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