San Luis Obispo City Council
September 5, 2023

City Council
AGENDA

Tuesday, September 5, 2023, 5:30 p.m.

Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
HYBRID MEETING PARTICIPATION INSTRUCTIONS:

Council Meetings are held in a hybrid format, which means participation is allowed both in-person and virtually through teleconference. Below are instructions to participate via Zoom or by telephone. For a complete list of ways to view/participate in meetings, review the Participation Guide. Contact the City Clerk's Office with questions by emailing [email protected] or call (805) 781-7114.

Participate on Zoom – Click this link https://slocity-org.zoom.us/j/81481646919 on any computer or mobile device. Press the “raise your hand” button when the comment period on your item of interest begins. You will be notified when you’ve been unmuted and it’s your turn to speak. Comments are limited to 3-minutes.
•
Participate via Telephone – Call 1-669-444-9171 and enter the Meeting’s ID 814 8164 6919 to join by telephone audio only. Press star nine (*9) to “raise your hand” when the comment period on your item of interest begins. You will be notified when you’ve been unmuted and it’s your turn to speak. Comments are limited to 3-minutes. •
Pages

1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Erica A. Stewart will call the Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council to order.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Erica A. Stewart will lead the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.

3. PRESENTATIONS

3.a DRIVE ELECTRIC WEEK PROCLAMATION
Mayor Stewart will present a proclamation declaring the week of September 22 to October 1, 2023 as "Drive Electric Week".

3.b CITY MANAGER REPORT
Receive a brief report from City Manager Derek Johnson.

4. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Not to exceed 15 minutes. The Council welcomes your input. State law does not allow the Council to discuss or take action on issues not on the agenda, except that members of the Council or staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising their public testimony rights (Gov. Code sec. 54954.2). Staff may be asked to follow up on such items.

5. CONSENT AGENDA
Not to exceed 15 minutes. Matters appearing on the Consent Calendar are expected to be non-controversial and will be acted upon at one time. A member of the public may request the Council to pull an item for discussion. Pulled items shall be heard at the close of the Consent Agenda unless a majority of the Council chooses another time. The public may comment on any and all items on the Consent Agenda within the three-minute time limit.

Recommendation:

To approve Consent Calendar Items 5a to 5f.

5.a WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND

ORDINANCES
Recommendation:

Waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.

5.b MINUTES REVIEW - AUGUST 14, 2023 AND AUGUST 15, 2023

COUNCIL MINUTES
9 Recommendation:

Approve the following minutes of the City Council:
• August 14, 2023 - Special Closed Session
• August 15, 2023

5.c AUTHORIZE AN APPLICATION FOR A PLANNING GRANT FROM

THE CALIFORNIA STRATEGIC GROWTH COUNCIL COMMUNITY

RESILIENCE CENTER GRANT PROGRAM
19 Recommendation:

Adopt a Draft Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving the application for grant funds from the California Strategic Growth Council Community Resilience Centers Program” to authorize staff to apply for a Planning Grant in an amount not to exceed $500,000.

5.d DECLARATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AS EXEMPT
SURPLUS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA SURPLUS LAND ACT (610 AND
614 MONTEREY STREET, A PORTION OF 972 NIPOMO STREET,
AND A PORTION OF CITY PARKING LOT NO. 14)
25 Recommendation:

Adopt a Draft Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, declaring pursuant to Government Code Section 54221(b) that certain real property owned by the City located at 610 and 614 Monterey Street, a portion of 972 Nipomo Street and a portion of City Parking Lot 14, identified as Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 002-412-011, 002-412-012, 002-412-002 (portion) and 002-412-004 (portion) is not necessary for the City’s use and is Exempt Surplus Land.”

5.e AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE CHENG PARK
REVITALIZATION PROJECT, SPECIFICATION NUMBER 91385-10
33 Recommendation:

Award a Construction Contract to JJ Fisher Construction, Inc. in the amount of $646,778 for the Cheng Park Revitalization project, Specification Number 91385-10; and

1. Authorize an appropriation of $300,000 from the Capital Projects Reserve Fund to the project account 2001010-01; and

2. Authorize the Finance Director to return unspent Capital Reserve funding to the Capital Projects Reserve Fund balance after project completion; and

3. Adopt a Draft Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, authorizing use of Capital Projects Reserve Fund to support the Cheng Park Revitalization, Specification Number 91385-10.”

4. 5.f AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE ON-CALL ENERGOV SUPPORT

SERVICES REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS
51 Recommendation:

Approve the Draft Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to provide Energov support services; and

1. Authorize the City Manager to execute agreements with selected consulting firms; and

2. Authorize the Finance Director to execute and amend Purchase Orders for individual consultant services contracts in an amount not-to-exceed the authorized project budget; and

3. Authorize the Community Development Director to amend or extend the agreement for services in accordance with its terms and within the available annual budget.

4. 6. PUBLIC HEARING AND BUSINESS ITEMS

6.a US 101/PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECT – APPROVAL OF

THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT AND CONFIRMATION OF THE
PREFERRED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE (Estimated Time: 90 Minutes) 79 Recommendation:

Receive an update on the US 101/Prado Road Interchange
Capital Improvement Project; and

1. Adopt a Draft Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California,
recommending approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the US 101/Prado Road Interchange Project”; and

2. Adopt a Draft Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California,
recommending approval of the US 101/Prado Road
Interchange Project Report.”

3. 7. STUDY SESSION

7.a STUDY SESSION ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT 5-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN (Estimated Time: 90
Minutes)
743
Recommendation:

Receive a mid-point status update on the creation of the Police Department five-year Strategic Plan, to be presented by Jacob Green and Associates. The update will include activities conducted to date and future work to be performed in the creation of the final plan, with an expected completion date of December 2023.

8. LIAISON REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Not to exceed 15 minutes. Council Members report on conferences or other City activities. At this time, any Council Member or the City Manager may ask a question for clarification, make an announcement, or report briefly on their activities. In addition, subject to Council Policies and Procedures, they may provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the Council at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. (Gov. Code Sec. 54954.2)

9. ADJOURNMENT
The City Council will hold a Special Closed Session Meeting on Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room at City Hall. The next Regular Meeting of the City Council will be held on September 19, 2023 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo.

LISTENING ASSISTIVE DEVICES for the hearing impaired - see the Clerk.

The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7114 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410.

City Council meetings are televised live on Charter Channel 20 and the City's YouTube Chanel: http://youtube.slo.city. Agenda related writings or documents provided to the City Council are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California during normal business hours, and on the City’s website
https://www.slocity.org/government/mayor-and-city-council/agendas-andminutes. Persons with questions concerning any agenda item may call the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7114.

1 Council Minutes
August 14, 2023, 5:30 p.m.

Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
Council Members

Present:

Council Member Emily Francis, Council Member Andy Pease, Council Member Michelle Shoresman, Vice Mayor Jan Marx, Mayor Erica A. Stewart
City Staff Present: Derek Johnson, City Manager, Christine Dietrick, City Attorney, Teresa Purrington, City Clerk
_____________________________________________________________________

1. CALL TO ORDER
A Special Closed Session Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Monday, August 14, 2023 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, by Mayor Stewart.

2. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR CLOSED SESSION ITEMS ONLY
Public Comment:

Jim Dantona
Stew Jenkins
--End of Public Comment--

3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION ACTION: City Attorney Christine Dietrick indicated that the Council provided no reportable action.

4. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:03 p.m. The next Regular Meeting of the City Council will be held on August 15, 2023 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo.

APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2023

1 Council Minutes
August 15, 2023, 5:30 p.m.

Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
Council Members

Present:

Council Member Emily Francis, Council Member Andy Pease, Council Member Michelle Shoresman, Vice Mayor Jan Marx, Mayor Erica A. Stewart
City Staff Present: Derek Johnson, City Manager, Christine Dietrick, City Attorney, Teresa Purrington, City Clerk
_____________________________________________________________________

1. CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council, also acting as the San Luis Obispo Public Financing Authority Board of Directors, was called to order on August 15, 2023 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, by Mayor Stewart.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council Member Francis led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.

3. PRESENTATIONS

3.a 40TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE DOWNTOWN FARMER'S MARKET

PROCLAMATION
Mayor Stewart presented a proclamation recognizing the 40th Anniversary of the Downtown Farmer's Market to Bettina Swigger on behalf of Downtown SLO.

3.b INTRODUCTION AND OATH OF OFFICE - WHITNEY MCDONALD,

ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
City Manager Derek Johnson introduced Whitney McDonald, the new Assistant City Manager. City Clerk Teresa Purrington administered Assistant City Manager McDonald's Oath of Office.

3.c CITY MANAGER REPORT
City Manager Derek Johnson provided a report on upcoming projects.

2 4. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Public Comment:

Abby Lassen
Gail Ryff
Caroline Gutman
Brian Kesner
Mark Adams
Scott Summers
Linda Winters
Chris Davis
Elie Axelroth
Becky Jorgeson
Julie Jones
John Little
Ash
Cornel Morton
Rita Casaverde
--End of Public Comment--

5. CONSENT AGENDA
Motion By Council Member Pease
Second By Mayor Stewart
To approve Consent Calendar Items 5a to 5j.

5.a WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES Waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.

5.b MINUTES REVIEW - JULY 11, 2023, JULY 18, 2023, AND JULY 24, 2023

COUNCIL MINUTES
Approve the following minutes of the City Council:
 July 11, 2023 - Rescheduled Regular Meeting
 July 18, 2023 - Regular Meeting
 July 24, 2023 - Special Meeting

3 5.c ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX LEVY REPORT FOR THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2019-1 (SAN LUIS RANCH) FOR FY 2023-24
*Vice Mayor Marx declared a conflict with this item and recused, as she owns property in the San Luis Ranch Development.

Receive and file the Annual Special Tax Levy Report for the City of San Luis Obispo Community Facilities No. 2019-1 (San Luis Ranch) for FY 2023/24.

Ayes (4): Council Member Francis, Council Member Pease, Council Member Shoresman, and Mayor Stewart
Conflict (1): Vice Mayor Marx
CARRIED (4 to 0)

5.d ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX LEVY REPORT FOR THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2017-1 (AVILA
RANCH) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024
Receive and file the Annual Special Tax Levy Report for the City of San Luis Obispo Community Facilities No. 2017-1 (Avila Ranch) for Fiscal Year 2023-24.

5.e AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE JOHNSON WATERLINE
REPLACEMENT – IRIS TO BISHOP, SPECIFICATION NO. 2000578

1. Approve the project plans and special provisions for Johnson Waterline Replacement – Iris to Bishop, Specification Number 2000578; and

2. Authorize staff to advertise for bids; and

3. Authorize the City Manager to award the construction contract for the bid total if the lowest responsible bid is within the Engineer’s Estimate of $4,160,000; and

4. Approve the transfer of $165,000 from the Storm Drain Annual Asset Maintenance Account (2090742) to the project account (2000578); and

5. Approve the transfer of $1,061,031 from the Recycled Water Broad Street – Tank Farm to Aerovista project (2000528) to the project account (2000578) and defer the 2000528 project to the next Financial Plan; and

6. Appropriate $483,969 from Water Fund Unreserved Working Capital and reduce the 2024-25 allocation for Water Storage Tank Maintenance (2000034) by $483,969; and

4 7. Authorize the City Engineer to approve Contract Change Orders up to the available project budget; and

8. Find the Project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15302 and 15303; and

9. Adopt Resolution No. 11440 (2023 Series) entitled, “Resolution of City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, authorizing use of the Water Fund Unreserved Working Capital Fund to support the Johnson Waterline Replacement – Iris to Bishop, Spec. No. 2000578.”

5.f AUTHORIZATION TO AMEND THE “BUY LOCAL BONUS” PROGRAM

TO INCLUDE INCENTIVES FOR PARTICIPATING IN CUSTOMER

SATISFACTION SURVEY
Authorize the City Manager to amend the “Buy Local Bonus” Memorandum of Understanding with the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce to include the purchase of gift cards as an incentive for participating in the Community Development Department customer satisfaction survey in an amount not to exceed $600.

5.g FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 3044 – A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AT 3725 ORCUTT ROAD
Adopt Resolution No. 11441 (2023 Series) entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, accepting the completed public improvements for Tract 3044; certifying the completed private subdivision improvements for Tract 3044; releasing the securities for the completed portions of Tract 3044; and authorizing the Director of Public Works to release the remaining securities once all Tract 3044 improvements are deemed complete.”

5.h AUTHORIZATION TO APPLY FOR FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS

GRANT (AFG)

1. Authorize the Fire Department to submit a grant application to the Federal Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) Program in the amount of $98,845.45 to send two EMT firefighters through certified paramedic training; and

2. Authorize the City Manager, or their designee, to execute the grant documents and approve the budget changes necessary to
appropriate the grant amount upon notification that the grant has been awarded.

5 5.i APPROVE THE SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE OF A 2022 PIERCE ARROW TYPE 1 PUMPING FIRE ENGINE TO REPLACE FIRE ENGINE 4 Approve the sole source purchase of a 2022 Pierce Arrow Type 1 Pumping Fire Engine in the amount of $881,584.76.

5.j MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM

1. Authorize Fire Department to participate in a grant application process from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for funding to develop a multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP); and

2. Authorize the City Manager, or their designee, to execute the grant documents and approve the budget changes necessary to
appropriate the grant amount upon notification that the grant has been awarded.

6. PUBLIC HEARING AND BUSINESS ITEMS

6.a 2022-23 STORMS AFTER-ACTION REPORT AND POST-INCIDENT ACTION PLAN (Estimated Time: 30 minutes)
Fire Chief Todd Tuggle, Emergency Manager James Blattler, and Public Works Director Matt Horn provided a presentation on the 2022-23 Storms After-Action Report and Post-Incident Improvement Plan and responded to Council inquiries.

Public Comment:

None
--End of Public Comment--
Action: By consensus, the City Council received and filed the 2022-2023 Storms After-Action Report and Post-Incident Improvement Plan.

6.b APPROVING THE SALE OF LEASE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2023 (CULTURAL ARTS DISTRICT PARKING PROJECT) IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $50,000,000, EXECUTION OF BOND DOCUMENTS AND RELATED ACTIONS (Est. Time: 30 minutes) Finance Director Emily Jackson provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions.

Public Comments:

Jessica Goswick
---End of Public Comment---

6 Motion By Vice Mayor Marx
Second By Council Member Pease
City Council Action:

Adopt Resolution No. 11442 (2023 Series) entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo authorizing the execution and delivery by the City of a 1) Ground Lease, 2) a Lease Agreement, 3) an Indenture, 4) a Bond Purchase Agreement and a 5) Continuing Disclosure Certificate in connection with the issuance of San Luis Obispo Public Financing Authority Lease Revenue Bonds (Cultural Arts District Parking Project), Series 2023, approving the issuance of such bonds in an aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $50,000,000, authorizing the distribution of an Official Statement in connection with the offering and sale of such bonds and authorizing the execution of necessary documents and certificates and related actions."
Ayes (5): Council Member Francis, Council Member Pease, Council Member Shoresman, Vice Mayor Marx, and Mayor Stewart
CARRIED (5 to 0)
Motion By Vice Chair Marx
Second By Board Member Shoresman
San Luis Obispo Public Financing Authority Board of Directors Action:

Adopt Resolution No. 11443 (2023 Series) entitled, “A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the San Luis Obispo Public Financing Authority authorizing the execution and delivery of a 1) Ground Lease, 2) a Lease Agreement, 3) an Indenture, and a 4) Bond Purchase Agreement in connection with the issuance of San Luis Obispo Public Financing Authority Lease Revenue Bonds (Cultural Arts District Parking Project), Series 2023, authorizing the issuance of such bonds in an aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $50,000,000, authorizing the distribution of an Official Statement in connection therewith and authorizing the execution of necessary documents and certificates and related actions.” Ayes (5): Board Member Francis, Board Member Pease, Board Member Shoresman, Vice Chair Marx, and Chair Stewart
CARRIED (5 to 0)

7 7. LIAISON REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Council Member Pease provided a SLOCOG update. She also announced that a meeting was held with the Mexican Consulate Ricardo Santana Valasquez, Police Chief Rick Scott, staff in the Office of DEI, and the San Luis Coastal Unified School District.

Council Member Shoresman attended the pinning ceremony for two new police officers and the celebration of the promotion of two Police Captains to the position of Deputy Chief. She attended a Zone 9 Committee meeting and the Downtown SLO Board meeting, on behalf of Council Member Pease.

Vice Mayor Marx announced that, while she was on vacation in Europe, she visited the Mayor of Kehl, Germany.

Mayor Stewart attended the Homeless Services Oversight Committee meeting, on behalf of Council Member Shoresman. She also attended the electric bus ribbon cutting. She participated in the Crack the Code workshop presented by SLO Chamber of Commerce. She also attended the Central Coast Black Leaders Roundtable in Goleta, paid for by the City.

8. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:27 p.m. The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for September 5, 2023 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo.

APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2023

Item 5c
Department: Administration
Cost Center: 1005
For Agenda of: 9/5/2023
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Greg Hermann, Deputy City Manager
Prepared By: Lucia Pohlman, Sustainability and Natural Resources Analyst SUBJECT: COMMUNITY RESILIENCE CENTERS GRANT APPLICATION

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Draft Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving the application for grant funds from the California Strategic Growth Council Community Resilience Centers Program” to authorize staff to apply for a Planning Grant in an amount not to exceed $500,000.

POLICY CONTEXT
 Financial Management Policy Section 740 requires that Council approve any grant application over $5,000.
 On January 17, 2023, Council adopted the Climate Adaptation and Safety Element of the General Plan (CASE). The CASE includes program MH-1.8: Climate Resilience Hubs, which states that the City shall “work with community organizations, faith-based organizations, and other institutions to develop a network for conveniently located Climate Resilience Hubs including a mix of public facilities, community centers, businesses, and community-oriented facilities.”
 In June of 2023, the City Council adopted the 2023-25 Financial Plan and identified Climate Action as a Major City Goal. FY23-25 MCG task 4.4.g directs staff to “monitor funding sources and if feasible pursue a Climate Resilience Hub Planning Grant with community partners, as called for in CASE program MH-1.8.” This request for authorization would enable staff to apply for the anticipated Climate Resilience Hub Planning Grant.

DISCUSSION
Background
The California Strategic Growth Council (SGC) released the Notice of Funding Availability for the Community Resilience Centers grant program on May 26th, 2023. The Community Resilience Centers program provides funding for local facilities to serve as places of community during normal times, and places of shelter and aid during climate and other emergencies, including extreme heat events and poor air quality days.

Item 5c
The Community Resilience Centers Program provides several types of grants, ranging from planning to construction. The program’s Planning Grants help communities through the initial stages of project development—including planning and pre-development activities, community engagement and coordination, site preparation, and other activities necessary to prepare for future funding opportunities. Planning Grant awards range from $100,000 to $500,000 each for a grant term of approximately two years. SGC anticipates that approximately $5 million in Planning Grant funding will be available for competitive awards in Round 1. The Sustainable Growth Council requires all lead applicants to provide evidence of a passed formal resolution that includes authorization to apply for and accept a CRC Planning Grant, and authority to execute all related documents if awarded. A draft resolution is provided as Attachment A.

The Community Resilience Centers program is focused on equity, community resilience, and climate resilience. Fortunately for the City, this means that the grant opportunity also provides an option to conduct initial planning work and investigate a blended MultiCultural Center and Resilience Hub concept would further City goals related to both climate resilience and diversity equity and inclusion, and advance adopted policies from the CASE, CAP, and the MCG work program. The City’s proposed Planning Grant would request funding for a scope of work including formalization of a shared governance structure, identifying, studying, and preparing project sites, completing fiscal analyses and studies, and facilitating community engagement.

To be clear, this is a planning grant and thus the grant would fund a process to convene stakeholders and consultants to brainstorm, conceptualize, and analyze a potential facility, the Multi-Cultural Center and Resilience Hub idea (including the who, what, where, how) are still yet to be determined. Initial outreach to community partners including the Diversity Coalition of San Luis Obispo County, CAPSLO, Promotores, SLO County UndocuSupport, R.A.C.E Matters SLO, the yak titʸu titʸu yak tiłhini, and the Northern Chumash Tribal Council point to strong stakeholder interest in the following concept, which would be subject to change based on the outcomes of the planning process.

A Multi-Cultural Center and Resilience Hub could be activated by multiple local organizations that are focused on serving specific cultural, ethnic, and identity-based groups in our community. These organizations would provide regular programming and other services to community members. On “sunny” or normal days, the shared facility could provide office space, meeting rooms, event space, commercial kitchen space, childcare services, etc. The facility would also be designed to serve as a safe place during emergencies (back-up power, Wi-Fi, air conditioning, air purification systems, food distribution capabilities, etc.).

If successful, the City, alongside co-applicants on the grant, supporting partners, and community members would participate in a planning process to advance a shared MultiCultural Center facility that could operate as a resilience hub during times of emergencies.

Should the Planning Grant point to a feasible next step, the City and its partners could consider applying for additional rounds of funding. Round 2 of funding for the program is estimated to be $160 million. In the current funding guidelines, Project Development grants range from $500,000 to $5 million and Implementation Grants range from $1 million to $10 million.

Item 5c
Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
The topic of Multi-Cultural Center and/or Resilience Hub has been presented to Council on numerous occasions including:
 June 6, 2023 - Council adopted the 2023-25 Financial Plan:
 The Climate Action Major City Goal includes task 4.4.g directing staff to “monitor funding sources and if feasible pursue a Climate Resilience Hub Planning Grant with community partners, as called for in CASE program MH-1.8.”
 The Diversity Equity and Inclusion Major City Goal includes task 2.6.d directing staff to “Explore and develop shared multicultural programming, activities, and events with Cal Poly, Cuesta College, and Non‐profit partners through a pilot and/or pop-up multicultural center experience.”
 January 17, 2023 - Council adopted the City’s Climate Adaptation and Safety Element including program MH-1.8: Climate Resilience Hubs, which states that the City shall “work with community organizations, faith-based organizations, and other institutions to develop a network for conveniently located Climate Resilience Hubs including a mix of public facilities, community centers, businesses, and community-oriented facilities.
 June 1, 2021 - Council adopted the 2021-23 Financial Plan with the Diversity Equity and Inclusion Major City Goal that included task 2.7.e, to “support feasibility study for Multicultural Center; provide City liaison / staff support”.

Public Engagement
The application process for this grant, as well as any grant-funded activities, will involve substantial involvement and participation from community partners. The Human Relations Commission has received staff updates announcing the City's intent to apply for a SGC Community Resilience Center Planning Grant alongside community partners.

Leading up to this grant application, in 2022, representatives from the Diversity Coalition of San Luis Obispo County, RACE Matters SLO, SLO Climate Coalition, Ecologistics, and SLO County UndocuSupport met regularly to apply for a different SGC grant for Regional Resilience Collaboratives. This group of stakeholders were excited to put forth a proposal to determine the feasibility and develop an operations model for a Resilience Hub in the City of San Luis Obispo. While capacity constraints ultimately caused the group to withdraw their grant application, these organizations' and others’ interest in supporting a Resilience Hub are another factor driving the City’s application to the SGC Community Resilience Centers Program.

CONCURRENCE
Staff from the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Office, Fire Department, and Community Development Department concur with the recommendation included in this Council Agenda Report.

Item 5c

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to the recommended action in this report, because the action does not constitute a “project” under the CEQA guidelines section 15378.

FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: No Budget Year: 2023-24
Funding Identified: Yes
Fiscal Analysis:

Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund N/A
State
Federal
Fees
Other:

Total
Should the Sustainable Growth Council Community Resilience Centers Planning Grant be successfully awarded at the requested funding levels the City would receive a reimbursable grant for an amount not to exceed $500,000. There is no required match.

ALTERNATIVES
Do not submit a grant application. Council may direct staff to not submit a grant application. If this request is not approved, staff will cease work on the effort. Staff does not recommend this alternative because the Resilience Center Grant is the best available source of funds to plan for both a Resilience Hub (MCG task 4.4g) and a Multi-Cultural Center (MCG task 2.6.d).

ATTACHMENTS
A – Draft Resolution approving Community Resilience Centers Grant Application

R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2023 SERIES)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS

OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT

FUNDS FOR CALIFORNIA STRATEGIC GROWTH COUNCIL

COMMUNITY RESILIENCE CENTERS PROGRAM
WHEREAS, for Fiscal Year 2021-22, the Legislature and Governor of the State of California have provided funds for the program shown above and delegated the Strategic Growth Council the responsibility for the administration of this grant program and for establishing necessary procedures; and
WHEREAS, said procedures established by the California Strategic Growth Council require a resolution certifying the approval of application(s) by the Applicant’s governing board before submission of said application(s) to the State; and WHEREAS, per the guidelines of the grant program, the City of San Luis Obispo is identified as a city eligible for funding; and
WHEREAS, Community Resilience Centers grantees will enter into a grant agreement with the State of California and be responsible for compiling and submitting all invoices and reporting documents; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo, if selected will enter into an agreement with the State of California to carry out the Community Resilience Centers Grant; and WHEREAS, the Strategic Growth Council adopted a timeline indicating the full application is due September 18 2023; and
WHEREAS, in June 2023, City Council adopted the 2023-25 Financial Plan, which includes Major City Goal task 4.4.g directing staff to pursue a Climate Resilience Hub Planning Grant with community partners; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo and local non-profit co-applicants intend to submit a Community Resilience Centers Grant for an amount not to exceed $500,000; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:

SECTION 1. Application Approval. The City Council approves the City of San Luis Obispo to serve as the lead applicant for the Planning Grant application due by September 18, 2023.

Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 2
R ______
SECTION 2. City Manager Authorization. The City Council authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to execute and submit all documents including, but not limited to applications, agreements, and payment requests which may be necessary for the grant.

Upon motion of Council Member ___________, seconded by Council Member ___________, and on the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _______________ 2023. ___________________________
Mayor Erica A. Stewart
ATTEST:
______________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on ______________________. ___________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk

Item 5d
Department: Administration
Cost Center: 1005
For Agenda of: 9/5/2023
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Greg Hermann, Deputy City Manager
Prepared By: Robert Hill, Sustainability & Natural Resources Official SUBJECT: DECLARATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AS EXEMPT SURPLUS (610 AND 614 MONTEREY STREET, A PORTION OF 972 NIPOMO
STREET, AND A PORTION OF CITY PARKING LOT NO. 14) UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA SURPLUS LAND ACT

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Draft Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, declaring pursuant to Government Code Section 54221(b) that certain real property owned by the City located at 610 and 614 Monterey Street, a portion of 972 Nipomo Street and a portion of City Parking Lot 14, identified as Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 002-412-011, 002-412-012, 002-412-002 (portion) and 002-412-004 (portion) is not necessary for the City’s use and is Exempt Surplus Land.”

POLICY CONTEXT
The California Surplus Land Act (“SLA” or the “Act”) requires that local government agencies notify and offer “surplus land” for sale or lease to affordable home developers and certain other entities before selling or leasing the land to any other individual or entity.

Under the Act, the City Council must formally declare land “surplus” or “exempt surplus” at a public meeting, supported by written findings, prior to disposition of the land in accordance with City policies and procedures.

Surplus land is defined as “land owned in fee simple for which a local agency’s governing body takes formal action at a regular public meeting declaring land to be surplus and not necessary for a local agency’s use.” (Cal. Gov. Code § 54221(b)(1)). “Agency use” includes, but is not limited to, land that is being used, is planned to be used pursuant to a written plan adopted by the local agency’s governing board, provided that “agency’s use” shall not include commercial or industrial uses or activities, including nongovernmental retail, entertainment, or office development. (Cal. Gov. Code § 54221(c)(1),(2).) As more fully discussed below, if agency-owned land is declared “exempt surplus,” the local agency is not required to further comply with the Act’s noticing and availability requirements.

Item 5d
This City of San Luis Obispo’s policies and procedures for real property acquisition and disposal are found at Section 475 of the Financial Management Manual, which further incorporates City Charter Article IX, Section 906 and City Council Resolution No. 10052 (2009 Series).

DISCUSSION
Background
For many years, the City has leased buildings, land, and facilities along the lower Monterey Street corridor to non-profit organizations for public benefit purposes.

Beginning in 1993, the City leased the former City/County library site located at 888 Morro Street to the San Luis Obispo Little Theatre (now known, and hereafter referred to, as the San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre, or “SLO REP”) for interim theater operations (the “Morro Site”). During the same timeframe, City Council directed staff to identify a permanent site for SLO REP’s theater operations and suggested that currently identified as a portion of City-owned Parking Lot 14, City-owned 610 and 614 Monterey Street, and a portion of 972 Nipomo Street, could be an appropriate site for such permanent relocation (collectively referred to as the “Monterey Site”). The Morro Site, where SLO REP’s theatre currently exists, is located next door to City Hall and has long been considered for a future expansion of City Hall public facility uses. Such planned re-use by the City is documented in the Facilities Master Plan, adopted by Council in 2018, which identifies the Morro Site as a future expansion/annex to City Hall for ongoing public, municipal uses.

Staff have been working diligently with SLO REP over the past five years in preparation for the long-standing plan for SLO REP to construct and permanently operate a new theatre building on the Monterey Site, while vacating the existing theatre at the Morro Site (all owned by the City). On May 22, 2019, the City entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with SLO REP, as allowed for under Section 475 of the Financial Management Manual, that sets forth certain parameters and project milestones as conditions precedent to entering into a long-term lease for the new theatre site. Exclusive Negotiating Agreements entered into prior to September 30, 2019, were not subject to the SLA’s noticing and availability requirements so long as the land was disposed of prior to December 31, 2022. The parties have made progress in identifying deal points for SLO REP’s lease of the Monterey Site but were unable to execute a lease by December 31, 2022.

As such, given the requirements of the California Surplus Land Act, as described in the Policy Context section, above, it is prudent that the City Council formally declare the Monterey Site as “exempt surplus,” thereby exempting the City from further complying with the Act’s noticing and availability requirements. The Monterey Site is “exempt surplus” because the site is not needed for “agency use” and the proposed transaction constitutes an “exchange of surplus land.” Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(C) provides that “surplus land [Monterey Site] that a local agency is exchanging for another property necessary for the local agency’s use [the Morro Site]” is “exempt surplus.”

Item 5d
Upon Council’s adoption of the Resolution formally declaring the Monterey Site as “exempt surplus” under the Act, the City is required to provide the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) written notification of its declaration and findings in a form prescribed by HCD. Within 30 days of receipt of the written notification and findings, HCD shall notify the City if the department has determined that the local agency is in compliance with the Act.

Previous Council Action
On December 4, 2018, the City Council approved the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with SLO REP.

Public Engagement
Any member of the public may comment on this item either in writing in advance of the City Council meeting or by providing public comment during the hearing of this item.

CONCURRENCE
The City’s Public Works Department Parking Services Division concurs with the recommendations contained herein.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The recommended action is not considered a Project under the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15378.

FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: No Budget Year: 2023-24
Funding Identified: No
Fiscal Analysis:

Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund - - - -
State - - - -
Federal - - - -
Fees - - - -
Other: - - - -
Total $N/A $N/A $N/A $N/A
The recommended action is administrative only and does not have a fiscal impact in and of itself.

Item 5d

ALTERNATIVES
Council could decide not to adopt the Resolution declaring the subject City owned real property as “exempt surplus” and instead engage in a surplus property Notice of Availability process under the Act. This action is not recommended because this transaction is specifically determined to be exempt under Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(C) and is consistent with prior plans and objectives for both properties guided by City Council action.

ATTACHMENTS
A - Draft Resolution declaring "Surplus Exempt" status under CA Surplus Land Act for City-owned property

R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2023 SERIES)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS

OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 54221 THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY
THE CITY LOCATED AT 610 AND 614 MONTEREY STREET, A
PORTION OF 972 NIPOMO STREET, AND A PORTION OF CITY
PARKING LOT NO. 14 IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE CITY’S USE AND

IS EXEMPT SURPLUS LAND
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo is the owner in fee simple of that certain real property located at 610 and 614 Monterey Street, a portion of 972 Nipomo Street, and a portion of City Parking Lot No. 14 identified as Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 002-412- 011, 002-412-012, 002-412-002 (portion) and 002-412-004 (portion) (the “Monterey Site”); and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo is the owner in fee simple of that certain real property located at 888 Morro Street and identified as Assessor’s Parcel No. 002- 321-003 (“Morro Site”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 54221(b) of the Surplus Land Act, Government Code Sections 54220-54234 (the “Act”), agency-owned land must be declared either “surplus land” or “exempt surplus land” prior to disposition of the land consistent with an agency’s policies or procedures, including lease of the land; and WHEREAS, “surplus land” is land owned in fee simple by the City for which the City Council takes formal action in a regular public meeting declaring the land is surplus and is not necessary for “agency use”; and
WHEREAS, the Act provides that “agency’s use” shall include, but not be limited to, land that is being used or is planned to be used pursuant to a written plan adopted by the local agency’s governing board for agency work or operations, provided that “agency’s use” shall not include commercial or industrial uses or activities, including nongovernmental retail, entertainment, or office development; and WHEREAS, under the Act, surplus land that a local agency is exchanging for another property necessary for the agency’s use is “exempt surplus” land; WHEREAS, the Act provides that the City may dispose of property declared “exempt surplus” land without further regard to the requirements of the Act; and WHEREAS, from November 1992 through the present, the San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre (“SLO REP”), a long-standing community partner, has held a lease of the City-owned facilities located at the Morro Site for use as an interim theater location pending identification of a permanent location and adequate funding for construction of new theater facilities; and

Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 2
R ______
WHEREAS, the Morro Site has long been identified as a location necessary to accommodate the City’s expanding workforce and operations and the City’s planned use of the Morro Site is documented in the City Council adopted Facilities Master Plan (2018), which identifies the Morro Site as a future expansion/annex to City Hall for ongoing public, municipal uses; and
WHEREAS, the Monterey Site is not needed for “agency use” by the City as defined by the Act; and
WHEREAS, at its December 4, 2018, meeting, pursuant to Section 475 of the City’s Financial Management Manual, the City Council authorized staff to enter into an exclusive negotiating agreement with SLO REP dated May 22, 2019, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of an agreement for a ground lease of the Monterey Site for SLO REP as a permanent site to construct and operate a new theater building, in turn making the Morro Site available for the City’s re-use; and WHEREAS, Section 54234 of the Act provides that if a local agency, as of September 30, 2019, has entered into an exclusive negotiating agreement to dispose of property, the provisions of the Act as it existed on December 31, 2019, shall apply to the disposition of the property provided the disposition is completed no later than December 31, 2022;
WHEREAS, the City and SLO REP have been working diligently to identify deal points for SLO REP’s lease of the Monterey Site, but due to the prolonged duration of the COVID-19 pandemic and pertinent City staff’s attention to responsibilities required by the City’s emergency response, the parties were unable to execute a lease by December 31, 2022 in satisfaction of Section 54234; and
WHEREAS, the Monterey Site is nonetheless “exempt surplus” as defined by the Act because it is being exchanged for the Morro Site, which is necessary for the City’s use.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:

SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are a substantive part of this Resolution.

SECTION 2. Findings. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 54221(b) and 54221(f)(1)(C), the City Council hereby declares that the Monterey Site is not necessary for the City’s use and is “exempt surplus” land because the City’s use of the Monterey Site is being exchanged for its re-use of the Morro Site to accommodate ongoing and expanded municipal operations.

Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 3
R ______
SECTION 3. Environmental Review. The passage of this resolution will not cause a direct physical change in the environment, nor a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and therefore, this action does not constitute a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). (CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a).) The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Project (now called the Cultural Arts District Parking Structure) was certified by City Council in July 2018 (SCH # 2017051011) and subsequently amended in July 2019.

SECTION 4. City staff are hereby authorized and directed to provide a copy of this Resolution to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) in the form and manner required by HCD at least 30 days prior to the disposition of the Monterey Site.

Upon motion of Council Member ___________, seconded by Council Member ___________, and on the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _______________ 2023. ___________________________
Mayor Erica A. Stewart
ATTEST:
______________________
Teresa Purrington, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________
J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on ______________________. ___________________________
Teresa Purrington, City Clerk

Item 5e
Department: Public Works
Cost Center: 5005
For Agenda of: 9/5/2023
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Matt Horn, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Erica Long, Capital Projects Manager II
SUBJECT: AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE CHENG PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT, SPECIFICATION NUMBER 91385-10

RECOMMENDATION

1. Award a Construction Contract to JJ Fisher Construction, Inc. in the amount of $646,778 for the Cheng Park Revitalization project, Specification Number 91385-10; and

2. Authorize an appropriation of $300,000 from the Capital Projects Reserve Fund to the project account 2001010-01; and

3. Authorize the Finance Director to return unspent Capital Reserve funding to the Capital Projects Reserve Fund balance after project completion; and

4. Adopt a Draft Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, authorizing use of Capital Projects Reserve Fund to support the Cheng Park Revitalization, Specification Number 91385-10.”

POLICY CONTEXT
On July 19, 2022, City Council authorized staff to advertise for bids for the Cheng Park Revitalization project. No bids were received during the public bidding process, therefore, staff proceeded with an informal bidding process as outlined in City Municipal Code

3.24.185:

If no bids are received, the purchase may be made through negotiated contract or other process approved by the purchasing authority, including, in the case of construction projects, performing the work by employees of the city by force account. (Ord. 1435 § 1 (part), 2003) After reaching out to interested contractors, staff proceeded with an informal bidding process in accordance with the above Municipal Code section. JJ Fisher Construction, Inc., submitted a bid package for the project on July 25, 2023, in the amount of $646,778.

The contract price exceeds the delegated authority provided by Council to the City Manager and, therefore, a contract must be evaluated and awarded by Council to move forward with this project. This project is funded entirely through the Local Revenue Measure.

Item 5e
The recommended actions for award of a construction contract (Attachment A) and fund appropriation are supported by the City Council’s adopted Capital Improvement Plan as well as its Fund Balance and Reserve Policy. The City’s Fund Balance and Reserve Policy was adopted in June 2021 and includes guidelines related to the Capital Projects Reserve Fund, as follows:

The City will maintain a committed reserve of 20% of capital improvement plan budget from the Local Revenue Measure for the purposes of offsetting unanticipated cost increases, unforeseen conditions, and urgent unanticipated projects to provide continued investment in infrastructure maintenance and enhancement. Use and allocations of funds from the Capital Projects Reserve Fund will be made to Capital Projects including Major Facility Replacement upon Council approval as necessary during any fiscal year.

The recommended use of the Reserve to supplement the Cheng Park Revitalization project is consistent with this policy and a draft resolution has been prepared (Attachment B).

DISCUSSION
Background
Cheng Park is a small contemplative garden with a pond, shade structure, sculptures, and a few benches located at the corner of Marsh Street and Santa Rosa Street.

Significant maintenance is necessary to restore and preserve the park. The park was constructed in 2005 to celebrate Chinese Heritage through architectural and landscape features and it has many features that need to be repaired or upgraded. The current project includes rehabilitating the existing water pond, installing a new pump station, minor electrical improvements at the Pagoda, new solar lights, as well landscaping, and irrigation replacement.

On May 18, 2023, a bid opening was held where no bids were received (Attachment C).

Based on the input from contractors that were interested in the project but did not bid, staff decided to readvertise for bids with the same project documents. Contractors indicated that they did not have adequate time to find subcontractors for the scope of work or were otherwise too busy to do the work. Staff anticipated that readvertising the project would allow contractors more time to submit a bid.

The project went out to bid a second time on June 1, 2023, and on June, 22, 2023, a bid opening was held where no bids were received (Attachment D). Since no bids were received after two public bidding processes, staff proceeded with an informal biding process.

On July 25, 2023, one bid was received through the informal bidding process (Attachment E). The bid submitted by JJ Fisher Construction, Inc., came in at a price of $646,778, which is over the engineer’s estimate of $400,000. JJ Fisher Construction is a responsible contractor that submitted a responsive bid package and has a history of constructing parks projects for the City.

Item 5e
Table 1: Bid results for bid opening on July 25, 2023.

Engineer’s Estimate JJ Fisher Construction, Inc.
$400,000 $646,778
The bid price may be attributed to overall construction cost escalation and the lack of bid competitiveness as demonstrated by no initial bids received after the two formal bid advertisements.

Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
This Project was identified in the 2021-23 Financial Plan that was approved by Council.

Additionally, the Fund Balance and Reserve Policy was adopted by Council on June 1, 2021. The authorization to advertise was approved by Council on July 19, 2022.

Public Engagement
Public engagement for the Cheng Park Revitalization project was completed during the initial identification of this project in preparing the 2021-23 Financial Plan. Additionally, City staff worked with the original designer of the park, Alice Loh, to ensure the revitalization is consistent with the original purpose of the park to honor Chinese culture.

CONCURRENCE
The Public Works, Community Development, and Parks and Recreation departments concur with the recommendations of this report.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Cheng Park Revitalization project is exempt from environmental review under Section 15301 Class 1 (existing facilities) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines because the project proposes to maintain existing facilities. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable City Regulations.

FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: 2023-24
Funding Identified: Yes
Fiscal Analysis:

The current available project budget is $499,371 which includes the $200,000 of Capital Projects Reserve Fund approved by Council on July 19, 2022 and $300,000 of funding that was provided in the 2021-23 Financial Plan. Due to the current bid price, staff is requesting an additional $300,000 of Capital Projects Reserve Funds be appropriated to the project to fund the project, including costs of construction, contingencies, materials testing, design support, and printing. Project anticipated costs included recommended Capital Projects Reserve Funding shown below.

Item 5e
Project Costs (2001010-01)
General Fund - Local Revenue Measure
Bid Total $646,778
Contingencies (20%) $129,356
Total Construction Cost $776,134
Materials Testing: $5,500
Design Support - RRM $17,000
Printing: $737
Total Project Cost $799,371
Current Project Balance: $499,371
Current Capital Projects Reserve Fund Balance $3,700,000 Additional Funding Requested from the Capital
Projects Reverve Fund Balance $300,000
Remaining in the Capital Projects Reverve: $3,400,000
Cheng Park Revitalization, Specification No. 91385-10
The table below shows the available project funding, available Capital Projects Reserve Funding, and the additional proposed funding from the Capital Projects Reserve of $300,000 leaving a remaining balance of Capital Projects Reserve funding of $3,400,000.

Funding Sources
Total
Budget
Available
Additional
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
after
Project
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund: Capital
Outlay - LRM
$499,371 $0 $0 N/A
State
Federal
Fees
Other: Capital Projects
Reserve Fund
$3,700,000 $300,000 $3,400,000 N/A
Total $4,199,371 $300,000 $3,400,000 N/A
The Capital Projects Reserve Fund received an allocation of $4,000,000 with approval of the 2023-25 Financial Plan. This amount complies with the Capital Reserve Fund Policy which requires that the City maintain a capital reserve equivalent to 20% of the annual Local Revenue Measure capital budget to offset unanticipated cost increases and unforeseen conditions and thus provides for continued investment in infrastructure maintenance and enhancement according to the adopted project list. Below is a summary of use of the Capital Reserve in FY 2023-24.

Item 5e
FY 2023-24 Capital Reserve Starting
Balance $4,000,000
Use of Reserves to Date Amount Notes
Corporation Yard Fuel Island and Wash
Station Rehabilitation (2000075-9.01) $300,000
Approved on 6/20/23 for
allocation from FY 2023-
24 reserve amount
Cheng Park Revitalization (91385-10) $300,000 Requested via this item FY 2023-24 Remaining Reserve Balance $3,400,000 *
* On April 4, 2023, Council authorized use of up to $75,000 from the Capital Reserve for the Buchon Street Traffic Calming Project. As of the writing of this staff report, none of the $75,000 has been allocated to that project.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Deny the award of the construction contract. Council may choose to not award the contract at this time, reject all bids, and defer the project for readvertisement when additional project funding can be identified and allocated as part of typical budgeting processes. Staff does not recommend this option as it would further delay the construction of this approved project from the 2020-21 Supplemental Budget. This option risks project costs rising and the City could potentially receive bids higher than the above bid from JJ Fisher Construction, Inc.

2. Deny the appropriation of Capital Projects Reserve Funds. Staff does not recommend this option, as the park rehabilitation was identified as a near-term project in the Council-approved Parks and Recreation Blueprint for the Future and needs restoration. No other funding sources have been identified that could contribute to this project without deferring other projects.

ATTACHMENTS
A - Draft Construction Contract with JJ Fisher Construction, Inc.

B - Draft Resolution authorizing use of Capital Projects Reserve Fund for Specification Number 91385-10
C - Bid Results from the 1st Advertisement
D - Bid Results from the 2nd Advertisement
E - Bid Results from the Informal Bidding Process

AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made on _____________________, by and between the City of San Luis Obispo, a municipal corporation and charter city, San Luis Obispo County, California (hereinafter called the Owner) and JJ FISHER CONSTRUCTION, INC. (hereinafter called the Contractor).

WITNESSETH:

That the Owner and the Contractor for the consideration stated herein agree as follows:

ARTICLE 1, SCOPE OF WORK: The Contractor shall perform everything required to be performed, shall provide and furnish all of the labor, materials, necessary tools, expendable equipment, and all utility and transportation services required to complete all the work of construction of
CHENG PARK REVITALIZATION, SPECIFICATION 91385-10
in strict compliance with the plans and specifications therefor, including any and all Addenda, adopted by the Owner, in strict compliance with the Contract Documents hereinafter enumerated.

It is agreed that said labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services shall be furnished and said work performed and completed under the direction and supervision and subject to the approval of the Owner or its authorized representatives.

ARTICLE II, CONTRACT PRICE: The Owner shall pay the Contractor as full consideration for the faithful performance of this Contract, subject to any additions or deductions as provided in the Contract Documents, the contract prices as follows:

Item No. Item Unit of
Measure
Estimated
Quantity
Item Price
(in figures)
Total
(in figures)
1 Traffic Control LS 1 --- $17,500.00
2 Site Demolition LS 1 --- $42,000.00
3 Concrete Curb LF 175 $50.00 $8,750.00
4 Concrete Sidewalk SQFT 50 $135.00 $6,750.00
5 Paint Touchup (Pagoda post and
conduit) LS 1
--- $5,435.00
6 Pagoda Guardrail LF 68 $920.00 $62,560.00
7 Interpretive Sign LS 1 --- $4,850.00
8 Landscape Boulders (size range 24” –
36”) EA 2$1,475.00 $2.950.00
9 Landscape Boulders (size range 36” –
48”) EA 14 $2,215.00 $31,010.00
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8F729461-58EB-4A25-B681-AED13220B179

10 (S) Pound Construction LS 1 --- $144,465.00
11 Erosion Control LS 1 --- $3,235.00
12 Pump Procurement and Installation LS 1 --- $26,800.00 13 Pump Vault Lid Replacement LS 1 --- $23,800.00
14 Electrical Infrastructure Upgrades LS 1 ---- $106,285.00 15 Pagoda Light Fixtures EA 6 $2,025.00 $12,150.00
16 (S) Lita Solar Lights (14ft pole) EA 2 $18,690.00 $37,380.00 17 (S) Lita Solar Light (20ft pole) EA 1 --- $21,275.00 18 Camera Installation LS 1 --- $7,360.00
19 Shrubs (15 gallon container) EA 11 $370.00 $4,070.00 20 Shrubs (5 gallon container) EA 39 $72.00 $2,808.00
21 Shrubs and Ground Covers (1 gallon
container) EA 63 $35.00 $2,205.00
22 Shrubs and Ground Covers (4 inch
container) EA 1011 $21.00 $21,231.00
23 Backfill Mix CF 10 $59.00 $590.00
24 Thin Existing Bamboo Thicket LS 1 --- $4,185.00
25 Mulch Planting Areas SQFT 3340 $2.25 $7,515.00
26 Modifications to Existing Irrigation
System LS 1--- $29,555.00
27 Comply with Building Perrmit
Requirements LS 1
--- $7,475.00
28 Plant Establishment Period MONTH 3 $863.00 $2,589.00 BID TOTAL: $646,778.00
Payments are to be made to the Contractor in compliance with and subject to the provisions embodied in the documents made a part of this Contract.

Should any dispute arise respecting the true value of any work omitted, or of any extra work which the Contractor may be required to do, or respecting the size of any payment to the Contractor, during the performance of this Contract, said dispute shall be decided by the Owner and its decision shall be final, and conclusive.

ARTICLE III, COMPONENT PARTS OF THIS CONTRACT: The Contract consists of the following documents, all of which are as fully a part thereof as if herein set out in full, and if not attached, as if hereto attached:

1. Notice to Bidders and Information for Bidders

2. Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8F729461-58EB-4A25-B681-AED13220B179

3. Special Provisions, any Addenda, Plans and Contract Change Orders

4. Caltrans Standard Specifications and Standard Plans 2015

5. Accepted Bid and Bid Bond

6. List of Subcontractors

7. Public Contract Code Sections 10285.1 Statement

8. Public Contract Code Section 10162 Questionnaire

9. Public Contract Code Section 10232 Statement

10.Labor Code Section 1725.5 Statements

11.Bidder Acknowledgements

12.Qualifications

13.Non-collusion Declaration

14.Agreement and Bonds

15.Insurance Requirements and Forms
ARTICLE IV INDEMNIFICATION: The Contractor shall indemnify, defend with legal counsel approved by City, and hold harmless City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against all liability, loss, damage, expense, cost (including without limitation reasonable legal counsel fees, expert fees and all other costs and fees of litigation) of every nature arising out of or in connection with the Contractor’s negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct in the performance of work hereunder or its failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in this Agreement, except such loss or damage which is caused by the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of the City. Should conflict of interest principles preclude a single legal counsel from representing both the City and the Contractor, or should the City otherwise find the Contractor’s legal counsel unacceptable, then the Contractor shall reimburse the City its costs of defense, including without limitation reasonable legal counsel fees, expert fees and all other costs and fees of litigation. The Contractor shall promptly pay any final judgment rendered against the City (and its officers, officials, employees and volunteers) with respect to claims determined by a trier of fact to have been the result of the Contractor’s negligent, reckless or wrongful performance. It is expressly understood and agreed that the foregoing provisions are intended to be as broad and inclusive as is permitted by the law of the State of California and will survive termination of this Agreement.

The Contractor obligations under this section apply regardless of whether such claim, charge, damage, demand, action, proceeding, loss, stop notice, cost, expense, judgment, civil fine or penalty, or liability was caused in part or contributed to by an Indemnitee.

However, without affecting the rights of the City under any provision of this agreement, the Contractor shall not be required to indemnify and hold harmless the City for liability attributable to the active negligence of City, provided such active negligence is determined by agreement between the parties or by the findings of a court of competent jurisdiction. In instances where the City is shown to have been actively negligent and where the City’s active negligence accounts for only a percentage of the liability involved, the obligation of the Contractor will be for that entire portion or percentage of liability not attributable to the active negligence of the City.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8F729461-58EB-4A25-B681-AED13220B179

ARTICLE V. It is further expressly agreed by and between the parties hereto that should there be any conflict between the terms of this instrument and the bid of said Contractor, then this instrument shall control and nothing herein shall be considered as an acceptance of the said terms of said bid conflicting herewith.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to these presents have hereunto set their hands this year and date first above written.

ATTEST:
_______________________________
Teresa Purrington, City Clerk

CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
A Municipal Corporation
___________________________________
Erica A. Stewart, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM CONTRACTOR:

JJ FISHER CONSTRUCTION, INC.
________________________________ ___________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
Jayson James Fisher
Chief Executive Officer
____________________________________
Mark Sczbecki
Chief Financial Officer
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8F729461-58EB-4A25-B681-AED13220B179

R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2023 SERIES)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS

OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE USE OF CAPITAL

PROJECTS RESERVE FUND TO SUPPORT CHENG PARK
REVITALIZATION, SPECIFICATION NUMBER 91385-10
WHEREAS, in June of 2021, the City Council approved the 2021-23 Financial Plan – Capital Improvement Program, which identified the Cheng Park Revitalization project with a total budget of $300,000 to support implementation of the project; and WHEREAS, in July of 2022, the City Council approved Resolution 11346 to provide funding to support construction work for the Project, the City Council approved the use of $200,000 from the Capital Projects Reserve Fund; and
WHEREAS, to provide funding to support the total construction contract for the Project, staff is recommending the City Council approve the use of $300,000 from the Capital Projects Reserve Fund; and
WHEREAS, a balance of approximately $3.97 million is available from the Capital Projects Reserve Fund.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:

Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 2
R ______
SECTION 1. The City Council authorizes staff to transfer $300,000 from the Capital Project Reserve Fund to Cheng Park Revitalization, Specification No. 91385-10.

Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by
_______________________, and on the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2023. ___________________________
Mayor Erica A. Stewart
ATTEST:
__________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on ___________________________. ___________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk

Bid Opening: 05/18/23
Item # Item Description Unit of Measure Estimated Quanity Item price Total 1 Traffic Control LS 1
2 Site Demolition LS 1
3 Concrete Curb LF 175
4 Concrete Sidewalk SQFT 50
5 Paint Touchup (Pagoda post and conduit) LS 1
6 Pagoda Guardrail LF 68
7 Interpretive Sign LS 1
8 Landscape Boulders (size range 24"-36") EA 2
9 Landscape Boulders (size range 36”-48”) EA 14
10 Pond Construction LS 1
11 Erosion Control LS 1
12 Pump Procurement and Installation LS 1
13 Pump Vault Lid Replacement LS 1
14 Electrical Infrastructure Upgrades LS 1
15 Pagoda Light Fixtures EA 6
16 Lita Solar Lights (14ft pole) EA 2
17 Lita Solar Light (20ft pole) EA 1
18 Camera Installation LS 1
19 Shrubs 15 (gallon container) EA 11
20 Shrubs (5 gallon container) EA 39
21 Shrubs and Ground Covers (1 gallon container) EA 63
22 Shrubs and Ground Covers (4 inch container) EA 1011
23 Backfill Mix SQFT 2040
24 Thin Existing Bamboo Thicket LS 1
25 Mulch Planting Areas SQFT 3340
26 Modifications to Existing Irrigation System LS 1
27 Comply with Building Permit Requirements LS 1
28 Plant Establishment Period MONTH 3
$0.00
CHENG PARK REVITALIZATION, SPECIFICATION NO. 91385-10
Total Bid Amount
Engineer's Estimate

Bid Opening: 06/22/23
Item # Item Description Unit of Measure Estimated Quanity Item price Total 1 Traffic Control LS 1
2 Site Demolition LS 1
3 Concrete Curb LF 175
4 Concrete Sidewalk SQFT 50
5 Paint Touchup (Pagoda post and conduit) LS 1
6 Pagoda Guardrail LF 68
7 Interpretive Sign LS 1
8 Landscape Boulders (size range 24"-36") EA 2
9 Landscape Boulders (size range 36”-48”) EA 14
10 Pond Construction LS 1
11 Erosion Control LS 1
12 Pump Procurement and Installation LS 1
13 Pump Vault Lid Replacement LS 1
14 Electrical Infrastructure Upgrades LS 1
15 Pagoda Light Fixtures EA 6
16 Lita Solar Lights (14ft pole) EA 2
17 Lita Solar Light (20ft pole) EA 1
18 Camera Installation LS 1
19 Shrubs 15 (gallon container) EA 11
20 Shrubs (5 gallon container) EA 39
21 Shrubs and Ground Covers (1 gallon container) EA 63
22 Shrubs and Ground Covers (4 inch container) EA 1011
23 Backfill Mix SQFT 2040
24 Thin Existing Bamboo Thicket LS 1
25 Mulch Planting Areas SQFT 3340
26 Modifications to Existing Irrigation System LS 1
27 Comply with Building Permit Requirements LS 1
28 Plant Establishment Period MONTH 3
$0.00
CHENG PARK REVITALIZATION, SPECIFICATION NO. 91385-10
Total Bid Amount
Engineer's Estimate

Bid Opening: 07/25/23
Item # Item Description Unit of Measure Estimated Quanity Item price Total 1 Traffic Control LS 1 --- $17,500.00
2 Site Demolition LS 1 --- $42,000.00
3 Concrete Curb LF 175 $50.00 $8,750.00
4 Concrete Sidewalk SQFT 50 $135.00 $6,750.00
5 Paint Touchup (Pagoda post and conduit) LS 1 --- $5,435.00 6 Pagoda Guardrail LF 68 $920.00 $62,560.00
7 Interpretive Sign LS 1 --- $4,850.00
8 Landscape Boulders (size range 24"-36") EA 2 $1,475.00 $2,950.00 9 Landscape Boulders (size range 36”-48”) EA 14 $2,215.00 $31,010.00 10 Pond Construction LS 1 --- $144,465.00
11 Erosion Control LS 1 --- $3,235.00
12 Pump Procurement and Installation LS 1 --- $26,800.00 13 Pump Vault Lid Replacement LS 1 --- $23,800.00
14 Electrical Infrastructure Upgrades LS 1 --- $106,285.00 15 Pagoda Light Fixtures EA 6 $2,025.00 $12,150.00
16(S) Lita Solar Lights (14ft pole) EA 2 $18,690.00 $37,380.00 17(S) Lita Solar Light (20ft pole) EA 1 $21,275.00 $21,275.00 18 Camera Installation LS 1 --- $7,360.00
19 Shrubs 15 (gallon container) EA 11 $370.00 $4,070.00 20 Shrubs (5 gallon container) EA 39 $72.00 $2,808.00
21 Shrubs and Ground Covers (1 gallon container) EA 63 $35.00 $2,205.00 22 Shrubs and Ground Covers (4 inch container) EA 1011 $21.00 $21,231.00 23 Backfill Mix CF 10 $59.00 $590.00
24 Thin Existing Bamboo Thicket LS 1 --- $4,185.00
25 Mulch Planting Areas SQFT 3340 $2.25 $7,515.00
26 Modifications to Existing Irrigation System LS 1 --- $29,555.00 27 Comply with Building Permit Requirements LS 1 --- $7,475.00 28 Plant Establishment Period MONTH 3 $863.00 $2,589.00 $646,778.00
CHENG PARK REVITALIZATION, SPECIFICATION NO. 91385-10
Total Bid Amount
JJ Fisher Construction Inc.

Item 5f
Department: Community Development
Cost Center: 4006
For Agenda of: 9/5/2023
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: NA
FROM: Timmi Tway, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Michael Loew, Deputy Director/Chief Building Official SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE ON-CALL ENERGOV SUPPORT

SERVICES REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS

RECOMMENDATION

1. Approve the Draft Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to provide Energov support services; and

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute agreements with selected consulting firms; and

3. Authorize the Finance Director to execute and amend Purchase Orders for individual consultant services contracts in an amount not-to-exceed the authorized project budget; and

4. Authorize the Community Development Director to amend or extend the agreement for services in accordance with its terms and within the available annual budget.

POLICY CONTEXT
The Community Development Department (CDD) is working on several efforts to improve business practices and streamline processes for the public and staff and is in need of technical support to continue to carry out these efforts. The City’s purchasing policy requires competitive bids for a single transaction and cumulative purchases for a fiscal year at Tier 3 through 5. See Attachment A, Purchasing Policy Tier Approval Guide for Professional Services. Factoring in the previous years' technical support needs and upcoming business process improvement needs, the 2023-25 expenditures for technical support services may reach the City’s purchasing threshold that requires Council authorization.

Municipal Code Section 3.24.070 authorizes staff to procure these type of “specialized services” when consultants are on “an approved list of on-call consultants that is established by a formal request for qualifications (RFQ) process.” Section 3.24.070 (C) further states that “The council shall approve the RFQ, and the purchasing authority is authorized to execute agreements with the selected consultants. The finance director is authorized to execute and amend purchase orders for individual consultant services contracts in an amount not to exceed the authorized project budget. On-call consultant lists shall be renewed at least every five years by a new RFQ process.”

Item 5f
Interpreting the policy and Municipal Code together, the Finance Department and IT Division recommend using the RFQ process to establish a list of qualified consultants to assist CDD and IT with technical support. Then, once the contracts are in place, City staff can utilize the services of the contractors with negotiated pricing and terms to reduce overall service costs.

DISCUSSION
Background
The Community Development Department (CDD) uses a computer program called Energov to manage permit and planning applications, development review activities, inspections, code enforcement cases, and all payments received by CDD. Currently, the City has a contract with Tyler Technologies for the use of Energov and there is a regular ongoing need for additional technical support services related to Energov.

In May of 2022, CDD staff, with technical support from IT staff, upgraded Energov to the most up to date version available. This new version has enabled significant business process improvements that include the ability to schedule inspections online, obtain an instant building permit for certain solar applications, transfer approved documents between staff and customers, and store all permit and plan information digitally. CDD and IT staff are now working to configure the system to enable online applications for all permits and enable an eReview process that will help accomplish the goal of creating a completely paperless and user-friendly process for development review activities.

The IT department is currently staffed with one regular full-time employee that provides ongoing support for regular system operations for Energov. However, CDD has the need for additional specialized support to configure the Energov environment with new customer service features.

Request for Qualifications Selection and Contract Management The City is currently under contract with Tyler Technologies through October 31, 2023, for a service called “Tyler Assist Basic.” Tyler Assist Basic provides staff with 120 hours of technical support related to Energov, at a cost of $30,000 a year. The lack of flexibility in the options available in the Tyler Assist suite has created the need for alternative technical support services. Staff is aware of such services available through alternative independent consultants at a more affordable rate. Staff is requesting to establish a list of qualified consultants that are prepared to provide specialized technical support for IT staff on an as-needed basis as it relates to Energov services. This approach will be more fiscally responsible and enable staff to discontinue services with a provider if the support does not produce measurable results that increase the efficacy of CDD’s business processes.

Item 5f
It is, therefore, recommended that the City advertise for these services through a RFQ (Attachment B). The RFQ model is used to identify the skillset of the consultants submitting qualifications and enables City staff to determine how those qualifications align with current City needs. This is different from the project-specific Request for Proposals (RFP) model, which seeks proposals for a specific project with a defined scope of work.

After evaluating the RFQ submittal packages, the top consultants in each specialized area will be selected to enter into an agreement with the City. Consultant selection is based on demonstrated ability to provide the services proposed in a timely manner with qualified staff. Once the selected consultants enter into an agreement with the City, their services on an individual project are implemented rapidly, without the need for an individual RFP.

The selected consultant firms will remain on contract for up to five years. The consultants will operate under the conditions of the agreement included in the RFQ. Individual projects will be scoped by the City department most involved. The specific project work will then be authorized via a Purchase Order through the Finance Department.

Public Engagement
This RFQ will be advertised to the public.

CONCURRENCE
The Information Technology Division agrees with the need for additional technical support for the purpose of supporting Energov related work.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to the recommended action in this report, because the action does not constitute a “Project” under CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15378.

FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: 2023-24
Funding Identified: Yes
Fiscal Analysis:

Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund $140,000 $ $ $30,000
State
Federal
Fees
Other:

Total $140,000 $ $ $30,000

Item 5f
Issuing the RFQ and establishing a qualified list does not obligate any funds for consultant work. When the on-call agreement is executed and projects are identified requiring consultant services, quotes will be requested, and purchase orders will be issued at the discretion of the Finance Director in an amount not to exceed authorized project budgets.

As part of the 2023-25 Financial Plan, Council allocated $140,000 each fiscal year to the Building and Safety Division for “Other Contract Services.” This account is used to cover the costs of consultant services to assist staff with operational needs such as those addressed by the RFQ. In the event that projects arise that exceed the current budget allocation, staff will submit a Budget Adjust Request or Significant Operation Budget Change request prior to committing to any expenditures.

ALTERNATIVES
Individual Project Request for Proposals (RFP). Council can direct staff to proceed in a more traditional fashion by issuing RFPs for each individual project, such as the Tyler Assist Basic package mentioned above, as a need arises in accordance with the City’s Purchasing Guidelines. In this case, a company with greater experience in the specific work might be attracted; however, this process is very time consuming and increases the work required for an individual project, reducing overall project production. Staff does not recommend this approach because it increases the time to implement individual contracts, while providing minimal benefit. RFPs can still be issued on a case-by-case basis when specialized skills, not available through on-call contracts, are needed.

ATTACHMENTS
A - Purchasing Policy Tier Approval Thresholds
B - Draft RFQ for Energov support services

Professional
Services
General
Goods
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO www.slocity.org

PURCHASING POLICY - APPROVAL THRESHOLDS
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 4
Tier 5
Under
$10,000
$10,000
to $39,999
$40,000
to $69,999
$70,000
to $150,000
$150,000
or more
Purchase Requisition (PR) approved by Fiscal Officer
Purchase Order (PO) approved by Purchasing
3 Quotes
PR approved by Fiscal Officer, Dept. Head
PO approved by Purchasing
RFP Required
PR approved by Fiscal Officer & Dept. Head
PO approved by Purchasing
City Manager Report and RFP Required
PR approved by Fiscal Officer
PO approved by Purchasing
Council Approval and RFP Required
PR approved by Fiscal Officer
PO approved by Purchasing

PURCHASING POLICY - APPROVAL THRESHOLDS
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 4
Under
$10,000
$10,000
to $74,999
$75,000
to $199,999
$200,000
or more
Purchase Requisition (PR) approved by Fiscal Officer
Purchase Order (PO) approved by Purchasing
3 Quotes
PR approved by Fiscal Officer, Dept. Head
PO approve by Purchasing
City Manager Report and RFP Required
PR approved by Fiscal Officer & Dept. Head
PO approved by Purchasing
Council Approval and RFP Required
PR approved by Fiscal Officer
PO approved by Purchasing

Notice requesting qualifications (RFQ) for on-call Energov supportservices.

The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting proposals from qualified vendors to provide Energov support services. All proposers must register with BidSync at www.BidSync.com, where proposers can obtain RFQ packages and submit questions.

All firms interested in receiving further correspondence regarding this Request for Qualifications(RFQ) will be required to complete a free registration using BidSync ( https://www.bidsync.com/bidsyncappweb/vendor/register/Login.xhtml). All proposals must be on BidSync at or before 3:00 PM on _____(Date)_________, when they are opened electronically on BidSync.

The preferred method for bid submission is electronic via BidSync. However, if you wish to submit a paper copy, please submit it in a sealed envelope to the Department of Finance, City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401.

Specification packages and additional information may be obtained at the City's BidSync website at www.BidSync.com. Please contact Dan Clancy at [email protected] with questions.

For technical help with BidSync please contact BidSync tech support at 800-990-9339.

Section A

DESCRIPTION OFWORK
The City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) seeks qualifications for Energov technical support services to assist staff in business process configurations.

I. GENERAL
The City is requesting qualifications from qualified consultants to provide Energov technical support services. Currently, the city is not adequately staffed to perform all necessary system configurations to utilize the system software to its fullest extent. The City is interested in generating a list of qualified consultants specializing in this type of work to draw from as needed. While an exact list of the City’s future technical support needs is unknown at this time, consultants should expect projects and tasks that will include configurations for intelligent objects, intelligent queries, general automations, workflow updates, and GIS settings. Furthermore, the city is looking for a qualified consultant that can act a resource to guide staff on what is considered a supported system configuration versus an unsupported customization.

II. SCOPE OF WORK
Qualified consultants shall be proficient in and capable of providing the following services:

Client Services Account Management
• Bi-weekly check-ins
• New Release Planning
• Continuous Improvement Planning
• Organization Readiness
• Support Analytics
Investment Assessment/Best Practice Review
• Best Practice/Stability Analysis
• Maturity Model Discussion
• Consumption Gap Discussion
• EnerGov Product Roadmap Discussion
 GIS Settings
Software Configuration Requests
• Unlimited configuration requests
Example of configuration services needed:
• User Setup
• Custom Fields
• Workflows
• Fee Updates
• Districts
• Automations (IOs & IAAs)
• Fee Schedule Updates
• GeoRules
• Code Updates
• Report Modifications
• Demonstration of new functionality

III. SUBMITTAL CONTENT

1. Letter of Interest (5-page maximum). Please include in the submittal a letter introducing the Consultant and expressing the Consultant's interest in being considered for on-call consulting services, clearly identifying the applicable sub-area(s) of interest. The letter of interest should also include all of the following:
a. Provide the name of the entity, its mailing address, telephone, facsimile number. Please describe the organization.
b. Indicate that the Consultant has the availability and time to dedicate the personnel and resources necessary to provide on-call consulting services. c. Indicate that the Consultant has the minimum qualifications listed in Section III above. d. Indicate the intention of the Consultant to adhere to the provisions described in the RFQ. e. If selected to provide on-call consulting services, the Consultant will be expected to sign a service provider agreement with the City.
f. Please identify the contact person responsible for the submittal, specifying the name, title, and contact information.
g. Please note that the person signing the letter of interest must be a legal representative of the Consultant authorized to bind the Consultant to an agreement in the event of an award. h. Provide a brochure or list of relevant services that can be provided, including but not limited to services outlined in Section I and II

2. Relevant Experience of Key Personnel and the Firm (10-pagemaximum). a. Key Personnel Experience. The submittal must identify the key personnel that is to be assigned if awarded a contract, detailing their qualifications, areas of expertise, a summary of their past experience performing similar services for other jurisdictions, and a resume of each key personnel, including experience working with City staff, local San Luis Obis po community groups and decision-makers, and regional partner agencies.
b. Firm Experience. The submittal must describe the Firm's pertinent project experience, including a list of performed relevant projects, past performance, individual orteamaccomplishments, and examples of similar work for San Luis Obispo or neighboring jurisdictions in California, including experience working with City staff, local San LuisObispo community groups and decision-makers, and regional partner agencies. c. General Firm Information. General firm information including the number of employees, location of firm headquarters, branch offices, and the number of years in business may also be provided. Please note that general firm information is not a substitute for the specific information requested in Sections IV.2.a and babove.

3. Fee Structure. Please include a clear and comprehensive fee schedule, including a detailed statement of hourly rates for all positions and classifications of individuals involved and reimbursable expenses.

Please also include the rates for a project-by-project basis, as noted in the sample Scope of Work above.

4. Client References. Consultants must provide a minimum of three (3) clientreferences.

IV. ADDITIONAL SERVICES
If there are related services not otherwise identified in the City's RFQ, the Proposer may offer thoseto the City. Proposals are not required to address any additional services in order to be considered an acceptable proposal. However, the final selection of the successful Proposer may be based onthe desirability of the additional servicesoffered.

V. SELECTION PROCESS
Submittals received by the deadline will be reviewed by a selection panel comprised ofCity staff who have relevant knowledge and experience. The panel will score the proposalsbased upon the qualification materials submitted according to the following criteria:

1. Letter of Interest. Availability demonstrated the capacity and qualifications necessary to provide the consulting services specified in the RFQ. Ability to meet standard City contract and insurance requirements.

2. Relevant Experience.
a. Demonstrated ability, based on consultant experience and specific experience of key personnel, to provide technical assistance on the types of tasks listed in the RFQ. Consultants need not necessarily be experts in every task in a given sub-area in order to achieve a favorable score.
b. Prior experience, including the ability to work with City staff, local San Luis Obispo community groups and decision-makers, and regional partner agencies. (30 Points Maximum)

3. Responsiveness to the RFQ. Presentation, completeness, and clarity of information provided.

4. Fee Structure. The Consultant's cost competitiveness and reasonableness. (20 Points Maximum)

5. Client References. (Pass/Fail)
The submittals will be scored on a zero to 100-point scale, excluding bonus points. Consultants who qualify will be placed on the list of qualified on-call consultants for each subarea. Placement on the list of qualified on-call consultants is not a guarantee of work and does not constitute a commitment by the City to enter into a contract with the Consultant. As appropriate, the City may conduct an additional competitive process (e.g., solicit bids or issue Requests for Proposals) prior to awarding contracts. The City anticipates that all services will be on an as-needed or on-call basis.

IV. ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
A. Nondiscrimination. The City will not discriminate against any interested consultanton the grounds of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, handicap, disability, marital status, pregnancy, sex, age, or sexual orientation.

B. City's Right to Modify RFQ. The City reserves the right at its sole discretion to modify this RFQ (including but not limited to the selection criteria) should the City deem that it isin itsbest interests to do so. Any changes to the proposal requirements will be madeby written addendum. The failure of a consultant to read the latest addendums shallhave no effect on the validity of such modification.

C. City's Right to Cancel RFQ. The City reserves the right at its sole discretion to cancel this RFQ in part or in its entirety should the City deem that it is in the City's best interests to do so.

D. City's Right to Reject All Submittals. The City reservesthe right, in its sole discretion, to reject all submittals should the City deem that it is in its best interests to do so.

E. City's Right to Extend RFQ Deadlines. The City reserves the right to extend the deadline for submittals by written addendum should the City deem that it is in its best interests to do so.

F. City Right to Negotiate With Consultants. The City reserves the right to negotiate with the consultants on the list of qualified on-call consultants regarding their exceptions to thestandard service provider agreement if any, or regarding other price and terms in theirsubmittals and to require the selected Consultant to submit such technical, price, or other revisions of their submittals as may result fromnegotiations.

G. Standard Form Service Provider Agreement & Insurance. Consultants acknowledgethat placement on the list of qualified on-call consultants does not commit the City to award a contract. For any project, the City reserves the right to award a contract to consultants (1) that are on the list of qualified on-call consultants; (2) that have an existing contract with the City, or (3) that are selected through a separate competitiveprocess.

Consultants on the list of qualified on-call consultants who are awarded a contract will be expected to sign a service provider agreement with the City. The standard service provider agreement and associated insurance requirements are attached asAttachment B.

Comments or exceptions, if any, to the standard service provider agreementand/or insurance requirements must be noted in the Letter of Interest. It is understoodthat consultants have reviewed the service provider agreement (Attachment B) and will take exception only to those items identified in their Letter ofInterest.

Neither review of the submittal by the City nor placement on the list of qualifiedon-call consultants constitutes an acceptance by the City of the Proposer's recommended changes tothe service provider agreement. If there are any concerns or proposed exceptions requested to the standard service provider agreement, these issues will be discussed at the time the City awards a contract, if any.

H. Cost of Submittals. All costs incurred during submittal preparation or in anyway associated with the Consultant's preparations or submission shall be thesole responsibility of the Consultant.

I. Liability for Submittal Errors. Consultants are liable for all errors and omissions contained in their submittals.

J. Permits and Licenses. Consultants, at their sole expense, shall obtain and maintain during the term of any agreement all appropriate permits, certificates, andlicenses including, but not limited to, a City Business License, which will be required in connection with the performance of on-call consulting services.

VII. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS

1. All works submitted to and accepted by the City must be an original piece createdby the Contractor.

2. All works submitted by the Contractor must be in standard U.S. English and adhere to the Branding and Style Guide.

3. All works must be submitted in Microsoft Word format and include a headline pertaining to the work in bold. The work should appear in a non-bolded Calibri, 12-pointfont.

4. The City reservesthe right to use allsubmitted worksin current and/or future forms of current media and/or media to be developed.

GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS

PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

1. Requirement to Meet All Provisions. Each individual or firm submitting a proposal (bidder) shall meet all the terms, and conditions of the Request for Proposals (RFP) project package. By virtue of its proposal submittal, the bidder acknowledges agreement with and acceptance of all provisions of the RFP specifications.

2. Proposal Submittal. Each proposal must be submitted on the form(s) provided in the specifications and accompanied by any other required submittals or supplemental materials. Proposal documents shall be submitted electronically via BidSync. However, if you can’t submit electronic please send your bid copy in a sealed envelope to the Department of Finance, City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401. To guard against premature opening, the proposal should be clearly labeled with the proposal title, project number, name of bidder, and date and time of proposal opening. No FAX submittals will be accepted.

3. Insurance Certificate. Each proposal must include a certificate of insurance showing:
a. The insurance carrier and its A.M. Best rating.
b. Scope of coverage and limits.
c. Deductibles and self-insured retention.

The purpose of this submittal is to generally assess the adequacy of the bidder’s insurance coverage during proposal evaluation; as discussed under paragraph 12 below, endorsements are not required until contract award. The City’s insurance requirements are detailed in Section E.

4. Proposal Quotes and Unit Price Extension. The extension of unit prices for the quantities indicated and the lump sum prices quoted by the bidder must be entered in figures in the spaces provided on the Proposal Submittal Form(s). Any lump sum bid shall be stated in figures. The Proposal Submittal Form(s) must be totally completed. If the unit price and the total amount stated by any bidder for any item are not in agreement, the unit price alone will be considered as representing the bidder’s intention and the proposal total will be corrected to conform to the specified unit price.

5. Proposal Withdrawal and Opening. A bidder may withdraw its proposal, without prejudice prior to the time specified for the proposal opening, by submitting a written request to the Director of Finance for its withdrawal, in which event the proposal will be returned to the bidder unopened. No proposal received after the time specified or at any place other than that stated in the “Notice Inviting Bids/Requesting Proposals” will be considered. All proposals will be opened and declared publicly.

Bidders or their representatives are invited to be present at the opening of the proposals. Page 62 of 753

6. Submittal of One Proposal Only. No individual or business entity of any kind shall be allowed to make or file, or to be interested as the primary submitter in more than one proposal, except an alternative proposal when specifically requested; however, an individual or business entity that has submitted a subproposal to a bidder submitting a proposal, or who has quoted prices on materials to such bidder, is not thereby disqualified from submitting a sub-proposal or from quoting prices to other bidders submitting proposals.

7. Communications. All timely requests for information submitted in writing will receive a written response from the City. Telephone communications with City staff are not encouraged but will be permitted. However, any such oral communication shall not be binding on the City.

CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION

8. Proposal Retention and Award. The City reserves the right to retain all proposals for a period of 60 days for examination and comparison. The City also reserves the right to waive non-substantial irregularities in any proposal, to reject any or all proposals, to reject or delete one part of a proposal and accept the other, except to the extent that proposals are qualified by specific limitations. See the “special terms and conditions” in Section C of these specifications for proposal evaluation and contract award criteria.

9. Competency and Responsibility of Bidder. The City reserves full discretion to determine the competence and responsibility, professionally and/or financially, of bidders. Bidders will provide, in a timely manner, all information that the City deems necessary to make such a decision.

10. Contract Requirement. The bidder to whom award is made (Contractor) shall execute a written contract with the City within ten (10) calendar days after notice of the award. The contract shall be made in the form adopted by the City and incorporated in these specifications.

CONTRACT PERFORMANCE

11. The City’s contract terms and conditions that [Contractor/Consultant] will be expected to execute and be bound by are attached hereto as Exhibit A

SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1. Contract Award. Subject to the reservations set forth in Paragraph 9 of Section B (General Terms and Conditions) of these specifications, the contract will be awarded to the lowest responsible, responsive proposer.

2. Sales Tax Reimbursement.

For sales occurring within the City of San Luis Obispo, the City receives sales tax revenues. Therefore, for bids from retail firms located in the City at the time of proposal closing for which sales tax is allocated to the City, 1% of the taxable amount of the bid will be deducted from the proposal by the City in calculating and determining the lowest responsible, responsive proposer.

3. Labor Actions.

In the event that the successful proposer is experiencing a labor action at the time of contract award (or if its suppliers or subcontractors are experiencing such a labor action), the City reserves the right to declare Page 63 of 753 said proposer is no longer the lowest responsible, responsive proposer and to accept the next acceptable low proposal from a proposer that is not experiencing a labor action, and to declare it to be the lowest responsible, responsive proposer.

4. Failure to Accept Contract.

The following will occur if the proposer to whom the award is made (Contractor) fails to enter into the contract: the award will be annulled; any bid security will be forfeited in accordance with the special terms and conditions if a proposer's bond or security is required; and an award may be made to the next lowest responsible, responsive proposer who shall fulfill every stipulation as if it were the party to whom the first award was made.

5. Contract Term.

The supplies or services identified in this specification will be used by the City for 5 years. The prices quoted for these items must be valid for the entire period indicated above unless otherwise conditioned by the proposer in its proposal.

6. Contract Extension.

The term of the contract may be extended by mutual consent for an additional one-year, and annually thereafter, for a total of four years.

7. Supplemental Purchases
Supplemental Purchases. Supplemental purchases may be made from the successful proposer during the contract term in addition to the items listed in the Detail Proposal Submittal Form. For these supplemental purchases, the proposer shall not offer prices to the City in excess of the amounts offered to other similar customers for the same item. If the proposer is willing to offer the City a standard discount on all supplemental purchases from its generally prevailing or published price structure during the contract term, this offer and the amount of discount on a percentage basis should be provided with the proposal submittal.

8. Contractor Invoices.

The Contractor may deliver either a monthly invoice to the City with attached copies of detail invoices as supporting detail, or in one lump-sum upon completion.
9 Non-Exclusive Contract. The City reserves the right to purchase the items listed in the Detail Proposal Submittal Form, as well as any supplemental items, from other vendors during the contract term.

10. Unrestrictive Brand Names. Any manufacturer's names, trade names, brand names or catalog numbers used in the specifications are for the purpose of describing and establishing general quality levels. Such references are not intended to be restrictive. Proposals will be considered for any brand that meets or exceeds the quality of the specifications given for any item. In the event an alternate brand name is proposed, supplemental documentation shall be provided demonstrating that the alternate brand name meets or exceeds the requirements specified herein. The burden of proof as to the suitability of any proposed alternatives is upon the proposer, and the City shall be the sole judge in making this determination.

11. Delivery. Prices quoted for all supplies or equipment to be provided under the terms and conditions of this RFP package shall include delivery charges, to be delivered F.O.B. San Luis Obispo by the successful proposer and received by the City within 90 days after authorization to proceed by the City.

12. Start and Completion of Work. Work on this project shall begin immediately after contract execution and shall be completed within 90 calendar days thereafter, unless otherwise negotiated with City by mutual agreement.

13. Change in Work. The City reserves the right to change quantities of any item after contract award.

If the total quantity of any changed item varies by 25% or less, there shall be no change in the agreed upon unit price for that item. Unit pricing for any quantity changes per item in excess of 25% shall be subject to negotiation with the Contractor.

14. Submittal of References. Each proposer shall submit a statement of qualifications and references on the form provided in the RFP package.

15. Statement of Contract Disqualifications. Each proposer shall submit a statement regarding any past governmental agency bidding or contract disqualifications on the form provided in the RFP package.

REFERENCES
Number of years engaged in providing the services included within the scope of thespecifications under
the present business name: .

Describefully three contractsperformedbyyourFirmwithin the lastfiveyearsthat demonstrateyourability to provide the services included with the scope of the specifications. Attach additional pages if required.

The City reservesthe rightto contact each ofthe referenceslisted for additional information regarding your Firm's qualifications.

Reference No. 1
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & FAX number
Street Address
City, State, ZipCode
Description of services
provided including contract
amount, when provided and
link to finalreport
Reference No. 2
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & FAX number
Street Address
City, State, ZipCode
Description of services
provided including contract
amount, when provided and
link to finalreport
Reference No. 3
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & FAX number

Street Address
City, State, ZipCode
Description of services
provided including contract
amount, when provided and
link to finalreport

STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACTDISQUALIFICATIONS
The bidder shall state whether it or any of its officers or employees who have a proprietary interest in it, has ever been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from bidding on, or completing a federal, state, or local government project because of the violation of law, a safety regulation, or for any other reason, including but not limited to financial difficulties, project delays, or disputes regarding work or product quality, and if so to explain thecircumstances. ■ Do you have any disqualification as described in the above paragraph todeclare? Yes No
■ If yes, explain the circumstances.

Executed on at under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct.

Signature of Authorized Bidder Representative

Exhibit A

CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO

AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASES OF GOODS AND SERVICES
This Agreement is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on _____________ by and between the City of San Luis Obispo, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as City, and [Contractor’s Name], hereinafter referred to as Contractor.

W I T N E S S E T H:

WHEREAS, on ____(Date)____, City requested proposals for on-call scanning services; and WHEREAS, pursuant to said request, Contractor submitted a proposal that was accepted by City for the Project;
WHEREAS, [______]
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date this Agreement is made and entered, as first written above, for 5 years, or until acceptance and completion of said project.

2. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. City Request for Qualifications for on-call scanning services and Contractor's proposal dated [date] is hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement and attached as Exhibit A. The City’s terms and conditions are hereby incorporated in an made a part of this Agreement as Exhibit B. The City’s insurance requirements are hereby incorporated in and made part of this Agreement, attached as Exhibit C. To the extent that there are any conflicts between the Contractor’s fees and scope of work and the City’s terms and conditions, the City’s terms and conditions shall prevail, unless specifically agreed otherwise in writing signed by both parties.

3. CITY'S OBLIGATIONS. For providing the services as specified in this Agreement, City will pay, and Contractor shall receive therefore compensation [____].

4. CONTRACTOR/CONSULTANT’S OBLIGATIONS. For and in consideration of the payments and agreements hereinbefore mentioned to be made and performed by City, Contractor agrees with City to do everything required by this Agreement and the said specifications.

5. AMENDMENTS. Any amendment, modification or variation from the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the City Manager.

6. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings specifically incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties hereto. No oral agreement, understanding or representation not reduced to writing and specifically incorporated herein shall be of any force or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement, understanding or representation be binding upon the parties hereto.

7. NOTICE. All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail, postage prepaid by registered or certified mail addressed as follows:

City Name Page 69 of 753
Dept.

Address
Consultant Name
Title
Address
Address

8. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both City and Contractor do covenant that everyone executing this agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to execute Agreements for such party.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and year first above written.

CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO:

By:_____________________________________
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONSULTANT:
________________________________ By: _____________________________________ City Attorney Name of CAO / President
Its: CAO / President

EXHIBIT A [CONTRACTOR’S PROPOSAL]
EXHIBIT B Page 71 of 753

GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1. Business License & Tax. The Contractor must have a valid City of San Luis Obispo business license & tax certificate before execution of the contract. Additional information regarding the City’s business tax program may be obtained by calling (805) 781-7134.

2. Ability to Perform. The Contractor warrants that it possesses, or has arranged through subcontracts, all capital and other equipment, labor, materials, and licenses necessary to carry out and complete the work hereunder in compliance with all federal, state, county, city, and special district laws, ordinances, and regulations.

3. Laws to be Observed. The Contractor shall keep itself fully informed of and shall observe and comply with all applicable state and federal laws and county and City of San Luis Obispo ordinances, regulations and adopted codes during its performance of the work.

4. Payment of Taxes. The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes that the Contractor is required to pay.

5. Permits and Licenses. The Contractor shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices necessary.

6. Safety Provisions. The Contractor shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to safety established by OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety.

7. Public and Employee Safety. Whenever the Contractor’s operations create a condition hazardous to the public or City employees, it shall, at its expense and without cost to the City, furnish, erect and maintain such fences, temporary railings, barricades, lights, signs and other devices and take such other protective measures as are necessary to prevent accidents or damage or injury to the public and employees.

8. Preservation of City Property. The Contractor shall provide and install suitable safeguards, approved by the City, to protect City property from injury or damage. If City property is injured or damaged resulting from the Contractor’s operations, it shall be replaced or restored at the Contractor’s expense. The facilities shall be replaced or restored to a condition as good as when the Contractor began work.

9. Immigration Act of 1986. The Contractor warrants on behalf of itself and all

subcontractors engaged for the performance of this work that only persons authorized to work in the United State pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and other applicable laws shall be employed in the performance of the work hereunder.

10. Non-Discrimination. In the performance of this work, the Contractor agrees that it will not engage in, nor permit such subcontractors as it may employ, to engage in discrimination in employment of persons because of age, race, color, sex, national origin or ancestry, sexual orientation, or religion of such persons.

11. Work Delays. Should the Contractor be obstructed or delayed in the work required to be done hereunder by changes in the work or by any default, act, or omission of the City, or by strikes, fire, earthquake, or any other Act of God, or by the inability to obtain materials, equipment, or labor due to federal government restrictions arising out of defense or war programs, then the time of completion may, at the City’s sole option, be extended for such periods as may be agreed upon by the City and the Contractor. In the event that there is insufficient time to grant such extensions prior to the completion date of the contract, the City may, at the time of acceptance of the work, waive liquidated damages that may have accrued for failure to complete on time, due to any of the above, after hearing evidence as to the reasonsfor such delay, and making a finding as to the causes of same.

12. Payment Terms. The City’s payment terms are 30 days from the receipt of an original invoice and acceptance by the City of the materials, supplies, equipment, or services provided by the Contractor (Net 30).

13. Inspection. The Contractor shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity for City to ascertain that the services of the Contractor are being performed in accordance with the requirements and intentions of this contract. All work done, and all materials furnished, if any, shall be subject to the City’s inspection and approval. The inspection of such work shall not relieve Contractor of any of its obligations to fulfill its contract requirements.

14. Audit. The City shall have the option of inspecting and/or auditing all records and other written materials used by Contractor in preparing its invoices to City as a condition precedentto any payment to Contractor.

15. Interests of Contractor. The Contractor covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall not acquire any interest—direct, indirect or otherwise—that would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the work hereunder. The Contractor further covenants that, in the performance of this work, no subcontractor or person having such an interest shall be employed. The Contractor certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest in performing this work is an officer or employee of the City. It is hereby expressly agreed that, in the performance of the work hereunder, the Contractor shall at all times be deemed an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the City.

16. Hold Harmless and Indemnification.
(a) Non-design, non-construction Professional Services: To the fullest extent permitted by

law (including, but not limited to California Civil Code Sections 2782 and 2782.8), Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, and its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, and agents (“City Indemnitees”), from and against any and all causes of action, claims, liabilities, obligations, judgments, or damages, including reasonable legal counsels’ fees and costs of litigation (“claims”), arising out of the Consultant’s performance or Consultant’s failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement or out of the operations conducted by Consultant, including the City’s active or passive negligence, except for such loss or damage arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City. In the event the City Indemnitees are made a party to any action, lawsuit, or other adversarial proceeding arising from Consultant’s performance of this Agreement, the Consultant shall provide a defense to the City Indemnitees or at the City’s option, reimburse the City Indemnitees their costs of defense, including reasonable legal fees, incurred in defense of such claims. (b) Non-design, construction Professional Services: To the extent the Scope of Services involve a “construction contract” as that phrase is used in Civil Code Section 2783, this paragraph shall apply in place of paragraph A. To the fullest extent permitted by law (including, but not limited to California Civil Code Sections 2782 and 2782.8), Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, and its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, and agents (“City Indemnitees”), from and against any and all causes of action, claims, liabilities, obligations, judgments, or damages, including reasonable legal counsels’ fees and costs of litigation (“claims”), arising out of the Consultant’s performance or Consultant’s failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement or out of the operations conducted by Consultant, except for such loss or damage arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City. In the event the City Indemnitees are made a party to any action, lawsuit, or other adversarial proceeding arising from Consultant’s performance of this Agreement, the Consultant shall provide a defense to the City Indemnitees or at the City’s option, reimburse the City Indemnitees their costs of defense, including reasonable legal fees, incurred in defense of such claims. (c) Design Professional Services: In the event Consultant is a “design professional”, and the Scope of Services require Consultant to provide “design professional services” as those phrases are used in Civil Code Section 2782.8, this paragraph shall apply in place of paragraphs A or B. To the fullest extent permitted by law (including, but not limited to California Civil Code Sections 2782 and 2782.8) Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City and its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers and agents (“City Indemnitees”), from and against all claims, damages, injuries, losses, and expenses including costs, attorney fees, expert consultant and expert witness fees arising out of, pertaining to or relating to, the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Consultant, except to the extent caused by the sole negligence, active negligence or willful misconduct of the City.

Negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of any subcontractor employed by Consultant shall be conclusively deemed to be the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Consultant unless adequately corrected by Consultant. In the event the City Indemnitees are made a party to any action, lawsuit, or other adversarial proceeding arising from Consultant’s performance of this Agreement, the Consultant shall provide a defense to the City Indemnitees or at the City’s option, reimburse the City Indemnitees their costs of defense, including reasonable legal fees, incurred in defense of such claims. In no event shall the cost to defend charged to Consultant

under this paragraph exceed Consultant’s proportionate percentage of fault. However, notwithstanding the previous sentence, in the event one or more defendants is unable to pay its share of defense costs due to bankruptcy or dissolution of the business, Consultant shall meet and confer with other parties regarding unpaid defense costs.
(d) The review, acceptance or approval of the Consultant’s work or work product by any indemnified party shall not affect, relieve or reduce the Consultant’s indemnification or defense obligations. This Section survives completion of the services or the termination of this contract. The provisions of this Section are not limited by and do not affect the provisions of this contract relating to insurance.

17. Contract Assignment. The Contractor shall not assign, transfer, convey or otherwise dispose of the contract, or its right, title or interest, or its power to execute such a contract to any individual or business entity of any kind without the previous written consent of the City.

18. Termination for Convenience. The City may terminate all or part of this Agreement for any or no reason at any time by giving 30 days written notice to Contractor. Should the City terminate this Agreement for convenience, the City shall be liable as follows: (a) for standard or off-the-shelf products, a reasonable restocking charge not to exceed ten (10) percent of the total purchase price; (b) for custom products, the less of a reasonable price for the raw materials, components work in progress and any finished units on hand or the price per unit reflected on this Agreement. For termination of any services pursuant to this Agreement, the City’sliability will be the lesser of a reasonable price for the services rendered prior to termination, or the price for the services reflected on this Agreement. Upon termination notice from the City, Contractor must, unless otherwise directed, cease work and follow the City’s directions as to work in progress and finished goods.

19. Termination. If, during the term of the contract, the City determines that the Contractor is not faithfully abiding by any term or condition contained herein, the City may notify the Contractor in writing of such defect or failure to perform. This notice must give the Contractor a 10 (ten) calendar day notice of time thereafter in which to perform said work or cure the deficiency.

If the Contractor has not performed the work or cured the deficiency within the ten days specified in the notice, such shall constitute a breach of the contract and the City may terminate the contract immediately by written notice to the Contractor to said effect. Thereafter, neither party shall have any further duties, obligations, responsibilities, or rights under the contract except, however, any and all obligations of the Contractor’s surety shall remain in full force and effect, and shall not be extinguished, reduced, or in any manner waived by the terminations thereof.

In said event, the Contractor shall be entitled to the reasonable value of its services performed from the beginning date in which the breach occurs up to the day it received the City’s Notice of Termination, minus any offset from such payment representing the City’s damages from such breach. “Reasonable value” includes fees or charges for goods or services as of the last milestone or task satisfactorily delivered or completed by the Contractor as may be set forth in

the Agreement payment schedule; compensation for any other work, services or goods performed or provided by the Contractor shall be based solely on the City’s assessment of the value of the work-inprogress in completing the overall work scope.

The City reserves the right to delay any such payment until completion or confirmed abandonment of the project, as may be determined in the City’s sole discretion, so as to permit a full and complete accounting of costs. In no event, however, shall the Contractor be entitled to receive in excess of the compensation quoted in its proposal.

EXHIBIT C - INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: ConsultantServices
The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, its agents, representatives, employees, or subcontractors.

Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broadas:

1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG0001).

2. Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto).

3. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance.

4. Errors and Omissions Liability insurance as appropriate to the Consultant's profession.

Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits no lessthan:

1. General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.

2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

3. Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.

4. Errors and Omissions Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence.

Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses.

Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the followingprovisions:

2. The City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Contractor; products and completed operations of the Contractor; premises owned, occupied or used by the Contractor; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Contractor. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers.

3. For any claims related to this project, the Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute withit.

4. The Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer'sliability.

5. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceledby eitherparty,reducedincoverage orinlimitsexceptafterthirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to theCity.

Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating ofno less than A:VII.

Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish the City with a certificate of insurance showing maintenance of the required insurance coverage. Original endorsements effecting general liability and automobile liability coverage required by this clause must also be provided. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before workcommences.

Item 6a
Department: Public Works
Cost Center: 5010
For Agenda of: 9/5/2023
Placement: Business
Estimated Time: 90 Minutes
FROM: Matt Horn, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Wyatt Banker-Hix, Supervising Civil Engineer SUBJECT: US 101/PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE – APPROVAL OF THE

ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT AND CONFIRMATION OF THE

PREFERRED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE

RECOMMENDATION

1. Receive an update on the US 101/Prado Road Interchange Capital Improvement Project; and

2. Adopt a Draft Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, recommending approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the US 101/Prado Road Interchange Project”; and

3. Adopt a Draft Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, recommending approval of the US 101/Prado Road Interchange Project Report.”

REPORT IN BRIEF
The US 101/Prado Road Interchange is a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) project that will install a bridge over US 101 connecting Prado Road to Dalidio Drive, establishing a continuous transportation link between S. Higuera Street and Madonna Road. The scope and scale of this project is large and considered a legacy project that supports several Major City Goals, General Plan policies, and is needed to mitigate cumulative transportation impacts identified within the Environmental Impact Reports for several approved development projects. This project is following the required California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) project delivery process and is currently nearing the end of the Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA/ED) phase of this delivery process. One of the last actions required to complete the PA/ED process and advance to the final design phase is for the City Council to concur with the analysis and findings of the project environmental document and recommend approval of the Final Project Report, which identifies the final interchange design alternative to be endorsed by the City and Caltrans.

Item 6a
For this project, Caltrans is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lead agency1 and the City is the project sponsor and CEQA responsible agency.2 The purpose of this report is to request that Council: 1) consider the environmental effects of the Project as shown in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and recommend that Caltrans adopt the Project’s IS/MND (Attachment D), and 2) recommend that Caltrans approve the Final Project Report, which identifies the final preferred interchange design alternative selected by Caltrans and the City (Attachment C). This is the last step for the City prior to final Caltrans signatures and completion of this project phase. The next phase of this project is final design of the preferred interchange type.

POLICY CONTEXT
The US 101/Prado Road Interchange Project supports the Major City Goals of: Housing and Homelessness, Climate Action, Open Space and Sustainable Transportation. The Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) of the General Plan identifies a lack of multimodal east-west connections across town, which this project proposes to build. The 2021 Active Transportation Plan identifies the need for physically protected bike lanes and sidewalks along Prado Road to create a multi-modal link across town and these elements are included in the scope of the interchange project.

The General Plan also identifies the Prado Interchange as essential in facilitating growth in the southern portion of the city. Many of the trips generated from proposed development projects will use the Prado Interchange as an east-west link. Approved environmental documents for numerous private housing development projects in this area of the city (i.e.

San Luis Ranch, Avila Ranch, Froom Ranch Specific Plan, Margarita Area Specific Plan) identify construction of the Prado Interchange as an essential infrastructure need to address current and future traffic congestion and circulation deficiencies.

The City’s concurrence with the environmental document, project report and support for the final preferred interchange design alternative are necessary to conclude the Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA/ED) phase and begin the Plans, Specifications and Estimate phases (PS&E), which is necessary to complete project design and ensure smooth project delivery and minimization of schedule delays. This project is subject to the Caltrans standard project delivery process, as the project includes modifications to a state highway and Caltrans will retain ownership and maintenance responsibilities for portions of the completed interchange.

DISCUSSION

1 The public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. The Lead Agency will decide whether an EIR or Negative Declaration will be required for the project and will cause the document to be prepared (CEQA Guidelines Section 15367). 2 A public agency which proposes to carry out or approve a project, for which a Lead Agency is preparing or has prepared an EIR or Negative Declaration. For the purposes of CEQA, the term “Responsible Agency” includes all public agencies other than the Lead Agency which have discretionary approval power over the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15381).

Item 6a
Background
The Prado Interchange Project proposes to complete three major roadway improvements.

A vicinity map of the project can be found below:

Figure 1 – Prado Interchange Vicinity Map
The first component of the project will connect Prado Road to Dalidio Drive by installing a bridge over US 101. Currently, Prado Road terminates just east of US 101 at an existing unsignalized intersection with Elks Lane and the US 101 northbound on/off-ramps. The project will elevate the northbound ramps to connect with the new bridge at a signalized intersection. A new lane along US 101 will also connect the on-ramp from Prado Road to the off-ramp at Madonna Road, called an auxiliary lane. Auxiliary lanes provide increased weaving distances for vehicles to use as they maneuver to either get on or off the highway mainline. Auxiliary lanes have already been installed between multiple interchanges within the City, like Santa Rosa Street and Broad Street.

Scale: Not to Scale

Item 6a
The second component of the project is the realignment of Elks Lane behind the new Regional Transit Authority (RTA) facility and 40 Prado Road Homeless Services Center to reconnect with Prado Road approximately 500 feet to the east of the existing intersection. The realigned Prado Road/Elks Lane intersection will be controlled by a new traffic signal and will serve as the primary entrance for the City’s Corporation Yard and Water Resource Recovery Facility.

Finally, Prado Road will be widened to ultimately provide a continuous multi-modal corridor from Madonna Road to South Higuera Street along Dalido Road and onto Prado Road. This widening accommodates projected traffic needs and will be completed with both the Prado Road Interchange project as well as the Prado Creek Bridge Replacement Project, which is currently in the design phase and is scheduled to start construction prior to the Prado Interchange Project. These improvements will provide two auto lanes in each direction, a center landscaped median and turn lane, stormwater drainage facilities, streetlighting, parkway with landscaping and street trees, sidewalks, and protected bike lanes on each side of the street.

Prado Road must be elevated in order to connect to the proposed bridge over the US 101 and typically this would be done using grading and compacted soil to support the elevated roadway as this is the most efficient and cost-effective way to elevate roadways.

However, the floodplain analysis prepared for the project confirmed that this is not a feasible design approach along Prado Road due to floodplain impacts, as construction of raised embankments would impede floodwaters during intense rain events. Impeding floodwater would increase water surface elevation during flood events and cause flooding on other properties in the vicinity of the interchange including Hwy 101. Flooding others’ property is not consistent with City, State and Federal flood protection standards.

For this reason, portions of the reconstructed Prado Road need to be elevated using structural columns and not compacted soil as this will minimize impacts on the floodplain.

This has a significant impact on the complexity of the required engineering work and the construction cost of the project, as discussed later in the Fiscal Impact section of this report.

During early project scoping in coordination with Caltrans, a traffic study and Project Study Report (Attachment C) determined that southbound ramps were not warranted at the Prado Interchange within the current 20-year planning horizon. For that reason, the current project scope does not include the addition of southbound on/off ramps to Hwy 101. This remains part of the City’s long-term plans but will need to be undertaken as a separate project in the future when the improvements are warranted.

Project Need and Benefits
When Hwy 101 was constructed through the City in the 1950’s, it split the community in two, and Caltrans initially constructed several overcrossings and interchanges to ensure connectivity. As the City developed and traffic increased, these predominantly east-west connections continued to pose a bottleneck to travelers. As early as the 1970’s, both the City and State recognized the need for additional east-west connections and proposed the Prado Overcrossing.

Item 6a
With the approved and already-developed housing and commerce, the lack of connectivity in the southern part of the city has forced travelers to make circuitous routes to use the Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) Interchange and the Madonna Interchange.

Traffic modeling of an overcrossing at Prado Road shows potential to reduce the time and traveled length of these trips, resulting in a City-wide reduction of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) by 0.5% Citywide, which equates to 2,700 fewer miles traveled each year.

The design of the interchange also includes separated pedestrian and cyclist features to create a multi-modal link across town. These features are designed to improve safety and increase comfort level for riders, particularly for families and less experienced pedestrians/cyclists to use this overcrossing and access the markets and neighborhoods on both sides of Hwy 101.

Construction of the Prado overcrossing will also relieve congestion on local streets like Madonna Road and LOVR, as well as their associated intersections. Congestion relief is also anticipated at the Madonna Road and LOVR interchanges, and Hwy 101 itself.

A more efficient cross-town link will also benefit nearby regional facilities like the 40 Prado Homeless Shelter and Regional Transit Authority campus. City facilities like the Corporation Yard and WRRF will also benefit from this new east-west connection.

Figure 2 – Interchange Renderings (Northbound and Southbound Approaches) Relationship to Prado Road Bridge Replacement Project
While the subject of this report is the Prado Road Interchange Project, the City has another project nearby the interchange project that is noteworthy. The City has pursued the removal and replacement of the existing bridge at Prado Road over San Luis Obispo Creek since 2013. Caltrans inspections of the bridge have noted structural deficiencies

Item 6a
and narrow deck width, recommending replacement. Due to the existing deficiencies at the adjacent Prado/South Higuera intersection, as well as the projected growth in the southern portion of the city, the intersection will be widened and constructed as a protected style intersection. This project will also involve creek work and undergrounding utilities. Staff presented on this topic to Council in October 2022. That report can be found here.

The project is partially funded through a mix of local funds and the Highway Bridge Program (HBP), a federal funding source for local bridge replacement administered by Caltrans. Due to the proximity of the Prado Bridge Replacement and Prado Interchange projects, and the potential for both to receive Federal funds, City and Caltrans staff reviewed both to ensure they were independent of one another and did not have to be combined into one large project. The City and Caltrans both agree that the projects have independent utility, but the City must complete construction of the Prado Bridge prior to the opening of the Prado Road Interchange project for community use.

The Prado Bridge Replacement Project delivery is ahead of the Prado Interchange Project as the Prado Bridge Replacement Project is in the final design phase and rightof-way negotiations, permitting, utility undergrounding and a Plans, Specifications & Estimate package are all under development. Staff do not anticipate any concerns regarding timing between the Prado Bridge and Prado Interchange projects.

Future Plans to Extend Prado Road to Broad Street
The General Plan Circulation Element and multiple specific plans include the future extension of Prado Road east to Broad Street. This improvement would provide a continuous arterial route with separated bikeways and sidewalks between Broad Street (Highway 227), to Madonna Road via the Prado Interchange.

While the City is collecting development impact fees to help fund this future infrastructure project, the ultimate timing of the Prado Road Extension is difficult to project. Construction of this project requires private right-of-way and significant direct contributions from future private development. To date, the private property owners have not been interested in developing or selling this right-of-way to the City. The latest cost estimates available for this street extension, which do not reflect the significant escalations in construction costs from the past several years, indicated a potential cost of roughly $27 million.

Caltrans Oversight and Project Development Process
The Prado Interchange Project is a partnership between the City and Caltrans. Caltrans is assisting the City with project delivery and will eventually assume maintenance of portions of this facility. Throughout the process (from planning to construction), Caltrans staff review and approve major deliverables to ensure compliance with Caltrans standards. Once the interchange is constructed and delivered according to Caltrans standards, they will assume maintenance for the bridge structure, ramps, and operation of the Prado Road/US 101 Northbound Ramps traffic signal.

Caltrans, as owner-operator of the State Highway System, has regulatory authority and obligation to ensure that all modifications or additions to the State Highway System (such

Item 6a
as the Prado Road Interchange), meet its standards and requirements.

The Caltrans interchange delivery process3is divided into four phases which are as follows: 1) Project Study Report (PSR), 2) Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA/ED), 3) Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E), then 4) Construction of the project. A flowchart of the process can be found below:

Figure 3 – Caltrans Delivery Flowchart
Each phase and their key deliverables are summarized below:

Phase Key Deliverables Status
1) Project Study Report Project Study Report – Interchange Feasibility Complete 2) Project Alternatives
and Environmental
Document (PA/ED)

1. Traffic Study - Complete

2. 30% Plans and Estimates (all alternatives) –
Complete

3. Value Analysis – Complete

4. Selection of preferred alternative - Complete

5. Project Report – Final Draft Complete, Awaiting
Council Concurrence and Caltrans
Approval/Signatures

6. CEQA Document (Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration) - Final Draft Complete, Awaiting
Council Concurrence and Caltrans Signatures

7. NEPA Document (Categorical Exemption) –
Caltrans Staff Preparing

8. Council Recommendation of Approval of Project
Report and Adoption of Environmental Document -
In Progress (Council Action 9/5/23)
In Progress

3 A more thorough description of the Caltrans delivery process can be found here: https://dot.ca.gov/- /media/dot-media/programs/sustainability/documents/2011-how-caltrans-builds-projects-a11y.pdf

Item 6a
3) Project Plans,
Specifications, and
Estimates (PS&E)

1. Council authorize filing of a CEQA Notice of
Determination (NOD) as a Responsible Agency and
authorize advertisement of a request for proposals
for Prado PS&E phase services4

2. 50% Project Plans and Estimates

3. 90% Project Plans, Specifications, and Estimates

4. 100% Project Plans, Specifications, and Estimates

5. Final Bid Package for Advertisement
Not Started
4) Construction 1. Advertisement of Project

2. Award of Project to Contractor

3. Pre-construction Conference

4. Completion of Underground Work

5. Completion of Roadway Work

6. Completion of Structures Work

7. Project Closeout and Ribbon Cutting
Not Started
To date, the Project Study Report Phase has been completed and the PA/ED phase is nearing completion. Remaining tasks within the PA/ED phase include Council recommendation of approval of the Preferred Alternative, Project Report and CEQA Document. Afterwards, Caltrans will provide final approval of those documents and the phase will be considered complete.

Project Approval / Environmental Document (PA/ED) Phase Each of the primary tasks/components of the PA/ED phase are described briefly below.

Environmental Document
As the CEQA lead agency, Caltrans has the principal responsibility for approving the Project and complying with the process-related aspects of CEQA, including the preparation and filing of all required notices, such as the Notice of Determination following Caltrans’ approval of the Project. In addition to the City’s role as the project sponsor, the City is a responsible agency pursuant to CEQA. In this responsible agency role, the City complies with CEQA by consulting with Caltrans to ensure the environmental document used by Caltrans (as the lead agency) will comply with CEQA and independently considering the IS/MND prepared for the project when making a decision to approve and carry out the Project.

In this instance, pursuant to the process required by Caltrans, the City’s consultant team has worked closely with City and Caltrans staff to prepare the required environmental analysis for the interchange project pursuant to CEQA, which includes focused analysis of multiple interchange design alternatives to evaluate potential impacts to biological resources, air quality, agricultural resources, transportation/traffic, noise, water quality, cultural and tribal resources. Staff has submitted individual environmental technical studies and a draft CEQA document in the form of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) to Caltrans for its review and approval. After multiple rounds of Caltrans review, the IS/MND was circulated for public review February 2 through March 6, 2023, and a public meeting was held on the project and environmental document on February 15, 2023.Comments were received and incorporated into the final document.

4 Approved by Council at 8/16/2022 Meeting

Item 6a
Staff requests that Council consider the environmental effects of the Project as presented in the IS/MND and take action to concur with the analysis and findings of the IS/MND and recommend that Caltrans adopt the IS/MND (Attachment D), after which Caltrans, as the lead agency, will provide final approval and will file a Notice of Determination for the project.

Each mitigation measure is included in the document, which the contractor that builds the project and the City will be required to implement to reduce project impacts to less than significant. Areas of resource protection or mitigation measures identified include Air Quality, Biological Resources and Transportation. Some of the specific mitigation measures include:

1. Reduce and/or eliminate idling construction equipment to protect air quality.

2. Minimize the disturbed area by the project to reduce dust generated.

3. Provide street sweeping and wheel washing to reduce dirt tracked onto streets which reduces impacts to water quality.

4. Ordering a stoppage of work should cultural or paleontological resources be discovered, until review by a qualified archaeologist.

5. Implement appropriate traffic control plans during construction in order to reduce construction impacts to the community while keeping construction workers safe.

In additional to CEQA, the project is also undergoing federal environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which is a requirement for projects pursuing federal funding sources. Caltrans is the lead agency for the NEPA review as well, which is limited in scope and does not require City Council consideration.

Value Analysis (VA)
A Value Analysis (VA) is an important step in the PA/ED process. The VA process involved bringing in a third-party consultant to perform a five-day workshop with City and Caltrans staff, as well as an independent civil engineering firm in order to evaluate project designs to identify potential opportunities to reduce costs, highlight unanticipated challenges with project delivery, construction, and maintenance, and otherwise identify areas to improve the quality and/or value of the final project design. This process is a federal and state requirement for any project with a construction budget of $25 million or greater. The project scope, schedule, and budget were discussed with a primary focus on identifying cost and time savings.

The VA workshop was completed in March 2023 and recommended that the City consider the following recommendations to guide final project design work:

1. Use a cast-in-drilled-hole concrete columns instead of driven piles. This recommendation requires additional investigation but could significantly reduce costs.

2. Use longer span pre-cast girders in lieu of cast-in-place girders. Using longer span girders reduces the number of required columns to hold up the girders and could provide potential project savings.

3. Reduce the vehicle design speed on the bridge over Hwy 101 to 35 mph. This would allow for tighter (smaller radius) vertical curves to facilitate and help accommodate recommendations 1 and 2 above.

Item 6a

4. Reduce the design width of travel lanes and roadway shoulders. This would reduce the total width of the bridge over Hwy 101 and reduce costs.

5. Use recycled materials where possible in order to reduce generation of greenhouse gases and reduce construction costs.

City and Caltrans staff agree that these considerations require further investigation, which will be completed during the PS&E phase and require additional time to research.

Project Report
The Project Report summarizes the environmental analysis, traffic operations, safety considerations and financial impact of each interchange alternative to provide local stakeholders and Caltrans staff with the detailed information needed to inform the selection process for the preferred design alternative that will move forward to final design and construction. Traffic reports, non-standard design features, concept plans, and cost estimates are summarized and compared for review. In May and June 2023, City and Caltrans staff met to discuss the project alternatives and which alternate should be recommended to move forward to the detailed design process in the PS&E phase, called the preferred alternative. Each Alternative evaluated in the Project Report is briefly described below:

Alternative A3 (City/Caltrans Staff Recommended Alternative): Tight Diamond interchange with signalized intersection control. This alternative was recommended by staff due to its superior operations and as well as being the lowest cost alternative that meets the project needs. An image of the concept below is shown, and a more complete plan is found attached (Attachment F):

Figure 4 – Alternative A3 Plan

Item 6a
Alternative A1R: Tight Diamond interchange with roundabout intersection control. This alternative was not chosen for recommendation for several reasons, including concerns with an untested design (there are no existing examples of roundabouts constructed on elevated bridge structures in North America), safety concerns over an elevated structure with a void in the center island, and traffic operations concerns (the roundabout option was projected to result in significant vehicles queues in the long-term analysis horizon).

Design staff also expressed constructability and financial concerns of an elevated roundabout, which has not been attempted in the United States.

Alternative A4R: Partial Cloverleaf interchange with roundabout intersection control. This type of interchange would require the on-ramp to pass through the City’s Corporation Yard and parts of the Water Resource and Recovery Facility (WRRF). This would require relocation of the entire Corporation Yard and unacceptable impacts to the newlyupgraded WRRF. The concerns with the A1R roundabout intersection control would also apply to this alternative.
“No-Build” Scenario: A detailed analysis of traffic circulation for scenarios with and without construction of the Prado Interchange was prepared as part of the San Luis Ranch EIR and revisited as part of the Prado Interchange Project Study Report. This analysis evaluated traffic conditions under current, near-term (5-year horizon) and long-term (20- year horizon) conditions in order to confirm the need for the proposed interchange and guide final project designs and decisions. This analysis confirmed that if the interchange is not built, there will be numerous near-term and long-term impacts to traffic circulation, with several roadways and intersections experiencing significant congestion, delays, and emissions. The most significant congestion and level of service (LOS) deficiencies would be experienced along the surrounding arterial streets providing connectivity east/west of Hwy 101, including South Higuera, Madonna Road and Los Osos Valley Road, as well as at the nearby interchanges on Hwy 101 at Los Osos Valley Road and Madonna Road.

Prado Road is identified as a Tier 1 (top priority) corridor in the City’s 2021 Active Transportation Plan, which identifies the cross-town routes with the highest potential to serve walking and bicycling trips if high-quality infrastructure is provided. Under a “no build” scenario, the Prado Road corridor would remain disconnected, requiring active transportation and transit users to take more indirect routes around US 101.

Preferred Alternative: After careful deliberation, Caltrans, City and Consultant desgin staff agree that Alternative A3 is the preferred alternative for this project. Staff recommends Council affirm this recommendation to Caltrans in order to continue moving this project forward to the next phase.

Plans, Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E) Phase
The next phase of project development following completion of the PA/ED is final design or “PS&E”. After the preferred alternative is chosen and environmental documents are adopted, staff can begin work on final design and right-of-way acquisition. Note that most of the necessary right-of-way was already dedicated to the City as part of the San Luis Ranch development. The remaining properties from which right-of-way is needed are along Prado Road.

Item 6a
The PS&E work will begin with a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a design consultant.

This will be another multi-year contract and requires several months of seeking and choosing a qualified consultant to assist City staff. Council previously authorized staff to seek proposals for these services on August 16, 2022, link here.

Schedule and Next Steps
The project delivery schedule is shown in the figure below.

Table 1 – Prado Interchange Timeline
Note: Q1 equates to July 1st of the Fiscal Year
There has been a delay in schedule due to the recommendations of the Value Analysis, which will require additional design time during the PS&E phase with the possibility of reducing the time and cost needed to construct the Interchange. Staff believe this VA review period, which will include several rounds of Caltrans review, to last approximately one year.

City staff anticipate completing the PA/ED phase in 2023 and the signing of a Cooperative Agreement with Caltrans next year to start the PS&E design. During that time, staff will also search for a design consultant via RRP for the next project phase. This phase will require significant consultant effort to execute a complex structural and civil design, and staff believes this to be an important factor in the schedule shown above.

Once City and Caltrans staff agree that design work is complete, the PS&E phase will close and the project will be advertised for construction bids. Staff anticipate construction to begin in early 2027 and hope this schedule to be conservative.

Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
On July 17, 2018, City Council approved the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the San Luis Ranch Development (Staff Report, Minutes). The SEIR detailed the impacts of the development and need for the Prado Interchange Project. As part of the SEIR, the San Luis Ranch development was allowed to proceed independent of the Prado Interchange schedule. Due to project complexity and project lead times necessary for project development as outlined in the Caltrans process, development of the Interchange project is not directly tied with the build-out of San Luis Ranch.

On April 12, 2018, Caltrans and the City signed a cooperative agreement (Attachment B) pursuing PA/ED of the Prado Interchange project. The agreement laid out the responsibilities of financing, design, and project approval.

On August 16, 2022, Council Authorized Staff to seek VA services and PS&E services (Minutes).

Project Phase Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 PA/ED
PS&E
Advertise and Award
Construction
FY 23/24 FY 24/25 FY 25/26 FY 26/27

Item 6a
Public Engagement
There were extensive opportunities for public engagement on the Project through previous planning efforts, including the 2014 General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) update, during review of the San Luis Ranch development proposal and Environmental Impact Report, approved in 2018, and through public input on the City’s capital project prioritization during the past several two-year budget setting cycles.

Staff and project consultants also organized and held a public meeting on February 15, 2023, which consisted of a focused workshop to solicit input on the latest Prado Interchange project details and draft environmental document. This meeting included a presentation on project background, overview of design alternatives considered, discussion of traffic impacts, summary of environmental analysis and mitigation recommendations, latest project cost estimates and schedule. The meeting was advertised via legal ads, via City email and social media notifications, and via direct mailers sent to businesses and residents located within one half mile of the project limits.

Caltrans representatives were in attendance to help field questions from the public.

The IS/MND was circulated for public review February 2 through March 6, 2023. The Notice of Availability/Notice of Intent to Adopt the IS/MND was advertised in the local newspaper ando included information about and invitation to the February 15, 2023 public meeting. The environmental document and technical studies were made available on the City and Caltrans websites and at City and Caltrans offices. The required notices, environmental documents, and technical reports were sent to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to State Agencies, affected Federal agencies, tribal organizations, and any individual who requesting public notice of the environmental document for their review and comment. Tribal organizations were offered formal consultation with staff prior to the public review period and during preparation of the environmental document pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 and Section 21080.3.2.

Following the public review period, Caltrans and City staff recorded and jointly responded to 10 comment letters from members of the public and 1 from a local agency. These responses have been reviewed by staff and approved by Caltrans and are included at the end of the IS-MND.

CONCURRENCE
Public Works and Utilities concurs with the recommendations of this report. Caltrans concurs with the recommendation to declare a preferred alternative, as documented in the attached Project Report, and requests the City’s concurrence with the IS/MND.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
As described in this report, the attached IS-MND CEQA document is complete and ready for Council independent consideration and concurrence. Caltrans is the lead agency and will provide final approval and signatures in addition to filing a Notice of Determination for the Project.

Item 6a
Caltrans is also the lead agency for the NEPA Categorical Exemption document. Their staff is drafting that document and will provide final signatures. No Council review or action is required.

FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: 2021-2022, 2022-2023,
Funding Identified: Yes 2023-2024
Fiscal Analysis:

As the Prado Interchange is a multi-phased legacy project, funding for the PA/ED Phase will be discussed separately from the PS&E Phase. The recommendations listed here do not have a fiscal impact.

PA/ED Phase:

Funding was identified as part of the 2021-2023 Financial Plan for this phase of the project, of which there is adequate funding to complete this phase of the project.

PS&E Phase Budget and Cost:

Funding for the PS&E Phase has been identified in the 2023-2024 fiscal year, as well as the 2024-2025 fiscal year. Due to the potential size of the design contract, funding is programmed over multiple years.

The City will provide the majority of funding for this phase, but will also include an agreement between the City and County. Updated construction estimates will also be sought to address the inflation currently seen in roadway construction. The current available funding is as follows:

Funding Sources Total Budget
Available
Current Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
Local Revenue
Measure
$2,322,750 $0 $0 N/A
Fees: Transportation
Impact
$359,103 $0 $0 N/A
State
Federal
Other: Airport Area
Impact Fee
$99,047 $0
Other: County $1,435,260 $0 $0
Total $4,216,160 $0 $0 N/A
It is important to note that currently, staff are only seeking authorization and providing a funding update on the PA/ED and PS&E Phases of the Project. Once the PS&E phase is nearing completion, the best available information will be used to estimate construction costs. The total project cost will be further refined during design.

Item 6a
Staff are working to determine the best path forward to fund the construction phases of the project, including aggressive pursuit of state and federal grant funding, leveraging developer fees, use of the City’s Infrastructure Investment Fund, and potential debt financing to support construction of the project. Staff will provide additional updates once the project design is sufficiently advanced, which will allow for a more accurate and realistic construction cost updates.

Construction Phase Fiscal Information
Cost Breakdown by Project Components of Preferred Alternative As stated above, there are three design alternatives under review in the PA/ED Phase.

The recommended preferred alternative is A3. Below is a table which itemizes cost based upon what is known today about project costs for each alternative. These costs are estimated based upon 2023 construction cost and escalated to 2028 using a 3% inflationary cost. Cost escalation to 2028 represents the anticipated mid-point of construction activities.

Table 2: Alternative Cost Breakdown
Alternative A1R A3 A4R
Roadway: $ 9,434,000 $11,543,400 $ 11,564,600
Structure: $76,881,800 $74,528,600 $ 78,546,000
ROW/Utility: $ 5,724,000 $ 5,724,000 $ 26,054,800
Elks Lane: $ 3,180,000 $ 3,180,000 $ 3,180,000
Corp Yard Impr: $ 1,060,000 $ 1,060,000 $ 1,060,000
Prado Widening: $ 1,590,000 $ 1,590,000 $ 1,590,000
Total: $97,869,800 $97,626,000 $121,995,400
Currently, construction funding is anticipated to be received from both the City and the City’s regional partners including: San Luis Obispo County, San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG), as well as the San Luis Ranch development. Costs were split based on percentage split of local traffic, regional traffic, and new development traffic once the facility is built. Staff have met with SLOCOG to advocate for additional regional funding towards this project, and will continue to do so throughout the duration of PS&E.

Since construction is not proposed to start until 2027, and there remains significant uncertainty regarding economic factors such as inflation, staff has calculated a future range of costs based on several rates of inflation:

Alt A3 Total Costs
Base Year (2023): $ 84,800,000
3% Inflation: $ 97,626,000
5% Inflation: $106,000,000
8% Inflation: $118,800,000
Note: costs shown have been escalated to 2028

Item 6a
Staff anticipates total construction costs to vary between these numbers above based upon inflationary costs. Additionally, as the VA work is implemented in the final design and the construction techniques, quantities, and means and methods are further developed during the PS&E phase of the project, costs will fluctuate as well.

Construction Phase Grant Opportunities
Since the start of the PA/ED phase, staff have been tracking applicable grant opportunities to help minimize the burden of City costs. With a completed CEQA document and chosen alternative, staff should now be eligible to apply for these grants.

Eligibility will continue to increase as the project progresses through the PS&E phase.

Below is a table of grant opportunities that staff continue to monitor as possible future sources of funding for construction related costs.

Program Type Typical Grant Amounts
RAISE Federal Can exceed $25 million
INFRA Federal Can exceed $25 million
SB1 Local Partnership State $5 million to $10 million
Active Transportation Program State $5 million to $10 million Both the RAISE and INFRA programs are nationwide Federal grants that help State and Local entities accomplish large transportation infrastructure projects. These grant applications require significant staff and consultant effort for a competitive application.

Collaboration with other entities or bundling other City projects may be needed for a compelling region-wide package.

The SB1 Local Partnership Program Competitive Grant Program is a State program and funding can be used for transportation projects. The Active Transportation Program (ATP) State grant program is geared towards increasing multi-modal participation.

Staff continues to search for application grant opportunities and plans to continue engagement with regional entities and grant consultants.

ALTERNATIVES
Deny Recommendations to Recommend Adoption of the IS-MND and Approval of the Preferred Alternative. Staff does not recommend this option as it would delay execution of this project. Recommendation by Council is preferred by Caltrans Administration prior to final Caltrans approval and signatures on the Final Project Report and environmental documents. Delay of these recommendations would delay transition to the PS&E phase, which would in turn result in further escalation of project costs.

Item 6a

ATTACHMENTS
A - Draft Resolution recommending approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the US 101/Prado Interchange Project
B - Draft Resolution recommending approval of the US 101/Prado Road Interchange Project Report
C - Completed Project Study Report
D - IS-MND, Comment Letters and Responses
E - Project Report
F - Value Analysis Final Report
G -Alt A3 Geometric Approval Drawing

R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2023 SERIES)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS

OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PRADO

INTERCHANGE PROJECT
WHEREAS, The Prado Interchange Project necessitates an Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND); and
WHEREAS, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lead agency and the City is the project sponsor and the CEQA Responsible Agency; and
WHEREAS, the Notice of Availability/Notice of Intent to Adopt the IS/MND was advertised in the local newspaper, the environmental document and technical studies were made available on the City and Caltrans websites and at City and Caltrans offices, and all required notices, environmental documents, and technical reports were sent to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to State and Federal agencies, tribal organizations, and any individual who requesting public notice of the environmental document for their review and comment; and
WHEREAS, the IS/MND was circulated for public review February 2 through March 6, 2023 and a public meeting was held by the City at the Corporation Yard on February 15, 2023 at 6pm; and
WHEREAS, City and Caltrans staff have completed a public and agency review and responded to all comments received; and
WHEREAS, Caltrans is the lead agency for the environmental analysis of the Project under CEQA and requests City review, consideration of, and concurrence with the IS/MND prior to their own adoption of this document; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15096 and 15381, the City is a responsible agency and is obligated to consult with Caltrans (the lead agency), consider the IS/MND proposed to be adopted by Caltrans, and reach its own conclusions on whether and how to approve the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City has met its responsible agency consultation obligations by working closely with Caltrans staff to prepare the required technical reports, environmental analysis, and public notices for the Project, participate in the February 15, 2023 public meeting for the Project and environmental document, and respond to public, tribal, and agency comments on the Project and environmental document.

Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 2
R ______
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo recommends adoption as follows:

SECTION 1. Environmental Review. Based upon all evidence in the record before it, including an initial study, the City Council has considered the environmental effects of the Project as shown in the IS/MND, concurs with the analysis and conclusions of the IS/MND, hereby recommends that Caltrans, as the lead CEQA agency, adopt the Final IS/MND prepared and circulated for this project, and adopts all of the findings related to the Project:
a) The Prado Interchange Replacement Project IS-MND was prepared and circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines and it adequately addresses potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project; and
b) The City’s recommendation that Caltrans adopt the IS/MND and approve the Project reflects City’s independent judgement and analysis; and c) The City concurs with the IS/MND that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment as mitigated in accordance with the measures identified in the IS/MND; and d) The City concurs with the IS/MND that all potentially significant environmental effects were analyzed adequately, subject to the following mitigation measures being incorporated into the Project and subject to the following mitigation monitoring program in the IS-MND:

Aesthetics
AES-1 - Tree Protection and Replacement Plan. Before issuing grading or building permits, a Tree Protection and Replacement Plan will be prepared for the project based on the final grading and building plans. The Tree Protection and Replacement Plan will identify all trees within the project limits. The Tree Protection and Replacement Plan will stipulate that all trees not proposed for removal will be preserved and protected from harm during project construction activities (consistent with requirements of Mitigation Measure AES-2).

If, during the preparation of the Tree Protection and Replacement Plan, it is discovered that trees within the project study area must be removed, the Caltrans Design Engineer and District Landscape Architect will agree that tree removal is necessary before final approval of the project plans. Where trees are authorized by Caltrans for removal, they will be replaced with native or other horticulturally appropriate species suitable for the area at a minimum ratio of three new trees for each tree removed, as directed by the Caltrans District Landscape Architect. All replacement planting will include a minimum three-year plant establishment period.

The project specifications will include provisions requiring the protection of all trees as directed in this measure, and the cost estimate will include adequate funds for identified tree protection measures and tree replacement and maintenance measures, if necessary.

Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 3
R ______
AES-2 - Tree Protection. All qualifying trees within 25 feet of proposed ground disturbances that will be retained will be temporarily fenced with chain-link or other material throughout all grading and construction activities. The fencing shall be installed outside the dripline of each tree or as far from the trunk as is feasible while accommodating project construction and be shown in the Tree Protection and Replacement Plan. No construction equipment shall be staged, parked, or stored within the dripline of any qualifying tree. If project construction requires activities within the dripline of a tree that is proposed to be retained, an arborist shall be present during ground-disturbing work under the dripline.

AES-3 - Landscape Plan. A landscape plan shall be developed by the city and approved by the District Landscape Architect before project approval. The landscape plan shall consist of plantings that offer a variety of colors, shapes, and species with an emphasis on drought-tolerant, native plant materials. The landscape plan shall include plantings along constructed walls and structures as well as benched and graded areas within the project corridor to soften visual changes and reduce the visual scale of new project features. Landscaping shall be overseen for a minimum period of two years or as determined by the District Landscape Architect.

Agricultural and Forest Resources
AG-1 - Agricultural Conservation. The city shall provide that for every 1 acre of Important Farmland (Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland) on the site that is permanently converted to non-agricultural use as a result of the Elks Lane realignment, one (1) acre of comparable land in agricultural production shall be preserved in perpetuity. The land dedicated to agriculture pursuant to this measure shall be of the size, location, and configuration appropriate to maintain a viable, working agricultural operation. Said mitigation shall be satisfied through:
 Granting a perpetual conservation easement(s), deed restriction(s), or other farmland conservation mechanism(s) to a qualified conservation organization that has been approved by the city, or establishing a perpetual conservation easement(s) or deed restriction(s) held by the city or other farmland conservation mechanism(s), for the purpose of permanently preserving agricultural land. The land covered by said onsite and/or offsite easement(s) or deed restriction(s) shall be located within or contiguous to the city’s Urban Reserve Line or Greenbelt, subject to review and approval of the city’s Natural Resources Manager; or  Making an in-lieu payment to the City of San Luis Obispo’s Open Space Fund to be applied toward the future purchase of a perpetual conservation easement(s) or deed restriction(s) held by the city or other farmland conservation mechanism(s), for the purpose of permanently preserving agricultural land. The land covered by said onsite and/or offsite easement(s) or deed restriction(s) shall be located within or contiguous to the city’s Urban Reserve Line or Greenbelt, subject to review and approval of the city’s Natural Resources Manager. The amount of the payment shall be sufficient to conserve similar land on a per acre basis, as determined by a licensed appraiser; or

Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 4
R ______
 Making an in-lieu payment to a qualified conservation organization that has been approved by the city and that is organized for conservation purposes, to be applied toward a future purchase of comparable agricultural land, or a perpetual conservation easement, deed restriction, or other farmland conservation mechanism to preserve the required amount of agricultural land in San Luis Obispo County. The amount of the payment shall be sufficient to conserve similar land on a per acre basis, as determined by the qualifying entity or a licensed appraiser; or  Any combination of the above.

Air Quality
AQ-1 - Fugitive Dust and Emissions Control Measures. Construction projects shall implement the following dust control measures to reduce fugitive particulate matter emissions in accordance with District requirements. All fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans:
 Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible;  Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (nonpotable) water should be used whenever possible. When drought conditions exist and water use is a concern, the contractor or builder should consider use of a dust suppressant that is effective for the specific site conditions to reduce the amount of water used for dust control. Please refer to the following link from the San Joaquin Valley Air District for a list of potential dust suppressants: Products Available for Controlling Dust;
 All stockpiled dirt should be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed;
 All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible, and building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding, soil binders or other dust controls are used;  All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) or otherwise comply with California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23114;
 “Track-Out” is defined as sand or soil that adheres to and/or agglomerates on the exterior surfaces of motor vehicles and/or equipment (including tires) that may then fall onto any highway or street as described in CVC Section 23113 and California Water Code 13304. To prevent ‘track out’, designate access points and require all employees, subcontractors, and others to use them. Install and operate a ‘trackout prevention device’ where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved streets. The ‘track-out prevention device’ can be any device or combination of devices that are effective at preventing track out, located at the point of intersection of an unpaved area and a paved road. Rumble strips or steel plate devices need

Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 5
R ______
periodic cleaning to be effective. If paved roadways accumulate tracked out soils, the track-out prevention device may need to be modified;  All fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans;  The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons whose responsibility is to ensure any fugitive dust emissions do not result in a nuisance and to enhance the implementation of the mitigation measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints and reduce visible emissions below the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress (for example, wind-blown dust could be generated on an open dirt lot). The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork, or demolition (Contact the Compliance Division at 805-781-5912).
 Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing activities;
 Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive grass seed and watered until vegetation is established;  All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD;
 Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site;
 Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water where feasible.

Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible; and  Take additional measures as needed to ensure dust from the project site is not impacting areas outside the project boundary.

Construction projects shall implement the following emission control measures to reduce particulate matter and toxic air contaminant emissions from idling diesel engines. All emission control measures shall be shown on grading and building plans.  Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors;
 Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted;  Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended; and  Signs that specify no idling areas must be posted and enforced at the site.

Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 6
R ______
Biological Resources
BIO-1 - California Red-Legged Frog and Coast Range Newt. The city shall implement the following to avoid and minimize potential impacts to California red-legged frog and Coast Range newt. Because these species utilize similar habitats, the implementation of the following measures shall be implemented for both species.  A qualified biologist(s) shall conduct a preconstruction survey within 48 hours before the start of any work activities within and around the project disturbance footprint. If the preconstruction survey identifies the presence of individuals of California red-legged frog or Coast Range newt, or if individuals of these species are encountered during construction, then work shall stop work and comply with all relevant requirements of the Federal Endangered Species Act before resuming project activities.
 No motorized equipment shall enter riparian areas. Arroyo willow tree removal shall be performed with hand tools only.
 Before trimming or removing trees within riparian areas, a qualified biologist shall conduct a training session for the tree removal crew. At a minimum, the training shall include a description of the California red-legged frog and its habitat and Coast Range newt and its habitat, the specific measures that are being implemented to conserve the California red-legged frog and Coast Range newt for the project, and the boundaries within which the project may be accomplished.  A biological monitor familiar with semi-aquatic species that have the potential to occur shall monitor the trimming or removal of trees within riparian areas. If California red-legged frog or Coast Range newt are observed in the work area, all shall stop work until all relevant requirements of the federal Endangered Species Act have been implemented.
 All areas of the project site disturbed by activities associated with the project shall be re-vegetated with an assemblage of native riparian, wetland, and upland vegetation suitable for the area as detailed in the Landscape Plan and approved by the District Landscape Architect. Locally collected plant materials shall be used to the extent practicable.

Southwestern Pond Turtle Mitigation
BIO-2 - Southwestern Pond Turtle. The city shall ensure the following actions are implemented to avoid and minimize potential impacts to the southwestern pond turtle:
 Qualified biologist(s) shall conduct a preconstruction survey within 48 hours before the start of work activities within and around areas that may serve as potential habitat for the southwestern pond turtle, including guard rail and erosion control installation. If individuals of the southwestern pond turtle are found, the approved biologist shall be allowed sufficient time to move them from the project site before work activities begin. The biologist(s) shall relocate any individual southwestern pond turtle the shortest distance possible to a location that contains suitable habitat that is not likely to be affected by activities associated with the project.

Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 7
R ______
 Access routes, staging, and construction areas shall be limited to the minimum area necessary to achieve the project goal and minimize potential impacts to southwestern pond turtle habitat, including locating access routes and construction staging areas outside of wetlands and riparian areas to the maximum extent practicable.
 Before the start of construction activities, high-visibility orange construction fencing shall be installed along the perimeter of the area of disturbance and construction access routes to ensure avoidance of sensitive habitat.
 Before starting construction activities, a qualified biologist(s) shall conduct a training session for all construction personnel conducting vegetation removal activities, including a description of the southwestern pond turtle, its habitat and legal status, and the need for conservation of the species.

South-Central California Coast Steelhead Trout and Designated Critical Habitat Mitigation BIO-3 - South-Central California Coast steelhead trout. The applicant shall ensure the following actions are undertaken to avoid and minimize potential impacts to steelhead:
 Before any activities begin on the project, a qualified biologist shall conduct a training session for all construction personnel. The training shall include a description of the steelhead and its habitat, the specific measures that are being implemented to conserve this species for the current project, and the boundaries within which the project may be accomplished.
 Before starting construction activities, high-visibility orange construction fencing shall be installed outside of the tops of the banks of San Luis Obispo Creek along the limits of the proposed disturbance to avoid disturbance to steelhead and its federally designated critical habitat. Fencing shall be located a minimum of 20 feet from the edge of the riparian canopy or top of the bank and shall be maintained throughout the construction period. Once construction in this area is complete, the fencing may be removed.
 During the duration of project activities, waste shall be properly contained and secured, promptly removed from the work site, and disposed of regularly.

Following construction, all trash and construction debris shall be removed from the work areas.
 Project construction activities within 50 feet from the edge of the riparian canopy or top of the bank of San Luis Obispo Creek shall only occur during the dry season (e.g., between May 1 and November 1) in any given year, when potential effects to steelhead would be minimal.
 To control sedimentation during and after project implementation, the following Best Management Practices shall be implemented for the project. It shall be the city’s responsibility to maintain control of construction operations and to keep the entire site in compliance with required Best Management Practices.

Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 8
R ______
o Erosion shall be controlled by covering stockpiled construction materials (i.e., soil, spoils, aggregate, fly ash, stucco, hydrated lime, etc.) over 2.0 cubic yards that are not actively being used, consistent with the applicable construction general permit, or through other means of erosion control approved by the city (e.g., temporary erosion and sediment control). The site shall be maintained to minimize sediment-laden runoff to any storm drainage system, including existing drainage swales and/or sand watercourses.
o If grading operations are expected to denude slopes, the slopes shall be protected with erosion control measures immediately following grading on the slopes.
o During construction, to prevent sedimentation and debris from entering San Luis Obispo Creek during construction, a temporary large sediment barrier shall be installed along the top of the banks of the channel before the start of construction activities planned for the project.
o Equipment will be checked daily for leaks before the start of construction activities. A spill kit will be placed near the creek and will remain readily available during construction if any contaminant is accidentally released. o The project biologist will monitor construction activities, in-stream habitat, and overall performance of Best Management Practices and sediment controls to identify and reconcile any condition that could adversely affect steelhead or their habitat. The biologist will stop work if necessary and will recommend sitespecific measures to avoid adverse effects to steelhead and their habitat. o The city shall be responsible for monitoring erosion and sediment control measures (including but not limited to fiber rolls, inlet protections, and gravel bags) before, during, and after storm events. Monitoring includes maintaining a file documenting onsite inspections, problems encountered, corrective actions, notes, and a map of remedial implementation measures.

Ferruginous Hawk, Cooper’s Hawk, Purple Martin, Loggerhead Shrike, White-Tailed Kite, And Other Nesting Birds Mitigation
BIO-4 - Nesting Birds. The city shall ensure the following actions are undertaken to avoid and minimize potential impacts to nesting birds:
 For construction activities occurring during the nesting season (generally February 1 to September 15), surveys for nesting birds covered by the California Fish and Game Code and/or Migratory Bird Treaty Act shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 3 days before vegetation removal or initial construction activities. The surveys shall include the disturbance area plus a 500-foot buffer around the site, where feasible, accounting for private property right-of-entry constraints. If active nests are located, all construction work shall be conducted outside a buffer zone from the nest to be determined by the qualified biologist. The buffer shall be a minimum of 250 feet for non-raptor bird species and 500 feet for raptor species unless there is a compelling biologically valid reason for a smaller buffer (e.g., a physical barrier, such as a hill or large building, between the nest

Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 9
R ______
and the site, blocks line of sight and reduces noise). Larger buffers may be required depending upon the status of the nest and the construction activities occurring in the vicinity of the nest. The buffer area(s) shall be closed to all construction personnel and equipment until the adults and young are no longer reliant on the nest site. A qualified biologist shall confirm that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest before removal of the buffer. Readily visible exclusion zones shall be established in areas where nests must be avoided.  Removal of vegetation within suitable nesting bird habitats shall be scheduled to occur in the fall and winter (between September 16 and January 31), after fledging and before the initiation of the nesting season.
 If active white-tailed kite nests are located during surveys, all construction work shall be conducted outside a buffer zone from the nest to be determined by the qualified biologist. The buffer shall be a minimum of 300 feet for raptor species, including white-tailed kites. Larger buffers may be required depending upon the status of the nest and the construction activities occurring in the vicinity of the nest.

The buffer area(s) shall be closed to all construction personnel and equipment until the adults and young are no longer reliant on the nest site. A qualified biologist shall confirm that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest before the buffer is removed.

Invasive Species Mitigation
BIO-5 - Invasive Species. The city shall ensure the following actions are undertaken to avoid and minimize potential impacts associated with invasive species in the project area:
 Before construction, a qualified botanist/biologist shall provide invasive plant prevention training and an appropriate identification/instruction guide to staff and contractors. A list of target species shall be included, along with measures for early detection and eradication.
 Before construction, specific areas shall be designated for cleaning tools, vehicles, equipment, clothing, footwear, and other gear.
 Before entering and exiting the work site, all tools, equipment, vehicles, clothing and footwear, and other gear shall be cleaned to remove soil, seeds, and other plant parts.
 The reproductive parts of any invasive plants, such as seeds, mature flowers, and roots/shoots of species that can reproduce vegetatively, shall be contained in sealed containers and removed from the project site and disposed of at a licensed landfill/disposal site. Before transporting invasive plant materials, the receiving areas of the landfill/disposal site shall be confirmed by the city as designated for invasive plant waste disposal. The city shall ensure that 100 percent containment of invasive plant materials is enforced during the transport of invasive plants to the disposal site.
 All disturbed areas that are not converted to hardscape or formally landscaped shall be hydroseeded with a mix of locally native species upon completion of work in those areas. In areas where construction is ongoing, hydroseeding shall occur where no construction activities have occurred before winter rains. If exotic species

Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 10
R ______
invade these areas before hydroseeding, weed removal shall occur in consultation with a qualified botanist/biologist. Alternatively, in areas not suitable for hydroseeding, areas that are not hardscaped and are planned for formal landscaping shall be mulched to reduce the potential for invasive species to colonize. Mulch shall be at least four inches thick and shall be weed free.

Riparian Habitat and Jurisdictional Area Mitigation
BIO-6 - Riparian Habitat. The city shall ensure the following actions are undertaken to avoid and minimize potential impacts to riparian habitat and jurisdictional areas:
 All refueling, maintenance, and staging of equipment and vehicles shall occur at least 100 feet from riparian habitat or bodies of water and in a location where a potential spill would not drain directly toward aquatic habitat (e.g., on a slope that drains away from the water source). Before the start of work activities, a plan must be in place for a prompt and effective response to any accidental spills. All workers shall be informed of the importance of preventing spills and of the appropriate measures to take should an accidental spill occur.
 Raw cement, concrete or washings thereof, asphalt, paint or other coating material, oil or other petroleum products, or any other substances that could be hazardous to aquatic species resulting from project-related activities shall be prevented from contaminating the soil and/or entering jurisdictional areas.  To control sedimentation during and after project implementation, appropriate erosion control Best Management Practices (e.g., temporary erosion and sediment control) shall be implemented to minimize adverse effects on San Luis Obispo Creek. Plastic monofilament erosion control matting shall not be implemented onsite.
 Before the start of construction activities, high-visibility orange construction fencing shall be installed along the limits of the proposed disturbance outside of the top of the western bank of San Luis Obispo Creek and its associated riparian habitat to minimize the potential for disturbance of this area.
 Project activities within 60 50 feet of San Luis Obispo Creek shall occur during the dry season (e.g., between May 1 and November 1) in any given year.

BIO-7 - Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. A Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be prepared, which will provide a minimum 2-to-1 restoration ratio (replaced to removed) for permanent impacts to riparian habitat unless otherwise directed by pertinent regulatory agencies. Mitigation activities associated with the replacement of riparian habitat shall occur in the designated sensitive habitat mitigation portion of the Biological Study Area and shall avoid additional impacts to sensitive plant or wildlife species. All areas of temporary disturbance shall be stabilized and revegetated with an assemblage of native vegetation suitable for the area. Examples of activities associated with the implementation of the Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan include the application of native willow/ riparian seed mix and the removal of non-native weedy species within the habitat mitigation area. The final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan will be implemented immediately after project completion.

Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 11
R ______
Cultural Resources
CR-1 - Unidentified Cultural Materials. If archaeological resources are exposed during construction, all work shall be halted within 50 feet of the exposed resource until a qualified archaeologist can visit the site of discovery and assess the significance of the find(see 36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.11.1 and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15064.5[f]).

Examples of cultural materials that could be exposed during construction include ground stone tools such as mortars, bowls, pestles, and manos; chipped stone tools such as projectile points or choppers; flakes of stone not consistent with the immediate geology such as obsidian or fused shale; historic trash pits containing bottles and/or ceramics; or structural remains. If the resources are found to be significant, they must be avoided or will be mitigated consistent with State Historic Preservation Officer Guidelines.

Geology and Soils
GEO-1 - Paleontological Resources. If paleontological resources are exposed during construction, all work shall be halted within 100 feet of the exposed resource until a qualified paleontologist can visit the site of discovery and assess the significance of the find. Caltrans shall be informed of the discovery immediately. If the paleontological resource is determined to be significant, the paleontologist shall have the authority to salvage and remove the fossil from its locality, as appropriate, before ground-disturbing or other construction activities resume in the area. Any fossils recovered during the development, along with their contextual stratigraphic data, shall be offered to the City of San Luis Obispo or other appropriate institution with an educational and research interest in the materials. The paleontologist shall prepare a report of the results of any findings as part of a testing or mitigation plan following an accepted professional practice.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZ-1 - Aerially Deposited Lead. A workplan shall be developed for aerially deposited lead sampling for the area of the selected project alternative. Surficial soil samples shall be collected and analyzed for total lead in areas that are to be disturbed for the project.

The workplan shall require the investigation of surface soils to be conducted before construction. The workplan shall include all required measures for proper management and disposal of contaminated soils in accordance with the U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act, California Health and Safety Code, and California Occupational Safety and Health Act if the total lead is detected above acceptable levels in the project site soils. The workplan shall require that investigation and/or remediation of soil contamination be performed in accordance with Department of Toxic Substances Control procedures and requirements and require Department of Toxic Substances Control approval before recommencing construction or demolition work.

HAZ-2 - Pesticides and Herbicides. Surface soils shall be tested by a professional geologist or environmental professional to determine the presence or absence of pesticides, herbicides, and arsenic along proposed rights-of-way. A workplan describing sampling locations and sampling and analytical methods shall be prepared by the project developer before the start of work. The workplan shall include laboratory data for the

Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 12
R ______
impacted soils to profile excavated soil before transport, treatment, and recycling at a licensed treatment facility. The workplan shall also detail the requirements for removal, transportation, and disposal of impacted soil in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances. The workplan shall require that investigation and/or remediation of soil contamination be performed in accordance with Department of Toxic Substances Control procedures and requirements and require Department of Toxic Substances Control approval before recommencing construction or demolition work.

HAZ-3 - Petroleum Pipelines. The petroleum pipeline at the intersection of Elks Lane and Prado Road shall be properly marked by the developer before the start of any project construction activities. A contingency plan shall be developed by the developer and include all applicable federal, state, and local regulatory requirements for soil handling and/or remediation if contaminated soil from the petroleum pipeline is encountered during construction activities. All other known pipelines in the project area shall be identified and marked by the developer before the start of any construction activities.

Upon motion of Council Member ___________, seconded by Council Member ___________, and on the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _______________ 2023. ___________________________
Mayor Erica A. Stewart
ATTEST:
__________________________
Teresa Purrington, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on ______________________. ___________________________
Teresa Purrington, City Clerk

R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2023 SERIES)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS

OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE

PROJECT REPORT AND PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FOR THE

PRADO INTERCHANGE PROJECT
WHEREAS, The Prado Interchange Project is a Caltrans led and City implemented Project; and
WHEREAS, City and Caltrans staff have completed an operational, environmental and financial assessment of each interchange type proposed by the Project Study Report; and
WHEREAS, City and Caltrans staff agree that Alternative A3 is the most suitable alternative to meet both City and Caltrans project goals; and WHEREAS, City and Caltrans staff agree that the Project Report, which contains all of the analysis resulting from the Project Approval/Environmental Document Phase is ready for final signatures.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo recommends adoption as follows:

SECTION 1. Based on information from traffic studies, engineering plans and estimates and the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative declaration, the following findings are adopted for this project:

Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 2
R ______
a) The Preferred Alternative for this project is A3, and staff should pursue this in future project phases;
b) The Project Report is substantially complete and ready for Caltrans review and signature.

Upon motion of Council Member ___________, seconded by Council Member ___________, and on the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _______________ 2023. ___________________________
Mayor Erica A. Stewart
ATTEST:
______________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on ______________________. ___________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk

05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
Vicinity Map

05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………. 1

2. BACKGROUND ………………………………………………………………….. 2

3. PURPOSE AND NEED …………………………………………………………… 3

4. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT …………………. 3

5. DEFICIENCIES …………………………………………………………………… 7 .

6. CORRIDOR AND SYSTEM COORDINATION ………………………………… 10

7. ALTERNATIVES …………………………………………………………………. 13

8. RIGHT-OF-WAY …………………………………………………………………. 18

9. STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT …………………………………………….. 19

10. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION/DOCUMENTS ……………………... 19

11. FUNDING ………………………………………………………………………… 21
Capital Outlay Project Estimate …………………………………………………… 22 Capital Outlay Support Estimate ………………………………………………….. 22

12. DELIVERY SCHEDULE ………………………………………………………… 23

13. RISKS …………………………………………………………………………….. 23

14. FHWA COORDINATION ……………………………………………………….. 24 .

15. PROJECT PERSONNEL …………………………………………………………. 24

16. ATTACHMENTS ………………………………………………………………… 25 ..

A. Existing Conditions Exhibit
B. Circulation Element Street Classification Diagram
C. Alternatives A1 and A1R (Viable Build Alternative)
D. Alternative A3 (Viable Build Alternative)
E. Alternatives A4 and A4R (Viable Build Alternative)
F. Alternative A7 (Viable Build Alternative)
G. Alternative A2 (Viable but Rejected Alternative)
H. PSR-PDS Capital Outlay Project Estimates
I. Conceptual Cost Estimate Forms – Right of Way
J. Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report (PEAR)
K. Risk Register
L. Storm Water Data Report (Signature Page)
M. Project Initiation Document Design Scoping Index
N. Transportation Planning Scoping Information Sheet
O. Division of Engineering Services PSR-PDS Scoping Checklist P. Traffic Engineering Performance Assessment
Q. PSR-PDS Survey Needs Questionnaire
R. Quality Management Plan
S. Project Programming Request
T. Transportation Management Plan Data Sheet/Checklist
U. Caltrans Final Document Distribution List

05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
1 1. INTRODUCTION
Project Description:

The proposed project includes improvements to extend Prado Road over U.S. Route 101 (US 101) to connect with Dalidio Drive, reconstruct the existing US 101 northbound (NB) off-ramp and on- ramp connections with Prado Road, and construct an auxiliary lane on northbound US 101 between the Prado Road and Madonna Road in order to provide congestion relief, operational efficiency and multimodal connectivity. The interchange is located in the City of San Luis Obispo in the County of San Luis Obispo at Post Mile (PM) 26.8 and improvements on northbound US 101 extend from PM 26.5 to PM 27.3. In addition to the No-Build Alternative, four viable build alternatives have been identified by the Project Development Team (PDT). Each of the build alternatives includes a partial interchange with the proposed Prado Road overcrossing constructed over US 101 and new US 101 NB off-ramp to and onramp from Prado Road.

All potential alternatives consider multimodal components and do not preclude future widening of US 101. The project would also not preclude a future full access interchange at this location.

Refer to Attachment H for the ‘Current Capital Outlay Construction Cost Range’ and the ‘Current Capital Outlay Right-of-Way Cost Range’ for each build alternative. Additional right of way cost details for each build alternative are also provided in Attachment I.

Project Limits 05-SLO-101-PM 26.5 / 27.3
Number of Alternatives Five (5) including No Build
Current Capital Outlay
Support Estimate for PA&ED
$765,000
Current Capital Outlay
Construction Cost Range
$11 million to $26 million
Current Capital Outlay Rightof-Way Cost Range
$1 million to $15 million
Funding Source Impact Fees, Debt Financing, SLOCOG RTIP Type of Facility Local Interchange
Number of Structures 1
Anticipated Environmental
Determination or Document
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
for CEQA and Categorical Exclusion for
NEPA
Legal Description On U.S. Route 101 in San Luis Obispo
County, in the City of San Luis Obispo from
PM 26.5 to PM 27.3
Project Development Category 3
This report is for programming Project Approval and Environmental Document support cost only. A Project Approval & Environmental Documentation report (PA/ED) will be prepared following the approval of this PSR-PDS. The remaining capital outlay support, right-of way, and construction components for the project are preliminary estimates and are not suitable for

05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
2 programming purposes. The resources required from Caltrans to complete the proposed components are oversight and project approval.

Other approvals required:
 City of San Luis Obispo Encroachment Permit
 Mandatory and Advisory Design Exceptions
 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR)

2. BACKGROUND
U.S. Route 101 (US 101) is the principal north/south freeway/expressway on the Central Coast traversing the counties of Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey and San Benito within District 5. It serves local, regional and interregional travel needs, including business, recreation, tourism, journey-to-work, freight and goods movement, and national defense transport and is part of the Pacific Coast Bicycle Route. Through the project area, US 101 is a four lane freeway with 12-foot through lanes, 5-foot inside shoulder, 10-foot outside shoulder and approximately 27-foot median. Right-of-Way width varies, but is generally 177 feet. The nearest interchanges on either side of the project study area include Los Osos Valley Road located at PM 25.9 and Madonna Road located at PM 27.5. There is an existing northbound US 101 off-ramp to Prado Road and an existing Prado Road northbound on-ramp to US 101.

The ramp connections to Prado Road are located at PM 26.8. An existing conditions base map is provided as Attachment A.

A Freeway Agreement between the State of California (Caltrans) and the City of San Luis Obispo (City) is currently in place and is dated July 3, 1972. The Freeway Agreement includes the segment of US 101 between 0.5 mile south of Los Osos Valley Road overcrossing and 0.4 mile south of Madonna Road overcrossing and includes the proposed project area.

A Project Study Report (PSR) was previously prepared and approved in December 1996 (EA 41120K). Fact Sheet Exceptions to Mandatory Design Standards for non-standard interchange spacing between the proposed Prado Road interchange and the Madonna Road interchange were also prepared and approved in April 1996. Both the approved PSR and Fact Sheet Exceptions to Mandatory Design Standards were determined to be no longer valid.

Construction of the Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) improvements at US 101 were completed in 2016. The improvements corrected existing operational deficiencies and improved safety; provided a new LOVR Overcrossing adjacent to the existing LOVR Overcrossing to provide 4-lanes; widened the adjacent bridge crossing San Luis Obispo Creek; provided improved pedestrian and bicycle access along both sides of LOVR and integration with Bob Jones Trail; and, provided upgrades on all four on and off ramps at the US 101/LOVR interchange. During Project Approval & Environmental Documentation (PA/ED) for this project, the environmental document included the Prado Road interchange in the future scenario.

The City of San Luis Obispo (City), Caltrans District 5 (Caltrans) and San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) signed a Caltrans Project Information Form in January 2016 and

05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
3 the City and Caltrans signed a Project Charter in July 2017. The City and Caltrans also entered into a Cooperative Agreement (No. 05-0313) in July 2017 in which the City agreed to prepare a Project Study Report – Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) for the proposed project.

Caltrans agreed to provide project oversight and approvals.

3. PURPOSE AND NEED
Purpose:

The purpose of the project is to improve overall circulation and accessibility in the project area for all transportation modes.

Need:

There is a need to provide better community connectivity between the existing and planned neighborhoods east and west of the 101 freeway and resolve forecasted operational deficiencies on State and City facilities. This connectivity needs extends to all transportation modes.

Goals and objectives of the project include: 1) improve overall operations of U.S. Route 101 and adjacent interchanges; 2) improve mobility for bicyclists and pedestrians; 3) improve transit performance and enhance transit opportunities; and 4) consistency with local, regional and state planning.

4. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
Seven project build alternatives concepts were initially developed and analyzed to compare the impacts to US 101 mainline, weave and ramp operations between Los Osos Valley Road and Marsh Street, local connectivity, local accessibility and local traffic circulation. A traffic operations analysis report (TOAR) was prepared in March 2017 to analyze the following alternatives (each build alternative includes the extension of Prado Road west over US 101 to a connection with Dalidio Drive):
 No Build Alternative
 Alternative A1 - Full Access Tight Diamond Interchange Configuration (Type L-2 configuration west of and Type L-1 configuration east of US 101. This alternative also included two ramp intersection control options, traffic signal control or roundabout.)  Alternative A2 – Full Access Interchange with Partial Clover East of US 101 (Type L2 configuration west of and Type L-8 configuration east of US 101. This alternative also included two ramp intersection control options, traffic signal control or roundabout.)
 Alternative A3 – Full Access with Partial Clover West of US 101 (Type L-8 configuration west of and Type L-1 configuration east of US 101. This alternative also included two ramp intersection control options, traffic signal control or roundabout.)  Alternative A4 – Full Access Partial Clover Interchange Configuration (Type L-7 configuration west of and Type L-7 configuration east of US 101. This alternative also included two ramp intersection control options, traffic signal control or roundabout.)  Alternative A5 – Single Point Interchange Alternative (Type L-13 configuration)

05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
4  Alternative A6 – Partial Access Tight Diamond Interchange Configuration (Type L-1 configuration east of US 101. This alternative also included two ramp intersection control options, traffic signal control or roundabout.)  Alternative B – Prado Road Overcrossing Only Alternative Alternatives A1 through A5 considered a collector-distributor (C-D) between Madonna Road and Prado Road. Alternatives A1 through A6 also considered a northbound US 101 auxiliary lane between Prado Road and Madonna Road.

The TOAR along with a draft alternatives design memorandum was provided to Caltrans for review and comment in March 2017. The TOAR provided projected year 2045 traffic operations for the No-Build conditions as well as the seven initial build alternatives. The following table shows the projected year 2045 US 101 peak hour operations from south of the Los Osos Valley Road interchange north through the Madonna Road interchange as presented in the TOAR.

Source: TOAR (March 2017)
The next table shows the projected year 2045 intersection peak hour levels of service for the Los Osos Valley Road interchange, US 101 NB Ramps/Prado Road intersection, and the Madonna Road interchange as presented in the TOAR.

Target
LOS
Segment
Type
US 101 Northbound
US 101 NB South of Los Osos Valley Road C Freeway E / C E / C E / C E / C E / C E / C E / C E / C US 101 NB Los Osos Valley Road Off Ramp C Diverge E / D E / D E / D E / D E / D E / D E / D E / D US 101 NB Los Osos Valley Road On Ramp C Merge D / C D / C D / C D / C D / C D / C D / C D / C US 101 NB South of Prado Road C Freeway D / C D / C D / C D / C D / C D / C D / C D / C US 101 NB Prado Road Off Ramp C Diverge D / D D / D D / D D / D D / D D / D D / D - / - US 101 NB Prado Road On Ramp C Merge D / D - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - US 101 NB South of Madonna Road C Freeway D / D - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - US 101 NB Madonna Road Off Ramp C Diverge D / D - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - D / D US 101 NB North of Prado Road C Weave - / - C / C C / C C / C C / C C / C C / C - / - US 101 NB South of Marsh Street C Weave C / D C / D C / D C / D C / D C / D C / D C / D US 101 Southbound - / - - / - - / - - / -
US 101 SB South of Marsh Street C Weave C / D C / D C / D C / D C / D C / D C / D C / D US 101 SB Madonna Road On Ramp C Merge B / D - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - B / D B / D US 101 SB Collector Distributor Diverge C Diverge - / - A / B A / B A / B A / B A / B - / - - / - US 101 SB Collector Distributor Weave C Weave - / - A / A A / A A / A A / A A / A - / - - / - US 101 SB South of Madonna Road C Freeway C / E B / D B / D B / D B / D B / D C / E C / E US 101 SB Collector Distributor End C Merge - / - - / - C / D - / - A / B C / D - / - - / - US 101 SB Prado Road On Ramp C Merge - / - A / B C / E A / B C / E C / E - / - - / - US 101 SB North of Los Osos Valley Road C Weave - / - B / D - / - B / D - / - - / - - / - US 101 SB North of Los Osos Valley Road C Freeway C / E - / - C / E - / - C / E C / E - / - C / E US 101 SB Los Osos Valley Road Off Ramp C Diverge C / E - / - C / E - / - C / E C / E C / E C / E US 101 SB Los Osos Valley Road On Ramp C Merge C / E C / E C / E C / E C / E C / E C / E C / E US 101 SB South of Los Osos Valley Road C Freeway B / F B / F B / F B / F B / F B / F B / F B / F US 101 PROJECTED ALTERNATIVE PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) Interchange Location
No-Build Alt A1 Alt A2 Alt A3

AM / PM
Peak Hour
LOS
Alt A5 Alt A6 Alt B

AM / PM
Peak Hour
LOS

AM / PM
Peak Hour
LOS

AM / PM
Peak Hour
LOS

AM / PM
Peak Hour
LOS

AM / PM
Peak Hour
LOS

AM / PM
Peak Hour
LOS

AM / PM
Peak Hour
LOS
Alt A4

05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
5 Source: TOAR (March 2017)
A Project Development Team (PDT) meeting was then held on June 1, 2017 during which the TOAR results guided the PDT to reject the full interchange option since it is not needed in the next 20 years. The PDT provided direction that an initial project that provides the Prado Road crossing over US 101, reconfigured northbound US 101 ramps only with Prado Road, and a northbound US 101 auxiliary lane between Prado Road and Madonna Road represents the PSR-PDS project. The following viable build alternatives were then identified by the PDT to be included in the PSR-PDS and be carried forward into PA/ED.  Alternative A1 (both traffic signal control or roundabout control options)  Alternative A3 (both traffic signal control or roundabout control options)  Alternative A4 (both traffic signal control or roundabout control options) Since the current alternatives would require extensive structures to accommodate FEMA, the PDT agreed to consider an alternative (Alternative A7) that constructs the northbound ramps at grade. This alternative considers bringing the US 101 northbound off-ramp and on-ramp into Prado Road just prior to the Prado Road intersection with Elks Lane. A roundabout would provide intersection control at the Prado Road/Elks Lane intersection. A revised traffic operations analysis report (TOAR) has been prepared to reevaluate the identified viable alternatives and Alternative A7 and was provided to Caltrans in September 2017 for review and comment.

The revised TOAR again provided projected year 2045 traffic operations for the No-Build conditions as well as the identified viable alternatives including Alternative 7. The following table shows the projected year 2045 US 101 peak hour operations from south of the Los Osos Valley Road interchange north through the Madonna Road interchange as presented in the revised TOAR.

No-Build Alt A1 Alt A2 Alt A3 Alt A4 Alt A5 Alt A6 Alt B

AM / PM
Peak Hour

AM / PM
Peak Hour

AM / PM
Peak Hour

AM / PM
Peak Hour

AM / PM
Peak Hour

AM / PM
Peak Hour

AM / PM
Peak Hour

AM / PM
Peak Hour
Target
LOS
Control
Type LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS
Los Osos Valley Road/Calle Joaquin D Signal C / B A /A A /A A /A A /A A /A A / B A / B Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 SB Ramps C Signal E / C C / B C / B C / B C / B C / B D / C C / C Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 NB Ramps C Signal D / B B / B B / B B / B B / B B / B C / B D / C S. Higuera Street/Los Osos Valley Road D Signal D / F D / D C / D C / D C / D C / D C / E C / E Prado Road/US 101 NB Ramps C Signal B / C B / B A / A B / B D / C - / - B / B - / - Prado Road/US 101 SB Ramps C Signal - / - B / B B / B B / B B / B - / - - / - - / - Prado Road/US 101 Ramps (Single Point) C Signal - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - C / B - / - - / - Madonna Road/Higuera Street D Signal D / D C / C C / C C / C C / C C / C C / D D / D Madonna Road/US 101 NB Ramps C Signal C / C B / B B / B B / B B / B B / B B / B C / C Madonna Road/US 101 SB Ramps/Madonna Inn C Signal D / C C / C C / C C / C C / C C / C D / C C / C Madonna Road/El Mercado D Signal A / C B / C B / C B / C B / C B / C B / B B / B YEAR 2045 PROJECTED ALTERNATIVES INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) Intersections

05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
6 Source: TOAR (September 2017)
The next table shows the projected year 2045 intersection peak hour levels of service for the Los Osos Valley Road interchange, US 101 NB Ramps/Prado Road/ intersection, and the Madonna Road interchange as provided in the revised TOAR.

Source: TOAR (September 2017)
Finally, supplemental Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) Step 1 analysis and information has been prepared and provided in the revised TOAR including a collision cost analysis and benefit/cost (B/C). The resulting B/C for each alternative are provided in the following table.

The negative Traffic Signal B/C’s shown in the table are the result of the “Desired Improvement” collision cost being greater than the corresponding “Existing Condition” collision cost.

US 101 Northbound
US 101 NB South of Los Osos Valley Road C Freeway E / C E / C E / C E / C E / C US 101 NB Los Osos Valley Road Off Ramp C Diverge E / D E / D E / D E / D E / D US 101 NB Los Osos Valley Road On Ramp C Merge D / C D / C D / C D / C D / C US 101 NB South of Prado Road C Freeway D / C D / C D / C D / C D / C US 101 NB Prado Road Off Ramp C Diverge D / D D / D D D D / D D / D US 101 NB Prado Road On Ramp C Merge D / D
US 101 NB South of Madonna Road C Freeway D / D
US 101 NB Madonna Road Off Ramp C Diverge D / D
US 101 NB North of Prado Road C Weave C / C C / C C / C C / C US 101 NB South of Marsh Street C Weave D / D C / D C / D C / D C / D US 101 Southbound
US 101 SB South of Marsh Street C Weave C / E D / E C / E D / E D / E US 101 SB Madonna Road On Ramp C Merge B / D B / D B / D B / D B / D US 101 SB South of Madonna Road C Freeway C / E C / E C / E C / E C / E US 101 SB Los Osos Valley Road Off Ramp C Diverge C / E C / E C / E C / E C / E US 101 SB Los Osos Valley Road On Ramp C Merge C / E C / E C / E C / E C / E US 101 SB South of Los Osos Valley Road C Freeway B / F B / F B / F B / F B / F

AM / PM
Peak Hour
LOS

AM / PM
Peak Hour
LOS

AM / PM
Peak Hour
LOS
- / -
- / -
- / -
- / -
- / -
- / -
- / -
- / -
Alt A3 Alt A4 Alt A7
US 101 YEAR 2045 PROJECTED ALTERNATIVES PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)

AM / PM
Peak Hour
LOS
- / -
- / -
- / -
- / - - / -
Location
Target
LOS
Segment
Type
No-Build Alt A1

AM / PM
Peak Hour
LOS
Los Osos Valley Road/Calle Joaquin D Signal C / B A / B A / B A / B A / B Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 SB Ramps C Signal E / C D / C D / C D / C D / C Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 NB Ramps C Signal D / B C / B C / B C / B C / B S. Higuera Street/Los Osos Valley Road D Signal D / F C / E C/ E C / E C / E Prado Road/US 101 NB Ramps C Signal B / C B / A B / A C / B A / C Madonna Road/Higuera Street D Signal D / D C / D C / D C / D C / D Madonna Road/US 101 NB Ramps C Signal C / C B / B B / B B / B B / B Madonna Road/US 101 SB C Signal D / C D / C D / C D / C D / C Madonna Road/El Mercado D Signal A / C B / B B / B B / B B / B Control
Type

AM / PM
Peak Hour
LOS

AM / PM
Peak Hour
LOS

AM / PM
Peak Hour
LOS

AM / PM
Peak Hour
LOS
YEAR 2045 PROJECTED ALTERNATIVES INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) No-Build Alt A1 Alt A3 Alt A4 Alt A7
Target
Intersection LOS

AM / PM
Peak Hour
LOS

05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
7 ALTERNTIVES BENEFIT COST (B/C) COMPARISON
Alternatives Roundabout B/C Traffic Signal B/C
Alternatives A1/A1R
A1 -0.12
A1R 0.19
Alternatives A3/A1R
A3 -0.12
A1R 0.19
Alternatives A4/A4R
A4 -0.15
A4R 0.20
Source: September 2017 TOAR

5. DEFICIENCIES
The existing Prado Road interchange with US 101 consists only of northbound off- and onramps. Prado Road presently has a compact diamond off-ramp and a hook on-ramp in the northbound direction. This configuration provides limited access to and from US 101 from the local street system at this location. The Prado Road extension over US 101 is needed to provide better community connectivity between the existing and planned neighborhoods and to support planned roadway improvements east and west of the 101 freeway. Improvements to US 101 in the study area and the extension of Prado Road over US 101 are critical to the operations for all modes of travel not only for regional traffic but also for local traffic.

System Connectivity
Within the project area, east/west connectivity across US 101 is currently limited to either Los Osos Valley Road or Madonna Road. With continued growth and development planned adjacent to or served by these two corridors, overall circulation and accessibility in the project area for all transportation modes will degrade without providing additional connectivity. The following table shows the US 101 existing conditions and the projected year 2025 and year 2045 freeway ramp junction and weave segment peak hour levels of service for the No-Build condition from the Los Osos Valley Road interchange north through the Madonna Road interchange.

The next table shows the existing conditions and the projected year 2025 and year 2045 intersection peak hour levels of service for the No-Build condition at the Los Osos Valley Road

05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
8 interchange, US 101 NB Ramps/Prado Road/Elks Lane intersection, and the Madonna Road interchange.

Traffic Volumes
US 101 just north of Los Osos Valley Road currently experiences over 60,000 vehicles per day on an average day with this volume projected to increase by almost 50% by the year 2045.

Continued growth in the use of US 101 for regional and interregional travel will contribute to this projected growth. Continued growth within the City of San Luis Obispo will result in an increase in local traffic to the projected growth in traffic on mainline US 101 and also increases in traffic accessing US 101 from the Los Osos Valley Road interchange, the Prado Road northbound off and on ramps, and the Madonna Road interchange. The following table shows the US 101 No-Build condition existing and forecasted year 2025 and year 2045 freeway mainline and freeway on and off ramp peak hour traffic volumes from south of the Los Osos Valley Road interchange north through the Madonna Road interchange.

AM
Peak Hour
PM
Peak Hour
AM
Peak Hour
PM
Peak Hour
AM
Peak Hour
PM
Peak Hour

LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS
Los Osos Valley Road/Calle Joaquin Signal D A A A A C B Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 SB Ramps Signal C B B C B E C Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 NB Ramps Signal C C C B C D B S. Higuera Street/Los Osos Valley Road Signal D B B C C D F Prado Road/US 101 NB Ramps AWSC C A B B C B C
Madonna Road/Higuera Street Signal D B C C D D D
Madonna Road/US 101 NB Ramps Signal C B C C C C C
Madonna Road/US 101 SB Ramps/Madonna Inn Signal C D C D C D C Madonna Road/El Mercado Signal D A B A B A C
Year 2025 Year 2045

EXISTING AND FORECASTED NO-BUILD PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) Intersection
Control
Type
Target
LOS
Existing Conditions
AM
Peak Hour
PM
Peak Hour
AM
Peak Hour
PM
Peak Hour
AM
Peak Hour
PM
Peak Hour
Mainline US 101
US 101 Northbound
South of Los Osos Valley Road
(LOVR) 2,774 2,249 3,186 2,538 3,751 2,913
North of LOVR 2,443 2,137 2,770 2,420 3,250 2,840
North of Prado Road 2,468 2,497 2,785 2,806 3,200 3,285 North of Madonna Road 2,851 2,919 3,151 3,352 3,552 3,911 US 101 Southbound
South of Marsh Street 2,301 3,361 2,510 3,746 3,114 4,379 South of Madonna Road 1,663 2,881 1,881 3,260 2,210 3,830 South of LOVR 1,406 3,004 1,616 3,516 1,955 4,131
US 101 Interchanges
LOVR
Northbound Off-ramp 546 579 643 620 783 636
Northbound On-ramp 215 467 227 502 282 563
Southbound Off-ramp 621 611 676 573 816 608
Southbound On-ramp 364 774 412 829 561 909
Prado Road
Northbound Off-ramp 225 135 311 150 430 170
Northbound On-ramp 250 495 326 536 380 615
Madonna Road
Northbound Off-ramp 266 299 278 273 276 242
Northbound On-ramp 649 721 644 819 628 868
Southbound Off-ramp 782 857 861 895 1,179 1,002
Southbound On-ramp 144 377 231 409 275 453
Marsh Street
Northbound Off-ramp 384 399 361 363 338 327
Southbound On-ramp 322 597 283 549 244 501
US 101 EXISTING AND FORECASTED NO-BUILD PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Existing Conditions Year 2025 Year 2045

05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
9 The next table shows the No-Build condition existing and forecasted year 2025 and year 2045 peak hour traffic volumes on the adjacent and intersecting local street system.

Safety
Table B collision information and rates at the study area ramps were obtained from Caltrans for the three-year period from August 1, 2012 through July 31, 2015. The following table provides collision data on freeway ramp segments at Prado Road and Madonna Road for this three-year period. Collision data is not shown for the freeway ramp segments at Los Osos Valley Road as interchange construction was going on during this time period. As shown in this table, there were no fatality collisions reported at any of the ramps during the three-year period. As also shown, each of the Madonna Road ramps experienced actual rates for fatal plus injury (F+I) and total collisions higher than the corresponding statewide average rates.

The southbound off-ramp experienced the highest number of both injury and total collisions at 5 and 18 respectively while the northbound on-ramp had the lowest number at 1 and 6 respectively. Finally, there were no collisions reported for the northbound on-ramp from Prado Road and only 1 collision reported for the northbound off-ramp to Prado Road.

US 101 FREEWAY RAMP TRAFFIC COLLISION DATA (MV)
(August 1, 2012 – July 31, 2015)

RAMP

SEGMENT
Collisions Actual Rate Average Rate
FAT INJ F+I TOTAL FAT F + I TOTAL FAT F+I TOTAL
NB Off to Prado Road 0 0 0 1 0.000 .00 .58 0.001 .17 .54 NB On from Prado Road 0 0 0 0 0.000 .00 .00 0.001 .13 .46 SB On from Madonna Road 0 6 6 9 0.000 1.36 2.04 0.002 .22 .63 NB Off to Madonna Road 0 4 4 7 0.000 .93 1.63 0.003 .35 1.01 SB Off to Madonna Road 0 5 5 18 0.000 .49 1.78 0.003 .24 .72 NB On from Madonna Road 0 1 1 6 0.000 .25 1.52 0.002 .22 .63 AM
Peak Hour
PM
Peak Hour
AM
Peak Hour
PM
Peak Hour
AM
Peak Hour
PM
Peak Hour
Roadway Segments
Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR)
West of Calle Joaquin 1,724 2,788 2,030 3,195 2,578 3,939 West of US 101 SB Ramps 1,869 2,891 2,164 3,305 2,876 4,301 On US 101 Overcrossing 1,749 2,257 2,196 2,543 2,804 3,506 East of US 101 NB Ramps 1,511 1,752 1,991 2,017 2,480 2,927 Prado Road
East of US 101 NB Ramps 468 631 620 685 765 750
Madonna Road
West of US 101 SB Ramps 1,895 2,705 2,230 3,093 2,519 3,304 On US 101 Overcrossing 2,151 2,334 2,462 2,776 2,966 2,994 East of US 101 NB Ramps 1,762 1,912 2,079 2,293 2,606 2,550 S. Higuera Street
South of LOVR 607 714 855 902 1,020 1,480
North of LOVR 1,974 2,308 2,366 2,806 2,809 3,087
South of Prado Road 1,086 1,665 1,384 2,108 1,463 2,189 South of Madonna Road 1,197 1,508 1,505 1,978 2,301 2,649 North of Madonna Road 1,628 2,247 2,050 2,539 2,524 3,123

LOCAL STREET SYSTEM EXISTING AND FORECASTED NO-BUILD PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Existing Conditions Year 2025 Year 2045

05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
10 Table B collision information and rates for mainline US 101 within the study area were also obtained from Caltrans for the three-year period from August 1, 2012 through July 31, 2015.

The following table provides collision data on freeway segments within the project area for this three-year period. As shown in this table, there was one fatality collision reported on northbound US 101 between the Prado Road and Madonna Road interchanges. Other actual rates for northbound US 101 are lower than the corresponding statewide average rates. Actual rates for southbound US 101 area were generally lower than the corresponding statewide average rates except for the total actual rate.

US 101 FREEWAY SEGMENT TRAFFIC COLLISION DATA (MVM)
(August 1, 2012 – July 31, 2015)

FREEWAY

SEGMENT
Collisions Actual Rate Average Rate
FAT INJ F+I TOTAL FAT F + I TOTAL FAT F+I TOTAL
Los Osos Valley Road –
Madonna Road
Southbound
0 12 12 49 0.000 .23 .94 0.005 .27 .83
Los Osos Valley Road –
Prado Road
Northbound
0 1 1 6 0.000 .03 .19 0.005 .26 .81
Prado Road – Madonna
Road
Northbound
1 2 3 10 0.047 .14 .47 0.005 .27 .83

6. CORRIDOR AND SYSTEM COORDINATION
U.S. Route 101 (US 101) is designated with the following state and federal classifications:
 Federal Aid Primary Route
 Freeway Expressway System (F&E)
 National Highway System (NHS)
 Strategic Highway Corridor Network (STRAHNET)
 Interregional Road System (IRRS)
 High Emphasis Route
 Eligible to be part of the Scenic Highway System
The current US 101 northbound (NB) off and on ramp connections with Prado Road are located at PM 26.8 within Segment 5 in the US 101 Transportation Concept Report (TCR, December 2014). Segment 5 extends from the South Higuera Street Interchange (PM 24.3) to the State Route 58 Interchange (PM 37.9). The route is a four lane freeway through the City of San Luis Obispo and then transitions to a six lane expressway and conventional highway through the Cuesta Grade.

Within Segment 5 the 2035 Corridor Concept is freeway with capacity of four to six lanes, and the Ultimate Corridor Concept (beyond 2035) is freeway with capacity of up to six lanes. US 101 through the study area is currently a four lane divided freeway with auxiliary lanes provided between Madonna Road and Marsh Street. As noted, the Ultimate Corridor Concept

05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
11 is identified as freeway with capacity of up to six lanes though there is no funding currently identified for providing a six lane freeway section.

The TCR identifies various intelligent transportation system (ITS) elements for implementation within Segment 5. These include closed circuit television cameras (CCTV), inductive loop type census station (LOOP), microwave vehicle detection system (MVDS), wireless access point bridge (WAPB), and wireless client bridge (WCB). Though these elements are noted, specific locations for implementation are not identified. The TCR also identifies potential locations for ramp meters in the US 101 corridor, but with no locations within Segment 5.

The District System Management Plan (DSMP, August 2015) identifies the construction of a northbound US 101 auxiliary lane between Prado Road and Madonna Road (DSMP 2015 ID No. 2073).

The US 101 Corridor Mobility Master Plan (December 2014) evaluated potential corridor improvements within four (4) distinct US 101 focus segments within the county. Focus Segment 2 is located within the City of San Luis Obispo with the segment limits extending from Los Osos Valley Road to Monterey Street. The US 101/Prado Road interchange and US 101 northbound auxiliary lane between Prado Road and Madonna Road are identified in Table 1 as projects to be considered during future planning and programming cycles. Within Segment 2, the US 101 Corridor Mobility Master Plan also identified ramp meters on the northbound on-ramp from Madonna Road and on the southbound on-ramp from Los Osos Valley Road.

The San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) 2017 Park & Ride Lot Study (August 2017) notes that a major goal of SLOCOG is to help assure the development of an efficient, coordinated, integrated, and balanced transportation system including providing Park and Ride (P&R) lot locations throughout the County. Table D in the study identifies a P&R lot on Prado Road at or near the Prado Road/US 101 interchange as a potential P&R location.

The US 101/Prado Road interchange and US 101 northbound auxiliary lane between Prado Road and Madonna Road are identified in the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) 2014 Regional Transportation Plan (2014 RTP Project ID No. CEN-MHWY1402). This project is identified as ‘Constrained’ in the 2014 RTP, Chapter 4, Figure 4-41.

The City’s General Plan (May 2015) is published in separately adopted sections, called elements, which address various topics. The City updated both the General Plan Land Use and Circulation elements (San Luis Obispo 2035 Land Use and Circulation Update) which was adopted in 2014. While the Land Use Element describes the city’s desired character and size, the Circulation Element describes how transportation will be provided in the community described by the Land Use Element. A copy of the Circulation Element ‘Street Classification Diagram is provided in Attachment B while a description of the transportation improvements is provided in Table 5 (Transportation Capital Projects) in the Circulation Element. The following roadway improvements which will improve mobility and circulation and relieve congestion with the project study area have been identified by the City as in place by the year 2035.

05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
12  Dalidio Drive widened to 4 lanes between Madonna Road and Froom Ranch Way  Froom Ranch Way extended to Dalidio Drive
 Prado Road widened to 4 lanes between US 101 and S. Higuera Street  Horizon Lane extended between Avila Ranch and Suburban Drive  Buckley Road extended to S. Higuera Street
 A new North/South Collector between Prado Road and Tank Farm Road  Prado Road extended to Broad Street
 Madonna Road at S. Higuera Street realigned to Bridge Street The City of San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP, November 2013) identifies a need for a Class I crossing of US 101 between Los Osos Valley Road and Madonna Road which could be either a Class I crossing only or a combination Class I/Class II facility. The BTP currently identifies both a Class I and Class II facility crossing of US 101 at the proposed Prado Road extension over US 101.

The conclusion reached during the 6/1/17 PDT meeting was that an initial project that provides the Prado Road overcrossing of US 101, reconfigured northbound ramps only with Prado Road, and a northbound US 101 auxiliary lane between Prado Road and Madonna Road represents the PSR-PDS project. Though the US 101 southbound Prado Road ramps and C-D are not being considered under this PSR-PDS, these facilities are still a component of long range programmatic planning. As such, the PDT also directed that that the Prado Road structure should be designed in such a way as to accommodate the future southbound Prado Road ramps and C-D. The City is also reserving right-of-way needed for the future southbound ramps based on the best information that is available at this time. The reservation of this right-of-way will not preclude future viable alternatives.

The City’s general plan and circulation element assume and reflect a future full interchange at US 101 and Prado Road. As these planning documents are updated they will be revised to include a collector distributor system for the southbound ramps as the ultimate facility (beyond 2040) and in the near term the partial interchange at Prado with the reconfigured northbound ramps and an auxiliary lane between the Prado northbound on and Madonna northbound off ramp.

As noted in the ‘Background’ section, a Freeway Agreement between the State of California (Caltrans) and the City of San Luis Obispo (City is currently in place and is dated July 3, 1972.

The Freeway Agreement includes the segment of US 101 between 0.5-mile south of Los Osos Valley Road overcrossing and 0.4-mile south of Madonna Road overcrossing and encompasses the existing US 101 northbound off-ramp and on-ramp connections with Prado Road.

According to Caltrans Project Development Procedures Manual, Chapter 24 – Freeway Agreements, Article 8 – Resolutions of Change, and based on Caltrans opinion of this project’s impacts, the proposed project would be considered a “Major Change” which will require a superseding Freeway Agreement prior to construction and California Transportation Commission (CTC) approval. In the future, the Freeway Agreement will need to be updated when the southbound Prado Road ramps with US 101 are provided.

05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
13 7. ALTERNATIVES
In addition to the No Build alternative, multiple build alternatives were investigated during the preparation of the PSR-PDS document. Four (4) build alternatives were identified by the Project Development Team (PDT) as viable and to be further studied. These include Alternative A1, Alternative A3, Alternative A4 and Alternative A7. Each of the viable build alternatives include a partial interchange with the proposed Prado Road overcrossing constructed over US 101 and new US 101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road (these new ramps replace US 101 NB off and on ramps that currently connect with Prado Road). The project build alternatives would not preclude widening US 101 up to a six lane facility (Ultimate Corridor Concept) with a collector distributor and southbound ramp connections.

No Advance Planning Study was performed as part of this PSR-PDS.

Project Alternatives
No Build Alternative
The No-Build Alternative assumes no improvements to existing US 101 or the northbound off and on ramps to/from Prado Road. This alternative also assumes that Prado Road also terminates at the northbound ramps/Elks Lane intersection as is the current condition. This alternative does not meet the need and purpose of the proposed project.

Alternative A1
Alternative A1 assumes traffic signal control provided at the US 101 NB ramp intersection with Prado Road. Other preliminary geometric design elements presented for Alternative A1 include the following:
 The interchange configuration is consistent with a Type L-1 tight diamond configuration to the east of US 101.
 Retaining walls are proposed on the inside of both the US 101 NB off-ramp to Prado Road and the Prado Road NB on-ramp to US 101. (Optional retaining walls are also identified on the outside of both the US 101 NB off-ramp and on-ramps as options to reduce right of way impacts to adjacent properties.)
 An approximately 940’ auxiliary lane with a 1,520’ weave length is provided between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp.  Prado Road has a minimum 4-lane divided arterial section through the interchange with Class II bike lanes and Class I pathways.
 The Prado Road overcrossing over US 101 is a 2-span structure. Per direction received from the PDT, the westerly span will be designed to accommodate a future collectordistributor road and future southbound ramps if required.  Prado Road (Dalidio Drive) is extended west of US 101 to the intersection with the future Froom Ranch Road/Dalidio Drive intersection.

Exhibits are provided in Attachment C that show the Alternative A1 geometric layout, preliminary Prado Road profile and typical cross sections. The construction cost within proposed State right of way for Alternative A1 (with and without optional retaining walls) is

05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
14 estimated to be between $11M and $26M. A copy of the PSR-PDS Capital Outlay Project Estimate is provided in Attachment H.

Alternative A1R (Roundabout Option)
Alternative A1R provides a roundabout at the US 101 NB ramp intersection with Prado Road.

The other preliminary geometric design elements are consistent with the traffic signal option Alternative A1. Exhibits are also provided in Attachment C that show the Alternative A1R geometric layout, preliminary Prado Road profile and typical cross sections. The construction cost within proposed State right of way for Alternative A1R (with and without optional retaining walls) is estimated to be between $11M and $21M. A copy of the PSR-PDS Capital Outlay Project Estimate is provided in Attachment H.

Alternative A3
Alternative A3 assumes traffic signal control provided at the US 101 NB ramp intersection with Prado Road. Other preliminary geometric design elements presented for Alternative A3 include the following:
 The interchange configuration is consistent with a Type L-1 tight diamond configuration on the east side of US 101. With this alternative the Prado Road/US 101 Northbound Ramp intersection is located slightly closer to US 101 mainline when compared to Alternative A1.
 Retaining walls are proposed on the inside of both the NB off-ramp and the NB onramp. (Optional retaining walls are also identified on the outside of both the US 101 NB off-ramp and on-ramps as options to reduce right of way impacts to adjacent properties.)
 An approximately 940’ auxiliary lane with a 1,520’ weave length is provided between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp.  Prado Road has a minimum 4-lane divided arterial section through the interchange with Class II bike lanes and Class I pathways.
 The Prado Road overcrossing over US 101 is a 2-span structure. Per direction received from the PDT, the westerly span will be designed to accommodate a future collectordistributor road and future southbound ramps if required.  Prado Road (Dalidio Drive) is extended west of US 101 to the intersection with the future Froom Ranch Road/Dalidio Drive intersection.

Exhibits are provided in Attachment D that show the Alternative A3 geometric layout, preliminary Prado Road profile and typical cross sections. The construction cost within proposed State right of way for Alternative 3 (with and without optional retaining walls) is estimated to be between $11M and $26M. A copy of the PSR-PDS Capital Outlay Project Estimate is provided in Attachment H.

Note: The roundabout option for this alternative would be the same as Alternative A1R.

Alternative A4
Alternative A4 assumes traffic signal control provided at the US 101 NB ramp intersection with Prado Road. Other preliminary geometric design elements presented for Alternative A4 include the following:

05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
15  The interchange configuration is consistent with a Type L-7 partial cloverleaf configuration on the east side of US 101.
 (An optional retaining wall is also identified on the outside of the US 101 NB off-ramp to reduce right of way impacts to the adjacent property.)  An approximately 2000’ auxiliary lane with a 2,270’ weave length is provided between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp.  Prado Road has a minimum 4-lane divided arterial section through the interchange with Class II bike lanes and Class I pathways.
 The Prado Road overcrossing over US 101 is a 2-span structure. Per direction received from the PDT, the westerly span will be designed to accommodate a future collectordistributor road and future southbound ramps if required.  Prado Road (Dalidio Drive) is extended west of US 101 to the intersection with the future Froom Ranch Road/Dalidio Drive intersection.

Exhibits are provided in Attachment E that show the Alternative A4 geometric layout, preliminary Prado Road profile and typical cross sections. The construction cost within proposed State right of way for Alternative 4 (with and without optional retaining walls) is estimated to be between $11M and $26M. A copy of the PSR-PDS Capital Outlay Project Estimate is provided in Attachment H.

Alternative A4R (Roundabout Option)
Alternative A4R assumes that a roundabout is provided at the US 101 NB ramp intersection with Prado Road. The other preliminary geometric design elements are consistent with the traffic signal option Alternative A4. Exhibits are also provided in Attachment E that show the Alternative A4R geometric layout, preliminary Prado Road profile and typical cross sections. The construction cost within proposed State right of way for Alternative 4R (with and without optional retaining walls) is estimated to be between $11M and $21M. A copy of the PSR-PDS Capital Outlay Project Estimate is provided in Attachment H.

Alternative A7
Alternative A7 only assumes roundabout control is provided at the Prado Road/Elks Lane/US 101 NB ramp intersection with Prado Road. The purpose was to limit to the extent possible right of way impacts to adjacent properties and impacts within the floodplain.

Other preliminary geometric design elements presented for Alternative A7 include the following:
 The interchange configuration is similar in concept to a Type L-6 configuration on the east side of US 101. The exception though is instead of the ramps connecting with a frontage road, the off-ramp is merged with eastbound (EB) Prado Road prior to the roundabout while the on-ramp diverges from westbound (WB) Prado Road after the roundabout.
 An approximately 1220’ auxiliary lane with a 1,570’ weave length is provided between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp.  Prado Road has a minimum 4-lane divided arterial section through the interchange with Class II bike lanes and Class I pathways.

05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
16  The Prado Road overcrossing over US 101 is a 2-span structure. Per direction received from the PDT, the westerly span will be designed to accommodate a future collectordistributor road and future southbound ramps if required.  Prado Road (Dalidio Drive) is extended west of US 101 to the intersection with the future Froom Ranch Road/Dalidio Drive intersection.

Exhibits are provided in Attachment F that show the Alternative A7 geometric layout, preliminary Prado Road profile and typical cross sections. The construction cost within proposed State right of way for Alternative 7 (with and without optional retaining walls) is estimated to be between $11M and $21M. A copy of the PSR-PDS Capital Outlay Project Estimate is provided in Attachment H.

Project Alternatives Design Standards Risk Assessment
Each alternative is likely to have several nonstandard features. The potential nonstandard features and their probability ratings are identified in the following table.

Design Standards Risk Assessment
Alternative
Design Standard from
Highway Design Manual
Tables 82.1A & 82.1B
Probability of
Design
Exception
Approval (None,
Low, Medium,
High,)
Justification for Probability Rating
A1, A1R, A3,
A4, A4R, A7
501.3, M
Interchange Spacing H
Since it is excessive in cost to meet the
standard spacing and the future concept
of adding the southbound ramps will
mitigate the spacing with a collector
distributor system that operates. The
traffic study demonstrates the proposed
northbound ramps with auxiliary lane
operate.

A1, A1R,
A3,A2
504.7 M
Minimum Weave Length None Equal or less than 1200? feet and doesn’t operate - unacceptable.

A7 504.7 M
Minimum Weave Length M
Greater than 1500? and demonstrates
that it operates, due to excessive Cost
and can mitigate with auxiliary lane.

A4, A4R,
504.3 A
Distance between Ramp
Intersection and Local
Road Intersection
H
Distance is 450 feet, Advisory Design
Exception, demonstrates that it operates
and access control provided.

A1, A1R, A3,
A4, A4R, A7 Partial Interchange H
North bound ramps needed for the
operations of existing interchanges –
Madonna and LOVR
A1, A1R, A3,
A4, A4R, A7
Access control across ramp
termini H The intersection operates and the opening across the ramp is a street.

A2 Access control across ramp
termini None A driveway across a ramp termini is not viable A2 – viable but rejected – Note: A1, A1R and A3 would also be rejected if it doesn’t operate

05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
17 The probability rating for the identified design exception approvals were classified by the Project Development Coordinator and the delegated authority per instructions in the Project Development Procedures Manual (PDPM) Appendix S. The complex issues involved in considering design exceptions require more advanced engineering plans that would be analyzed in the subsequent phases of the project.

Viable but Rejected Alternative
Alternative A2
Alternative A2 was a Type L-8 configuration (partial cloverleaf) with proposed loop NB offramp to and direct on-ramp from Prado Road located on the north side of Prado Road.

Alternative A2 was identified as a viable alternative that was rejected by the PDT due to the loss of a transportation asset (SLORTA’s new facility) located in the northwest quadrant of the interchange and the less than standard weave length between Prado Road northbound on-ramp and Madonna Road northbound off-ramp. As a result, the PDT determined that Alternative 2 did not meet the project’s purpose and need and it was removed from further consideration.

An exhibit showing Alternative 2 is provided in Attachment G.

Non-Viable Alternatives
Alternative A5 (Single Point Interchange)
Alternative A5 was a Type L-13 single point diamond interchange configuration with Prado Road crossing over US 101. Alternative A5 was removed from further consideration by the PDT because it could not be constructed in phases.

Alternative A6 (Tight Diamond Configuration)
Alternative A6 was removed from further consideration by the PDT as this alternative is the same as Alternative A3 and is no longer applicable.

Alternative B (Prado Road Overcrossing Only)
Alternative B considered providing the Prado Road overcrossing only over US 101. Alternative B was removed from further consideration by the PDT because it does not meet the project’s purpose and need. Providing the Prado Road overcrossing only is not consistent with City planning and the removal of the US 101 northbound ramps from Prado Road would have an impact on the overall operations at the adjacent interchanges.

Transportation Management Plan
For construction of the proposed Prado Road overcrossing (OC), full freeway closures will be required for falsework erection and removal. This will call for detours and/or median crossovers which will be addressed in subsequent project phases. It will also need to be determined whether the current ramp configuration at Prado Road will remain open during construction, and if they can be used for the northbound detour. Southbound closure will be more complicated, requiring use of a median crossover, or detour via Madonna Road and LOVR. Mainline closures of US 101 will be allowed at night only.

05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
18 A preliminary Transportation Management Plan (TMP) Data Sheet/Checklist has been prepared ((provided in Attachment T) which identifies strategies that should be included in the project. Major strategies are listed below:
• Public Awareness Campaign
• Portable Changeable Message Signs
• Construction Area Signs
• Planned Lane Closure Web Site
• Construction Zone Enhanced Enforcement Program (COZEEP) • Lane/Ramp Closures Charts
• Contingency Plan
• Special Days (to be determined)
• Liquidated Damages Penalty
• Maintain Traffic

8. RIGHT-OF-WAY
The right-of-way impacts associated with this project vary depending on the improvements proposed by the project alternatives. The No-Build Alternative has no right-of-way impacts.

Each viable alternative has varying levels of right-of-way impacts to the City’s David F.

Romero Corporation Yard located south of and adjacent to Prado Road and east of and adjacent to the US 101 northbound off-ramp. Each viable alternative also has varying levels of rightof-way impacts to the planned San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (RTA) administration, operations, and bus maintenance facility located north of and adjacent to Prado Road and east of and adjacent to Elks Lane.

Right-of-way for the future Elks Lane realignment is provided from both the planned RTA site and the adjacent Homeless Services Center site. Final alignment of Elks lane will be a component of the Planned RTA & Homeless Services Center project. An interim alignment or Cul-de-Sac of Elks lane will be provided in the event that the interchange proceeds prior to the final alignment of those development projects.

A Conceptual Cost Estimate Form – Right of Way (PSR-PDS) has been developed for each of the identified viable build alternatives (Alternatives A1, A1R, A3, A4, A4R, and A7) with copies provided in Attachment I. As shown, the Capital Costs for each alternative ranges between $1M - $16M.

For each of these alternatives, optional retaining walls are also identified on the outside of both the US 101 NB off-ramp and on-ramps as options to reduce right of way impacts to adjacent properties. Separate forms have been prepared for each of the alternatives with the optional retaining walls and copies are also provided in Attachment I.

Utilities:

Based on field reviews, the following utilities facilities have been identified within the project area:

05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
19  PG&E - overhead electrical
 AT&T - overhead and underground cable
 SoCal Gas - underground gas
 Phillips Petroleum - underground petroleum pipe line
 Caltrans – 2 recycled water distribution lines
 City of San Luis Obispo
o underground communications
o underground sewer
o underground water
o water well
Based on the preliminary designs and the observed location of the various utilities, it is assumed that utility relocations will be required. It is unknown at this time who will be responsible (project or provider) for utility relocations that will be required with the proposed project.

Railroad:

There is no railroad involvement with the proposed project.

9. STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
This project is sponsored by the City of San Luis Obispo, and was recommended in SLOCOG’s 2014 US 101 Corridor Mobility Master Plan. This plan included extensive public involvement, including seven local workshops, 30 community presentations, two web-based interactive tools, numerous stakeholder meetings and several SLOCOG board presentations. The study team included representatives from SLOCOG, Caltrans, County of San Luis Obispo and the cities of San Luis Obispo, Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Grover Beach, Paso Robles, Pismo Beach, Regional Transit Authority and the County Air Pollution Control District.

10. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION/DOCUMENT
Environmental Summary:

A Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report (PEAR) has been prepared for the proposed project and is included as Attachment J. The PEAR identified that t h e California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) would act as the Lead Agency for the preparation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental approval process. Caltrans will serve as the NEPA lead agency under its assumption of responsibility pursuant to 23 U.S. Code 327. The anticipated environmental document for the proposed project is a Mitigated Negative Declaration (CEQA) and a Categorical Exclusion (NEPA). This document level has been selected based upon a preliminary review of the potential resources within the project limits, which indicates the project has the potential for significant impacts that would require mitigation pursuant to CEQA.

05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
20 Several sensitive State and federal listed biological species have been documented within the vicinity of the proposed project. However, a preliminary evaluation of the site indicates the majority of the site lacks suitable habitat for these species within the work area. Some project components may fall within the jurisdictional boundaries of San Luis Obispo Creek, along the northeastern auxiliary lane, and wetlands may be present in low-lying undeveloped areas, based on potential for hydric soils outlined in the Soil Survey and current Hydric Soils Lists.

San Luis Obispo Creek contains stream and riparian habitat regulated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). An evaluation of the entire site will be conducted to determine if potentially jurisdictional features may be present within the project site, and if so, a formal jurisdictional delineation of the project site will be completed. San Luis Obispo Creek also contains occurrences of federally-listed South Central California Coast steelhead (SCCC steelhead) and critical habitat; and suitable habitat for federally listed California red legged frog (CRLF). Biological surveys and habitat assessments will be required to confirm presence and extent of habitat for SCCC steelhead and CRLF, and the absence of sensitive species from other areas of the project site. These surveys will be conducted during the bloom period of special status plants documented within the vicinity of the project.

Avoidance of nesting birds may be required from February 1 through September 30.

The estimated time to obtain environmental approval is up to 22 months from receipt of a complete Environmental Document Request. Draft and final environmental documents would be anticipated in 14 months and 22 months, respectively.

It is anticipated multiple studies will be required for this project including (but not limited to):
a Community Impact Assessment technical memorandum; an Initial Site Assessment; Form AD-1006; a Visual Impact Assessment; a Historic Property Survey Report that includes a Phase I Archaeological Survey; a Location Hydraulic Study; a Water Quality Assessment Report; a Noise Study Report; an Air Quality/Green House Gas Study; and a Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts).

If the project cannot be designed to fully avoid San Luis Obispo Creek, or if other wetlands are present and cannot be avoided, the project could result in impacts to jurisdictional features.

Impacts to jurisdictional features resulting from project related activities could require a Nationwide Permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and a Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Likewise, the proposed project could require a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Impacts to jurisdictional features typically require mitigation.

Additionally, if San Luis Creek is not fully avoided, the project may require a Biological Opinion from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, regarding potential effects to CRLF and SCCC-steelhead, respectively. The area of disturbance is expected to be over one acre which will necessitate a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and require enrollment under the Statewide Construction General Permit. The proposed project does not occur within the Coastal Zone and therefore, does not require a Coastal Development Permit.

05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
21 Hazardous Waste:

An Initial Environmental Site Assessment has been prepared for this project and provided separate from this PSR-PDS to Caltrans for review. The initial conclusions from this study included the following:
 The properties along the proposed right of way have been in agricultural use as early as the 1930s and it is likely for the soil within the proposed project site to have been impacted with hazardous levels of pesticides, herbicides and arsenic (used as an herbicide in the early 20th century).
 The nearby roadways have supported vehicular activity since the middle of 20th century and it is likely that the surface soils are affected by deposition of aerial lead.  The roadway was built prior to the 1980s and it is likely that the surface markings and signs may contain asbestos-containing materials (ACM) and lead-based paint (LBP) in their construction materials.
 A petroleum pipeline is present within the project limits.  The current U-Haul building at the northeast corner of Prado Road and Elks Lane was built prior to 1980 and it is likely that the structure may contain ACM and LBP in their construction materials.
 The U-Haul Facility was also listed on the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) database as the site was a former gasoline service station and repair shop. The underground storage tanks (USTs) were removed, the site underwent remediation, and a ‘No further action’ letter was provided in 1992.
 Although the USTs were removed, the service station repair shop still contained hydraulic lifts likely installed in the late 1950’s when the facility was constructed and may contain hydraulic oils and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
 A water well and an abandoned septic tank was also noted on the U-Haul facility site.

The study recommended that additional studies and investigations will be required to determine if hazardous waste/materials contamination is present within the project site.

11. FUNDING
Funding has been identified as coming from a combination of impact fees, debt financing and the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). RTIP funding is programed for construction in Fiscal Year 2021/22. A copy of the current Project Programming Request is provided in Attachment S with identified STIP and Local funding provided in the following Capital Outlay Project Estimate.

It has been determined that this project is eligible for Federal-aid funding.

05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
22 Capital Outlay Project Estimate
Range of Estimate STIP Funds Other Funds
Construction Right-of-Way Construction Right-of-Way Construction Right-of-Way Alternative A1 $11M-$21M $5M - $16M $6M $22M
Alternative A1
(optional
retaining walls)
$16M-$26M $1M - $6M $6M $22M
Alternative
A1R $11M-$16M $5M - $16M $6M $22M
Alternative
A1R (optional
retaining walls)
$11M-$21M $1M - $6M $6M $22M
Alternative A3 $11M-$21M $5M - $16M $6M $22M
Alternative A3
(optional
retaining walls)
$16M-$26M $1M - $6M $6M $22M
Alternative A4 $11M-$21M $5M - $16M $6M $22M
Alternative A4
(optional
retaining walls)
$16M-$26M $1M - $6M $6M $22M
Alternative
A4R $11M-$16M $5M - $16M $6M $22M
Alternative
A4R (optional
retaining walls)
$11M-$21M $1M - $6M $6M $22M
Alternative A7 $11M-$16M $1M - $6M $6M $22M
Alternative A7
(optional
retaining walls)
$11M-$21M $1M - $6M $6M $22M
The level of detail available to develop these capital outlay project estimates is only accurate to within the above ranges and is useful for long-range planning purposes only. The capital outlay project estimates should not be used to program or commit State-programmed capital outlay funds.

Capital Outlay Support Estimate
Capital outlay support estimate for PA&ED is $765,000 and would be funded by the City of San Luis Obispo. Oversight work performed by Caltrans staff would not be reimbursed.

05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
23 12. DELIVERY SCHEDULE
Project Milestones Scheduled Delivery Date
(Month/Year)
PROGRAM PROJECT M015 April 2018
BEGIN ENVIRONMENTAL M020 April 2018
CIRCULATE DED EXTERNALLY M120 May 2019
PA & ED M200 December 2019
The anticipated funding fiscal year for construction is 2021/22.

13. RISKS
Various risks affecting scope, schedule and cost have been identified.

There are several non-standard design risks that would affect the cost and schedule, including:
 Non-standard interchange spacing between Prado Road and Madonna Road specific to all build alternatives.
 Non-standard minimum weave length on northbound US 101 between Prado Road and Madonna Road specific to Alternatives A1, A1R, A3 and A7.

Additional alternatives may be developed during the PA/ED phase affecting the cost and schedule.

Right of way impacts potentially affect operations of the City's Corporation Yard thereby adding delays and cost to the project.

Additional utilities not currently identified may need to be relocated causing delays and possible cost increases. Also, utility relocation may take longer than expected causing delays and possible cost increases.

There are several potential environmental risks that would affect the cost and schedule including:
 Endangered Species Act consultation is needed if suitable habitat for federally listed fish and wildlife species is identified in the project limits.  Archaeological deposits are identified that need mitigation.  Environmental technical studies result in the need for higher-level environmental document.
 One or more acres of new impervious surfaces are created and an Alternative Compliance project is required.
 Must meet City's MS4 requirements for post-construction storm water treatment.

Significant hazardous waste/material contamination is found causing delays and possible cost increases.

05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
24 A full listing of risks, and the details of the identified risks including a risk response plan for each can be found in the risk register provided in Attachment K.

14. FHWA COORDINATION
This project is considered to be an Assigned Project in accordance with the current Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Joint Stewardship and Oversight Agreement.

15. PROJECT PERSONNEL
Paul Valadao (805) 549-3016
Caltrans Project Manager, District 5
Claudia Espino (805) 549-3079
Caltrans Design, District 5
Bing Yu (805) 549-3664
Caltrans Traffic Operations, District 5
Jimmy Ochoa (805) 549-0209
Caltrans Advance Planning, District 5
Lindsay Leichtfuss (805) 549-3492
Caltrans Environmental, District 5
Jake Hudson (805) 781-7255
City of San Luis Obispo Project Manager
Joe Weiland (805) 858-3131
Omni-Means, a GHD Company, Project Manager
for PSR-PDS (Consultant)

05-SLO-101-PM 26.5/27.3
25 16. ATTACHMENTS (Number of Pages)
A. Existing Conditions Exhibit (1)
B. Circulation Element Street Classification Diagram (1) C. Alternatives A1 and A1R (Viable Build Alternative) (6) D. Alternative A3 (Viable Build Alternative) (3)
E. Alternatives A4 and A4R (Viable Build Alternative) (6) F. Alternative A7 (Viable Build Alternative) (3)
G. Alternative A2 (Viable but Rejected Alternative) (1) H. PSR-PDS Capital Outlay Project Estimates (36)
I. Conceptual Cost Estimate Forms – Right of Way (48)
J. Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report (PEAR) (23) K. Risk Register (1)
L. Storm Water Data Report (Signature Page) (1)
M. Project Initiation Document Design Scoping Index (7) N. Transportation Planning Scoping Information Sheet (8) O. Division of Engineering Services PSR-PDS Scoping Checklist (8) P. Traffic Engineering Performance Assessment (9)
Q. PSR-PDS Survey Needs Questionnaire (1)
R. Quality Management Plan (9)
S. Project Programming Request (3)
T. Transportation Management Plan Data Sheet/Checklist (1) U. Caltrans Final Document Distribution List (1)

oo
o
1514 119.01
1518 134.21 1519 134.41
1520 134.72
1521 124.71
1522 143.40
1523 136.12
1525 118.94
693 136.98
694 149.17
695 138.01
696 129.85
697 129.41

PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR
San Luis Obispo, California
NORTH 0 400 Scale: 1"= 400 ft.

Existing Conditions

STOP STOP 1520' WEAVE YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD 600' AUXILIARY LANE EXISTING R/W (TYP) EXISTING R/W (TYP) ELKS LANE REALIGNMENT CITY CORPORATION YARD PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR San Luis Obispo, California NORTH 0 400 Scale: 1"= 400 ft. ALTERNATIVE A1 EXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWER DRAFT CONCEPT RETAINING WALL R=600'; V=45 MPH OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL FUTURE FROOM RANCH EXTENSION NORTHBOUND L-1 & AUXILIARY LANE PLANNED RTA FACILITY OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL PROPOSED STATE R/W PROPOSED STATE R/W OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL

PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR
San Luis Obispo, California
ALTERNATIVE A1

DRAFT CONCEPT
0 250 Scale: 1"=250' (H) 1"=50' (V)
PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR San Luis Obispo, California ALTERNATIVE A1 DRAFT CONCEPT

YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD
STOP YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD 1520' WEAVE AUXILIARY LANE EXISTING R/W (TYP) EXISTING R/W (TYP) ELKS LANE REALIGNMENT PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR San Luis Obispo, California NORTH 0 400 Scale: 1"= 400 ft. ALTERNATIVE A1R EXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWER DRAFT CONCEPT R=600' ; V=45 MPH OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL FUTURE FROOM RANCH EXTENSION NORTHBOUND L-1 & AUXILIARY LANE PLANNED RTA FACILITY RETAINING WALL OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL CITY CORPORATION YARD PROPOSED STATE R/W PROPOSED STATE R/W OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL

PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR
San Luis Obispo, California
ALTERNATIVE A1R

DRAFT CONCEPT
0 250 Scale: 1"=250' (H) 1"=50' (V)
PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR San Luis Obispo, California ALTERNATIVE A1R DRAFT CONCEPT

STOP YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELDYIELD YIELD
660'
STOP 0 Scale: 1"= 400 400' NORTH San Luis Obispo, California PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR ALTERNATIVE A3 AUXILIARY LANE EXISTING R/W (TYP) ELKS LANE REALIGNMENT EXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWER DRAFT CONCEPT RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALLOPTIONAL RETAINING WALL FUTURE FROOM RANCH EXTENSION NORTHBOUND L-1 & AUXILIARY LANE R=600' ; V=45 MPH OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL PLANNED RTA FACILITY EXISTING R/W (TYP) CITY CORPORATION YARD PROPOSED STATE R/W PROPOSED OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL STATE R/W San Luis Obispo, California

PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR
ALTERNATIVE A3

DRAFT CONCEPT
0 250 Scale: 1"=250' (H) 1"=50' (V)
San Luis Obispo, California PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR ALTERNATIVE A3 DRAFT CONCEPT

YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD
450'
STOP 2270' WEAVE San Luis Obispo, California PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR ALTERNATIVE A4 0 Scale: 1"= 400 400' NORTH AUXILIARY LANE EXISTING R/W (TYP) EXISTING R/W (TYP) ELKS LANE REALIGNMENT PLANNED RTA FACILITY EXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWER DRAFT CONCEPT OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL FUTURE FROOM RANCH EXTENSION NORTHBOUND L-7 & AUXILIARY LANE R=600' ; V=45 MPH CITY CORPORATION YARD PROPOSED STATE R/W PROPOSED STATE R/W PROPOSED STATE R/W OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL

PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR
San Luis Obispo, California
ALTERNATIVE A4

DRAFT CONCEPT
0 250 Scale: 1"=250' (H) 1"=50' (V)
San Luis Obispo, California PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR ALTERNATIVE A4 DRAFT CONCEPT YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD 450' STOP 2270' WEAVE San Luis Obispo, California PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR ALTERNATIVE A4R 0 Scale: 1"= 400 400' NORTH AUXILIARY LANE EXISTING R/W (TYP) EXISTING R/W (TYP) ELKS LANE REALIGNMENT EXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWER DRAFT CONCEPT OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL FUTURE FROOM RANCH EXTENSION NORTHBOUND L-7 & AUXILIARY LANE R=600' ; V=45 MPH PLANNED RTA FACILITY OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL CITY CORPORATION YARD PROPOSED STATE R/W PROPOSED STATE R/W OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL PROPOSED STATE R/W

PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR
San Luis Obispo, California
ALTERNATIVE A4R

DRAFT CONCEPT
0 250 Scale: 1"=250' (H) 1"=50' (V)
San Luis Obispo, California PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR ALTERNATIVE A4R DRAFT CONCEPT

YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD 1570' WEAVE AUXILIARY LANE EXISTING R/W (TYP) EXISTING R/W (TYP) ELKS LANE REALIGNMENT PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR San Luis Obispo, California NORTH 0 400 Scale: 1"= 400 ft. ALTERNATIVE A7 EXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWER DRAFT CONCEPT RETAINING WALLR=600' ; V=45 MPH OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL FUTURE FROOM RANCH EXTENSION NORTHBOUND L-10 & AUXILIARY LANE PLANNED RTA FACILITY RETAINING WALL OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL CITY CORPORATION YARD PROPOSED STATE R/W PROPOSED STATE R/W OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL PROPOSED STATE R/W

PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR
San Luis Obispo, California
ALTERNATIVE A7

DRAFT CONCEPT
0 250 Scale: 1"=250' (H) 1"=50' (V)
PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR San Luis Obispo, California ALTERNATIVE A7 DRAFT CONCEPT

STOP 1280' WEAVE 410' YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD AUXILIARY LANE EXISTING R/W (TYP) ELKS LANE REALIGNMENT PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE PSR San Luis Obispo, California ALTERNATIVE A2 DRAFT CONCEPT NORTH 0 400 Scale: 1"= 400 ft. EXISTING R/W (TYP) FUTURE FROOM RANCH EXTENSION R=600' ; V=45 MPH EXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWER NORTHBOUND L-8 & AUXILIARY LANE OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL PLANNED RTA FACILITY OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL CITY CORPORATION YARD PROPOSED STATE R/W PROPOSED STATE R/W PROPOSED STATE R/W OPTIONAL RETAINING WALL

1 Project Study Report – Project Development Support
Capital Outlay Project Estimate
Dist - Co – Rte 05-SLO-101
PM 26.5 / 27.3
Project Number 0516000105
EA 05-1H640K
Month/Year February 2018
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

Limits: On Route 101 in San Luis Obispo County between 0.3-mile south of Prado Road and 0.2-mile south of Madonna Road Overcrossing
Proposed Improvement (Scope): Construct new Prado Road crossing over Route 101, new Route 101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, and new NB Route 101 auxiliary lane between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp Alternate: Alternative A1

SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $5M - $10M
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION ITEMS Less than $1M
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $11M to $21M
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $5M - $16M
TOTAL PROJECT CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $16M - $37M

2 I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Average Cost per Lane Mile Number of Lane Miles Total Cost Total Cost $5,550,000 X 1.1 = $6,100,000
Explanation:

The “Number of Lane Miles” estimated for this alternative include the new Route 101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, the new NB auxiliary lane between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp and Prado Road within State right-of-way not including the new overcrossing structure.

See layout provided in Attachment C. Items that are included in the “Average Cost per Lane Mile” include, but not limited to, earthwork, pavement structural section, drainage, specialty items (including retaining walls), traffic items, roadway mobilization, supplemental work, contingencies and overhead. TMP strategies have also been identified (TMP checklist is provided in Attachment T) and the estimated costs to implement these strategies are included in the “Average Cost per Lane Mile”. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858- 3131 or [email protected].

TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $5M - $10M
II. STRUCTURES ITEMS
Structure
(1)
Structure
(2)
Structure
(3)
Bridge Name Prado Road _________ _________
Total Cost for Structure $4,300,000 _________ _________ Explanation:

The “Total Structures Items” cost estimate is based on ‘per square foot’ costs provided in the Comparative Bridge Costs sheet issued by the Office of Structure Office Engineer. The Prado Road overcrossing estimated square footage for this alternative was estimated based on the preliminary layout, Prado Road profile and typical sections both on US 101 at the proposed structure and for Prado Road across the structure developed for this alternative and included in Attachment C. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858-3131 or [email protected].

TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M

3 III. ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost
Environmental Mitigation 1 LS X $180,000 = $180,000
Explanation:

The “Total Environmental Mitigation” cost estimate for this alternative includes, but not limited to, environmental mitigation, landscape and irrigation, NPDES, and supplemental work for NPDES. It is likely that the project can avoid costly impacts/mitigation associated with regulated resources within the project APE. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858-3131 or [email protected].

TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION ITEMS Less than $1M
IV. RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS
Escalated
Value
A. Acquisition, including excess lands,
damages to remainder(s) and Goodwill $_________
B. Utility Relocation (State share) $_________

Anticipated Date of Right-of-Way Certification
(Date to which values are escalated)
Explanation:

A “Conceptual Cost Estimate – Right-of-Way Component” has been prepared for this alternative and can be found in Attachment I. Cost estimates for this alternative include, but not limited to, capital and support costs with escalation and contingencies. For further explanations, please contact Joe Weiland at (805) 858- 3131 or [email protected].

TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $5M - $16M

1 Project Study Report – Project Development Support
Capital Outlay Project Estimate
Dist - Co – Rte 05-SLO-101
PM 26.5 / 27.3
Project Number 0516000105
EA 05-1H640K
Month/Year February 2018
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

Limits: On Route 101 in San Luis Obispo County between 0.3- mile south of Prado Road and 0.2-mile south of Madonna Road Overcrossing
Proposed Improvement (Scope): Construct new Prado Road crossing over Route 101, new Route 101 NB off-ramp to and on-ramp from Prado Road, and new NB Route 101 auxiliary lane between the Prado Road NB on-ramp and the Madonna Road NB off-ramp Alternate: Alternative A1 (With Optional Retaining Walls)

SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $10M - $15M
TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS $5M - $10M
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION ITEMS Less than $1M
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $16M - $26M
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS $1M - $6M
TOTAL PROJECT CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $17M - $32M