 11 . U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Report on Floods of January and February 1969 in Southern California. December 1969. 12. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Report on Flood of 1S January 1973 in San Luis Obispo County, California. May 1973. 13. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, . Flood Plain Information Report, San Luis Obispo Creek and Tributaries, Vicinity of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California, November 1974. 14. San Luis Obispo County Land Conservancy, San Luis Obispo Creek Restoration Plan, January 1988. gwh4/rfpdams